Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by PDCWolf

  1. 1 hour ago, SOXBLOX said:

    I see many stars in that one. There's the Belt of Orion at the uppermost left edge of the outer halo. Sirius is below and left of that, I believe. Cetus' head is on the right side of the image. Heck, I can see the Hyades in the glow of the rings.

    With the two others, it's really due to the cameras. If I step outside at night with my smartphone and take a picture, I won't see any stars. I might still see Jupiter or something, though. But that's not because Jupiter was so bright that it washed them out. It's because the exposure wasn't long enough or in high enough detail.

    I agree that if the Sun is in the image, you don't see stars nearby. But that's mainly a camera issue. I could point a telescope right next to the Sun, and ignoring the corona, I could see stars. Space is pretty transparent.

    Here's some further reading that might help: https://www.planetary.org/articles/why-are-there-no-stars

    Wrong. As per the detailed description of this image (https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA08329) there are no stars visible. The fact that you'd point out the orion belt on an alien sky is not just fantastic, but also very laughable.

    Astronauts on the Apollo were never able to see stars when on the daylit surface of the moon OR the daylit side during orbit: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/12256/what-did-the-sky-actually-look-like-from-the-moon Apart from explanations, here's the direct link to the conference where they explain this phenomena https://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/FirstLunarLanding/ch-7.html


    There's also two transcripts from EVA  16 and 17 on the moon that also reflect this.

    On top of that, it is literally a visible effect, it's not camera science or anything of the sort. If the moon is out, there is no stars near it, even the smallest sliver of new moon is enough to hide at least a couple stars. Same thing if you just plainly go outside and turn on any sort of household-power light, it'll wash out a lot of stars. Now the sun, and the sunlight reflected by celestial bodies, is enough to make stars not visible in most conditions.

    Edit to add the fact that this same conversation has been used as hoax material. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Hoax_claims_and_rebuttals In this article, absence of stars is a topic in itself, citing how astronauts themselves couldn't see stars as well.

  2. 1 hour ago, SOXBLOX said:

    These examples are all from next to bright, reflective bodies. How would it be in deep space? The little star trackers used for navigation on interplanetary spacecraft see the stars just fine, and they never experience a "night". They just look away from the Sun. You can see stars just fine as long as you're not looking at something bright. IMO, I don't think the devs should bother with this. It seems like too much work for something trivial.

    A Saturn "eclipse", sun blocked by the planet, no stars. newrings_cassini_big.jpg

    Very last twilight on Mars, before complete nightfall, Earth is visible, but no stars. 


    Wide field from "Pale Blue Dot" image, sun visible from 5 Billion miles. No stars, Earth is barely visible. Squares in high detail, rest in low detail and blown up in exposure (should make stars easier to see, but the sun still washes them.



     It seems like too much work for something trivial.

    It's something every basic mod for KSP 1 does in literally 2 lines of code, changing the opacity of the skybox inversely proportional to light sources.

  3. [Moderator's note:  This post, and its ensuing discussion, were originally split off from another thread.  It's an interesting KSP2 suggestion, but didn't really fit the topic of the other thread, which is why the moderators have split it into a topic of its own.]

    I left this comment on YouTube, but I believe it'll held a higher value (and bring some REAL discussion here). So I'll just copypaste:


    Can we NOT have stars during daylight? Even in space itself, if there's a planet, or moon, or even a small body like an asteroid reflecting the sunlight, or the sun is on the scene, there should be no stars. It's an incredibly small detail, which should be super easy to do as well, and it goes MILES into immersion.

    Another thing I can do here is leave evidence.

    67P blown up in exposure to bring out the very dim comma, yet it still obscures stars: bursting-comet20200921-1041.gif?itok=Tis

    Pluto. A dim object VERY far from the Sun, also brought up in exposure because it lives in perpetual twilight (get's less sun than 67P, almost 10 times as far away from the Sun). Still no stars:

    Fly by Pluto with the New Horizons probe | New Scientist

    Apollo command module orbiting the Moon during it's daylight, no stars.

    Módulo de mando y servicio - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre


  4. 5 hours ago, Kerbart said:

    There are many engineers developing cars. But let's, for the sake of simplicity, peg that number ridiculously low, so we cannot claim it's overestimated. Let's call it 10,000. Wit a world population of 7.6 billion (2018, Worldbank); that puts the number closer to 99.99987%, putting the accuracy of your claim into question - out of the 16 digits quoted, 10 are wrong or about 62.500000% (since you like those digits so much). In addition, the claim that, and I quote, "99.999999999999% of them won't ever go near a rocket" (pegging the number of people that would go near a rocket to 0 with a very small rounding error also seems based on numbers I'd love to see - there are a few hundred astronauts by now and the number of people involved in launches ("near a rocket") is easily a couple of magnitudes larger than that.

