• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20 Excellent

About betaking

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. what I was proposing would basically be that, but also allow for "fudging" a bit when needed without resorting to clipping, you see each "sweet spot" would be different. that or there could be "fixed ranges" for certain fuel tanks (IE: you can only make it so much bigger or smaller.
  2. various mineral and rare earth salts, hydrothermic vents, use as a heatsink for various high-temperature reactors. radiators work much better if they're underwater don't they? bioluminescent-squid/bioluminescent-fried-calamari. honestly the thought of having a planet/moon in game like Europa and not being able to build a submarine to explore its subsurface ocean seems kind of incomplete.
  3. you're forgetting one thing, Landing gear that can be stretched or extended. Ideally "procedural" tanks and wings and landing-gear (not sure about solar-panels) would follow some basic logic: -there's a variety of tanks/wings that are "procedural" and are differentiated from one another. -when adjusting for size or whatever specific fuel-selection, or if it's shielded, costs in terms of resources (and/or funds if they're added) scale with the part.. not all parts have all options as I think "exotic fuels" are different enough from "real world fuels" that -stats like mass, drag, lift, etc. also scale, but here's the catch. this scaling is not linear, nor "universal". it follows curves. example: ->starter wing: either frame+canvas or fiberglass.. (depending on if they bother including propellers in stock KSP2); designed for specific (mostly lower-speed) flight regimes, it's lift/mass/drag/etc. ratio is optimized for making smaller aircraft and will display increasingly undesirable traits when you expand beyond this size-range (or go to far below it). ->tanks that have structural issues if you "stretch them" too much depending on the amount of acceleration or pressure you expose them to. but yeah fuel switch, at least for "normal" fuels would be a must IMO.
  4. if it is possible to do logic gates with a presently existing KAL-1000 it's not in a manner that is really beneficial or relevant, at least given the information the ingame encyclopedia provides. I mean there's a lot possible in KSP but having things set up so they don't require painful/agonizing guesswork at every step in the build process would be helpful.
  5. Concerned about the wings, has the same problem the ksp1 wings have where they don't have much in the way of variation. Hopefully they switch to a system that is more procedural-like, even if it's "procedural with limitations", as that can allow for a greater variety of design options.
  6. I Think wanting submarines is actually valid, even if it's reserved for an expansion. Especially since KSP2 is going to be concerned with colonization having seagoing vessels, or the ability to build aquatic infrastructure is an important aspect, by which I mean both surface and submersibles.
  7. have a similar problem, (Using windows 10, 8gb of ram, A10 desktop APU and Radeon HD7770; yes I need to upgrade but whatever). furthermore it gets even weirder for me; the process will be closed in task-manager but there will be a process that will be running the background that might prevent me from deleting or editing the mod files...
  8. echoing some of this: I'd like the landing gear and maybe even the regular wheels from the Kerbal Foundries mod be added, perhaps not the full KSPWheel implmentation but certainly the basic idea of landing gear that is extensively tweakable in terms of being able to be more easily tweaked. Improvements to solar panels would be nice too, something along the lines of a Soyuz-style 3-panel fixed setup would really benefit Making History. But as far as I'm aware the things that would be best implemented into stock (that I haven't mentioned yet): ->Restock, Restock Plus, and KeR-7, as these add parts that were otherwise "missing" from the stock game and more importantly Making History ->RCS build aid, because it's stupidly useful. ->Speed Unit Changer or Speed Unit Annex: either one, simply makes it simpler to fly in some regards. ->Airplane Autopilot and "Plane Mode" for their useful additions to atmospheric flight. ->various other mods for things like the VAB/SPH that help add degrees of precision that might otherwise just be down to luck/extreme amounts of patience, such as Maneuver Node evolved or editor enhancements. ->From the Eyes of a Kerbal/allow us to go first person while EVA and/or in a seat. ->NEAR or FAR style improvements to aerodynamic models. ->1.875m scale Soyuz, either HGR, or preferably something more like a scaled-up Tantares, though that's perhaps "too many" parts for someone like Squad to feel comfortable implementing since many clearly possess limited uses, while I'm on this subject some titan II-style parts for a more accurate replica of Gemini. ->Greater number and variety of "Service Modules" or "service compartments", resembling either "Universal Storage" or Near Future Spacecraft in terms of functionality. ->SCANSAT and Dmagic's orbital science ->Kerbal attachment system because cables and ropes would be useful. I agree that something like Kopernicus should be added as a stock API, or at least some of the changes it implements should be implemented in stock.
  9. If there's going to be Nuclear Reactors. like 'proper fission nuclear reactors' I'd like them to be a bit more complicated than either RTG's, solar, or even Fuel Cells to use. something like requiring an engineer be aboard to maintain them, use of radiators even when it's going to be in Kerbin orbit.
  10. I'd simply add some of the planets in the "outer-planets pack", in addition to some more minor planets, and asteroid varieties. I'd try at least to design a feature that could allow for some "orbital settings" to be selected to the game, so you could have a difficulty setting where, for instance, the Mun's inclination would change if you set it to "hard". Other than that I'd agree to what Warrior is saying with regards to Procedural surfaces, something like that would be quite good, though you'd want to ensure colliders wouldn't bug out. Improvements in atmospheric/aerodynamic modeling along the lines of FAR wouldn't be something I'd mind either. If performance could be improved enough, then I'd think further work in areas relating to stuff like "wind" might need to be considered, maybe even some basic "weather". As for Kerbin itself I'd basically just move "Baikerbanur" to the place where Woomerang was set up (N45.29,E136.11), move Woomerang to something like (S34.876099, E142.174072), maybe a few other "extra launchpads" as well (with their own respective VAB's), and label what was the "Baikerbanur" something else... idk though.
  11. eh, not really, at least not really replicating mission-builder so much as replicating KOS, or creating action-groups and KAL-1000's that possess stuff like "condition blocks".
  12. ugh, kind of dislike a lot of these systems, especially if they just make it as simple as "LFO" engines, exotic fuels and the like should introduce new "headaches" that limit their use to more specific uses, like how Ion engines are low-thrust and heavy even if they're capable of very long and efficient burns.
  13. I've had the same thought repeatedly, seems to get a lot of pushback despite it not being all that much of a step away from what we've got currently)
  14. for that matter there needs to be some kind of guide when it comes to building propeller driven craft, seems that it's perhaps too difficult for a lot of people to manage. I can manage aircraft, typically I turn the engine-size/power-down quite a bit and never use full-engine torque.(typically I keep the torque-limits for say a light biplane somewhere around 35-40 in value, with the engine "size/power" at something like 10-15). there needs to be some better explanations about torque, propeller-pitch, etc. along with improvements to the KAL-1000 such that you could either have different "modes" that would trigger different curves/timelines on a single-controller or having different controllers that could be toggled active/not-active but able to interact with the same value. also some kind of "when X do Y" or "when instrument X reads Y, the set the timeline to Z". "level autopilot" doesn't like even counter-rotating propellers last I checked, then again I seem to be going off the side of the runway an odd amount.
  15. what's needed are parts that are "scalable" or "tweakable" or "procedural in a limited range".