Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PDCWolf

  1. This is more like devolving. The idea of Kerbals being 40k orks or anything of the sort was left behind when the barn debacle happened. Of course, the models being incredibly low quality didn't help, but the idea in general was obnoxious and generally disliked as well, which is why we don't have the barn anymore (thankfully).
  2. Shameful how y'all forgot what Bac9 wrote up. I'll quote: Far from 40k Orks. This was posted on this forum, but given the changes it's been lost, however Bac9 got the article on Gamasutra as well.
  3. Rules link doesn't work (yes, I know they are in the OP) and there's one missing detail (assuming positive since not mentioned): Are there limits to how many entries per participant?
  4. These are all elevated from my own concerns with KSP1 + What's been raised from KSP2 confirmed stuff and media. It's a mishmash of questions in no particular order Will KSP2 start with everything KSP1 already has mechanic wise? (including DLCs like breaking ground's robotics?) During the launch & ascent gameplay scene from the trailer, stars were still easily visible even when the sun, and later what's probably the mun's surface were visible, will that be fixed? What about part size variety? can we expect the same tiers? More? Less? With the codebase rewritten, was there any change to how RAM is managed? (like, right now almost everything is loaded at all times, will that change?) Ansel support? Multiple launch sites? What about scenario creation? that one really forgotten feature that has been probably only used once with public, downloadable results. What -else- can they say about the really low framerates on the pre-alpha gameplay? (other than "it's an alpha" of course)
  5. I'm gonna follow up on what Hoioh already said: They are more specific than limiting. If you were to read over them quickly, you'd realize that they have few goals in reality: Create a craft that looks and works like a normal airplane and land it -also like a normal airplane- on the VAB roof without abusing the game and/or game engine in any way. It's a legit design and demonstrate contest that doesn't allow another "see how you can bend the rules/break the game and still count" type of situation. More specific to what you say, the 4:1 wingspan to body length ratio rule is (it also says so in the post, in nicer words) another patched hole to stop entries from abusing wing spam. It is a known fact that in KSP you can just keep slapping wings on to stuff and get better and better results with every single surface as long as you maintain balance. As I already said in the op, VAB roof landing challenges are not new, thus I added an, in my opinion, needed twist by stopping the most common ways to easily complete the challenge. Creativity is not a finite resource, nor is it limited to certain applications either, so I don't think we can say that the rules kill creativity. Same thing for fun, it's not limited to a single concept or way to do things, those two things are personal and subjective.
  6. Done, it's highlighted. It was outside the first spoiler because it's not a rule specific for the aircraft itself, but for the whole game, no physics mods or part mods or anything, only those that provide information, which are already pretty useless for this challenge.
  7. Mechjeb for information is fine, not sure about the flaps or cockpit (or any other part tbh) My reasoning is as follows: Stock has its own balance and it's something everyone can measure their creations against. I do not know how AP+, quiztech or other mods are balanced, specially airplane oriented ones, because stock KSP is spaceplane oriented so most stuff is both heavy and powerful. This means I either have to check all competing mods' performance part by part against their stock counterparts to see if they are compatible and if you aren't getting some form of advantage (even if not maliciously ofc) by using mods. Blanket banning part mods also allows me to keep regulations mostly unambiguous. So yeah, your entry is in breach of a rule, it's deemed as a non competing run, sorry!
  8. Amazingly done, props for posting a close attempt as well! As zolotiyeruki said, that breaks rule nº 11 - All landing gear must point parallel to the direction of flight, your second suggestion breaks rule 2 and probably rule 10. Zolotiyeruki here is taking as much as he can from rule 3 for example, but his craft is still inside the regulations. There's a lot of rules for this challenge, but they are in place to ensure the craft presented are not trickery based crafts but actual engineered solutions within a set of constraints, whilst still allowing for some creativity. VAB roof landings may not be new, but a tight set of rules that eliminates common cop-out solutions (no disrespect to those ideas though) is
  9. Here's another example of an entry that counts: https://streamable.com/ebbms
  10. As the title implies, your goal is to land on the roof of the KSC, however, this is not your every day land on the roof challenge: Tight engineering restrictions make this a true challenge, one for the can-do-all types. You have to be good not only at engineering an aircraft that fits the rules, but also have the hands required to put it where I ask you to, in the way I ask you to. You might post any attempt with any craft for fun, but competing runs must adhere to the following: Procedures & Rules: •To create a fair experience for everyone, mods are not allowed for competing runs, in any form, save for information mods like engineer. Parts, physics or skill affecting mods (such as airplane plus, FAR/NEAR or mechjeb's autopilot respectively) are definitely not allowed. Again, for clarification: NO MODS - Even if not doing so with malicious intent or even knowledge, you might be gaining advantages over all-stock entries. With the tight regulation margins of this challenge, that's something I can't allow. •Create an aircraft that meets the following criteria •Your aircraft, once built, has to take off from the default runway without any kind of assistance (towers for example), and land at the two helipads on the KSC rooftop. The flight and landing have to meet the following criteria: Lastly, to validate your entry, your aircraft must meet the following criteria after completely stopping: As you can see there's no score system, a successful landing with a craft that follows the rules is all you need. I'll probably make a badge or something to include in your signature. TL;DR - Short, precision landing competition for "standard" aircraft, except the runway is the two helipads on the roof of the VAB. Have fun. You can post entries that don't follow the rules as well, but of course they won't count. My attempt, includes F3 screen to show that nothing fell off after that little slide lol: https://streamable.com/7r7mm
  11. No word on this?: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/178960-reentry-modules-are-draggy-uncontrollable-garbage-that-will-flip-a-rocket-90-of-the-time/ Even if they are supposed to be launched inside a fairing, they are disproportionally draggy and unaerodynamic in general.