    Second, where does the claim that all are trained astronauts come from? We know Wernher von Kernam is not a trained astronaut. There's no reason to assume that Mortimer, Linus, Gus , Gene or Walt are one (if anything the hazmat suit suggests Walt wants to be one but amazingly didn't pass training). And that covers just the ones we see in the game; it's obvious in the VAB that there are many Kerbals involved in building the actual rocket. The ones we interact with are surely astronauts. But that makes sense for the game. Why would you interact with the ones in engineering, operations, finance and/or marketing?

    In all, I think it's safe to say that the claim There are no astronauts on Earth but all Kerbals are is wildly inaccurate.

    I mean if you've reduced yourself to nitpick 99.99987% from 99.999999999% in my dumb example just to have any point at all, might as well call it over. Lastly, all those kerbals you named clearly have some intelligence to them, even if they're not astronauts, something that still can't be said about every motorist on Earth.

    Canonically, with the evidence present in the game, Kerbals are smarter, and more capable than us. They only have a high disregard for safety rules, which is understandable for beings that can resist upwards of a 100m/s impact on their heads.

  5. On 12/21/2020 at 6:08 PM, Kerbart said:

    The only reference I saw to WH40K orks was when developers were thrown the curve ball of having to give the answer on what kind of tissue Kerbals were made off. Nothing, nothing that has been shown in the preview so far points to a return of “barn culture” (duct tape, fuel tanks made out of rusted oil barrels, etc) — quite the contrary; I've only seen parts and ships that are far more polished and slick looking than anything we have in KSP 1.

    Looking at the Kerbals we interact with in the game — small, green, not exactly fearless but lacking a certain amount of foresight resulting in the willingness to strap themselves into your contraptions — I can see where the comparison is coming from and I'm fine with that. It reflects badly on the Kerbals. Obviously they're capable of building highly refined technology. Just look at the LV-N engine, the 3-Kerbal capsule, the ion engine... Yes. Of course. The average car is a marvel of engineering. Now look at the American highway and the average operator of those vehicles. If you're trying to convince me they are geniuses, then I know you haven't spent any time commuting on American highways. Just because Kerbal society is advanced and refined doesn't mean their most advanced and refined are willing to fly those rockets. In fact, because they're highly intelligent they probably pass on for that job.

    Bring on the arm-flailing and screaming. I think it's just what the game needs.

    99.9999999999999% of people operating cars didn't invent them, and 99.999999999999% of them won't ever go near a rocket. Kerbals, on the other hand (and with our current knowledge), are all trained astronauts, with varying degrees of capabilities, something almost every single human in history could only dream of.

  6. 2 hours ago, Poodmund said:

    The problem with things like this is that staff turnover means that its likely even current SQUAD staff have never met/worked with Bac9, never read that article, never been in a production meeting where Bac9's direction was discussed... this then propagates further to new Intercept Games staff who have this whole new semi-isolated opinion-set from SQUAD (I know there is communication between but 100% fully communicative is not realistic) so design direction changes, in some areas significantly, from what we have been lead to believe in the past and the new direction that the new development team wish to go down.

    Its 'product evolution'. Some things persist, some things change.

    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).

  7. Shameful how y'all forgot what Bac9 wrote up. I'll quote:


    It’s not Kerbal? *shrug* For some reason some people like to think Kerbals are sloppy engineers only capable of producing inherently broken designs held together by duct tape. To them, proposing something prim and proper like a NASA VAB could be built by Kerbals is ridiculous. Well, I disagree. Take a good look at the parts: at the LV-N engine, at the 3-man pod, at the landing legs, at the ion engine. Those are cleanly executed pieces of impressive technology. Kerbals are indifferent to safety precautions and are very excited about explosions, yes, but they make an impression of extremely capable and very competent engineers. Sure, we know they probably turned a construction crane into a vomit carousel or raced on bulldozers in the process, but I don't doubt for one second they can build buildings similar to real ones, and I don't think it would be out of character for them. Plenty of other stuff like engines is fairly close to how our human rockets look. It's unfair to mistake Kerbals for orks from a “Certain Universe With 40k In The Name,” or to expect them to build sloppy duct-taped huts.

    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.

  8. 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

    1. Will KSP2 start with everything KSP1 already has mechanic wise? (including DLCs like breaking ground's robotics?)
    2. 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?
    3. What about part size variety? can we expect the same tiers? More? Less?
    4. 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?)
    5. Ansel support?
    6. Multiple launch sites?
    7. What about scenario creation? that one really forgotten feature that has been probably only used once with public, downloadable results.
    8. What -else- can they say about the really low framerates on the pre-alpha gameplay? (other than "it's an alpha" of course)
  9. 5 hours ago, Flying dutchman said:

    With this many rules i don't see much room for creativity..


    8 minutes ago, Ol’ Musky Boi said:

    I do feel that this challenge is rather specific. I get things like no mods or no abusing part clipping but specifying a wing span to fuselage length ratio? Maybe loosen up the rules a bit to make it seem more like a fun challenge and less like a homework assignment.

    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.

  10. 1 hour ago, hoioh said:

    Yeah, I saw the rule after posting, couldn't be bothered to do anything about it though.

    It's the rule that's not on the list, that's why I missed it in the first place, maybe highlight it a bit, or make it rule 0 in the spoiler, more effective that way

    Maybe I'll do it with something stock, if I can still identify the stock parts, you never know

    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.

  11. 49 minutes ago, hoioh said:

    Performed for another challenge, but I think within the rules:

    You can clearly see I have to turn on the reversers manually in order to position the craft correctly so I can take off from the VAB again

    Kerbal-x link: https://kerbalx.com/hoioh/Shorty

    The flaps are part of AP+ which is the only used mod for the plane (and there's mechjeb, but it's not used for the flight useless as it may be for this purpose)

    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!

  12. 6 hours ago, zolotiyeruki said:

    I think that would solidly break this rule: "All landing gear wheels must point parallel to the direction of flight. No Landing Gear Trickery."

    Well, I managed it.  Waaaaay too much F9'ing, but I got it:


    A few more screenshots:



    Amazingly done, props for posting a close attempt as well!

    6 hours ago, Aeroboi said:

    This is very easy. I found out rotating landing gear 90 degrees with friction set to 5.0 will nearly anchor a vessel, if placed properly would not tip over but nearly immediately stop on landing.

    Just wanted to let you know, I guess that's outside the scope. I guess in order for one to win is having over equipped wings and mostly gear to break once stopped.

    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

  13. 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



    1. Fixed wing. This means no moving wing craft of any type (auto gyros, helicopters, tilt wings, swing wings, etc)
    2. No more than 2 -defined- main surfaces (nothing above biplane/tandem/delta-canard, no flat anular, circular or cylindrical wing planes, box is OK).
    3. The total wing span to fuselage length ratio has to be of 4:1 or lower. (no high aspect ratio slow flyers for example)
    4. No more than one set of canards (if needed). I.E. Delta wing planes can use only one set of canards at the front, but not more. This also means anything with more surfaces than a tandem wing or delta-canard config is forbidden.
    5. Absolutely no part clipping beyond possibility, keep part clipping cheat off. i.e. Parts can go slightly inside others, but no wheel stacking for extra braking power or multiple stacked control surfaces/tanks etc.
    6. Control surfaces can only perform the following basic aircraft functions: Pitch, yaw, roll, flaps, slats. This means airbrakes, spoilers, and other control surface trickery is banned. Elevons and any other combination (v-tails, etc) are OK as long as all other rules are also taken into account. Engine braking via flow obstruction with control surfaces is also prohibited.
    7. Control surfaces can only be placed on the main wing. Wing, canard and stabilizer surfaces and cannot overlap one another or stack on top of each other via clipping. I.E. you can have as many flaps, and ailerons as you can fit on the trailing edge on your wing and/or canards if using a Delta type craft (without clipping).
    8. If you use floating surfaces (using fully mobile control surfaces as main wings/canards) you cannot place any parts on them or that otherwise look like they are glued to them. I.E. using a fully floating rudder and placing a t-tail stabilizer on it, that's just not how things work.
    9. All engines on the aircraft must point to the direction of flight. I.E. no VTOLs, tilt engines, braking engines or other engine trickery.
    10. Landing gear configuration must fit one of these two categories: Taildragger or tricycle. No Landing Gear stacking, or landing gear trains. IF it looks realistic then it is generally ok, however if it looks like you're abusing gears for extra braking power it may void your entry
    11. All landing gear wheels must point parallel to the direction of flight. This means no landing gear trickery.
    12. Yes, your landing gear HAS to be made of... landing gears. No legs or other parts.
    13. Absolutely -NO- staging and/or decoupling of anything, this also means no RATO or other take-off assistance methods.
    14. No parachutes or anything that would drastically slow the aircraft in flight or after touchdown save for flaps/slats (remember that spoilers and airbrakes are banned). This also means NO THRUST REVERSING.
    15. The entire wheelbase has to fit in the landing zone for obvious reasons.


    •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:




    1. Wings (and canards if present) must always remain the main source of lift i.e. turning your aircraft into a hovercraft after takeoff is not ok.
    2. No aerobatic landings: No flatspinning or fully stalling into the landing zone. The more your procedure resembles a normal approach, the better.



    Lastly, to validate your entry, your aircraft must meet the following criteria after completely stopping:

    1. It's in the same condition as it was when the flight began: No staging, nothing broken, nothing moved, kerbals still attached to seats (if seats were used). The KSC team should be able to rescue the aircraft, put it on the ground and fly it again without any repair needed and without suffering Kerbal losses, just refueling it should be enough.

    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


  14. 38 minutes ago, JTpopcorn said:

    It could be the extra physics load on teh cpu, but those numbers seem extreme for that to be the problem...

    The fact that it jumps back up makes me think it is a cpu overload when handling FAR physics.

    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.

  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. 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:

    1. Perfectrons, all 3 variants
    2. LES, the 2 released variants (Apollo and Soyuz) and an unreleased, WIP, Copenhagen Suborbitals model.
    3. A radial engine I never got around to finish
    4. The ARES based SRB (the Kickback didn't exist back then)
    5. 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.
    6. 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

  17. 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

  • Create New...