  12. So, I removed FAR. Problem is still there. That makes me point to proc fairings, although they work fine on other rockets. ¿Payload with too much parts? ¿Too complex? Happens if I remove the inner fairings too, so nested fairings is not the problem.
  13. I've been further investigating since I made the last correction to the description, this is what I got now: The problem not only solves by jettisoning the boosters, it also goes back to normal after jettisoning the fairings. So I suspect that it is some kind of procedural fairings/FAR interaction causing the problems. I'll be back in a second with some pictures to illustrate.
  14. Been investigating for the last couple hours, still no clue. However I edited the OP with additional and corrected information. Seems to be related specifically to radially attached parts exposed to the airstream. Radially attached parts inside a fairing have no problem whatsoever.
  15. Well, the problem is pretty simple to explain: Whenever I attach a solid booster or liquid booster, even the simplest (nose cone, tank, engine) , the game lags to hell and back. When I press launch, the game works at normal FPS until after KJR starts doing its magic. After physics are fully initialized my game drops to 10 fps. Once I jettison the boosters, FPS automatically jump back to 30. When they crash/disappear I get another FPS boost which takes me back to the normal 40/50. Happens with anything radially attached and exposed to the airstream (not with things radially attached but kept inside a fairing). Happens when the parts are attached either to procedurally generated parts, stock parts or mod parts. Happens at all symmetry levels, even x1. Happens with any radial decoupler Happens even If I'm not using decouplers (i.e. non detachable boosters) I don't know how long this could've been happening so I can't track exactly which mod caused it. I normally build mono-column rockets without boosters. Mods I'm using: LOG: https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public?preview=output_log.txt
  16. Thank you!, it is actually the Copenhagen Suborbitals LES, the first one in the image.
  17. Well, some of you may remember me, others may not. I'm the guy that made the perfectrons and one of the first launch escape system mods. Of course, that was long long ago (.24.2 being the last version I updated my mods for). Since then, I made very few advances and a few new parts too, but never got around to finishing them. I also kept myself from posting in the forums (lots of things going on at that time with the forum, arguments here and there about cancelled features and whatnot). Also there were way better mods at the time that did the same as my parts, so there wasn't much point in keeping them alive. Even the mod linked in my signature is dead. Long story short, I never updated my mods (sorry to the people that kept waiting for them) nor did I made progress with the things I had been experimenting with. So here I release all the parts I had been working with to the public domain. Included are: Perfectrons, all 3 variants LES, the 2 released variants (Apollo and Soyuz) and an unreleased, WIP, Copenhagen Suborbitals model. A radial engine I never got around to finish The ARES based SRB (the Kickback didn't exist back then) The A-RCS, a high powered, 5 direction RCS specifically for rocket control (see THIS video, around 0:18 and 3:35 to see how they were supposed to work). Vernor didn't exist back then either. The BPC release candidate, a fairing system to convert the mk1-2+LES combo into a good looking one. Cancelled because sumdum heavy industries made its glorious entrance. Not included in the file: Textures (They were horrible, and never got around to fix them) Configs (For obvious reasons) UV Maps (some models have theirs set up, but I highly suggest you re-do them) So yeah, the file only contains .MAX and .FBX files to import into 3DSMax or any compatible software (I think blender can import them? never used it really). The techniques used are pretty average ones, nothing to be proud of really. Note: some of the files are actual scenes ready for render, and scaling may be wacky in some cases. In some cases there is a stock mk1-2 pod. Some pictures (they are too big to hotlink, and are not in an album, sorry): About licensing and derivative works: They are now in the public domain. you are free to do whatever you want with them. Giving credit is most definitely not needed (although appreciated of course). LINK: https://www.dropbox.com/s/hpebuwt9cubkk2g/unreleasedparts.rar?dl=0
  18. I've been using this mod for a while now, got DRE configured and going (was burning up on reentry every time), and everything is great except for one thing: I'm not slowing down enough to open my parachutes, every time I reentry I end up going really fast (like 450m/s) near sea level, so I never slow down enough to be able to open my parachutes. I'm using FAR. Any ideas? maybe the atmosphere was not made with FAR in mind? Every configuration is default except heattweak.cfg, I'm only using stock parts, I've not modified anything. Edit: This only happens with the small capsule, not with the mk1-2
  19. HD6850 1GB, still going strong after more than 4 years.
  20. Then how comes the guys over at rust can summarize it so well? Even the under-the-hood-that-no-one-notices stuff ?
  21. Well, you can certainly compare it to the updates themselves, and for me the math works (no work in weeks = lousy and empty updates). Most tangible work comes from people not even mentioned in the updates (mod devs hired at the last minute)
  22. I prefer the old format, you can pick what you want to read and you get to see who is really working and who's slacking (an entire week to say you can't talk about X? To rig bones to a mesh?). This new format seems perfect to hide that kind of stuff behind a single big wall of text, and I wasn't interested in even reading beyond the first paragraph. If I have to quote someone that does it right, it would be the guys over at Rust. Just look at that huge amount of content with pictures and videos and explanations and stuff, and it comes out weekly too. AHAHAHA yeah sure.
  23. The barn was horrible, both in design and quality. It was a good idea to remove it back then. Even though the replacements are much better in quality, they still lack a lot and are still horrible, with lots of easily visible mistakes on them.
  24. I don't use the stock reaction wheels at all. I use my own fixed versions with about 1% of their original power.
  • Create New...