Jump to content

GluttonyReaper

Members
  • Posts

    474
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GluttonyReaper

  1. I've not had any issues with things exploding yet, but as far as I can tell, it's not really made for "construction" per se, more augmentation? It's very fun using it to rectify mistakes on the fly, I particularly enjoyed passing around an SAS module across my Munar vehicles when I realized I hadn't installed any on my landers...
  2. Ah thank you, this definitely helps alleviate it!
  3. Apologies if this on the wrong section, not quite sure where to put it. So I got a new laptop recently, with a non-integrated graphics card and quite a high resolution screen (3000x2000), which is quite nice as I can now play KSP again, but there's one issue. Even at 1080p, the game window is tiny! I can bump up the size of the UI elements to compensate, but that blocks a lot of the game, and some of the text is still a bit of strain to see. Is there any way to "stretch" the game window, so that it stays at the same resolution but fills up more of the screen? I've tried using the full screen option, but as soon as there's a scene change, it automatically bumps it up to the full 3000x2000, which is way too taxing for this machine. Thanks in advance!
  4. This is making me even more concerned about the strategy to UK government has decided to take - here, it's been decided that we're going to have doses of the Pfizer 12 weeks apart, even though apparently it's never actually been formally tested to see if the first dose remains effective for that long. There seems to be some discussion about whether it's a viable strategy or not, but it doesn't seem like we're going to know until it's all done and dusted unfortunately... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-55503739
  5. Not necessarily - I'm envisioning some kind of genetically engineered super-moss. Perhaps have a more traditional hull on the outsider, but then this organism forming a kind of "inner" wall, maybe even in a cavity between two walls. It wouldn't have to endure the full intensity of vacuum then, and it'll stick around as long your interior is at vaguely life-friendly temperatures and atmosphere. And it's a free CO2 scrubber, so that neat. Not necessarily - I'm envisioning some kind of genetically engineered super-moss. Perhaps have a more traditional hull on the outsider, but then this organism forming a kind of "inner" wall, maybe even in a cavity between two walls. It wouldn't have to endure the full intensity of vacuum then, and it'll stick around as long your interior is at vaguely life-friendly temperatures and atmosphere. And it's a free CO2 scrubber, so that neat.
  6. Really? I would've assumed it was the other way around - unless it does totally collapse in the near future, I'd think it'd make it more dangerous, given further collapse could happen at any moment.
  7. If it can do that then sure, you're pretty much invisible by that stage. Problem is though is that the CMB is surprisingly low in energy - it's all microwaves. To get your spacecraft to emit out in that range, you're gonna have to be getting (relatively) close to absolute zero, which might be a problem if you've got anything living on board. (Of course, if you're an advanced enough species for interstellar travel, you might have found a way around that )
  8. It's been a couple of months since I used it, but I'm pretty sure this is similar to how Kerbalism handles data transmission - the quality is 100% within an optimum range, but gets steadily worse with distance, with multiple antennas or a better antenna needed to make up for it. I *think* it has passive electric drain too, but don't quote me on that.
  9. I doubt this'll be the case - it doesn't matter how cheap or effective your rocket launches are, space telescopes are fundamentally just super expensive. Both Hubble and the JWST have development and operating costs measured in the billions of dollars, while even the most expensive rocket launches are in the hundreds of millions - even if Starship gets that down to the tens of millions, I can't see that leading to a boom in orbital telescopes. Ground-based observatories are gonna be around for a long time, if only because using them is so much cheaper than orbital stuff can ever be - there's plenty of great research that gets done down on the ground, purely because they either don't need the incredible resolution of a space telescope, or because what they're doing would take up a significant amount of time. If Starlink is as bad as it seems to be, those types of research are gonna get frustratingly more expensive at best.
  10. There's an option to "lock" hinges once they've stopped moving - this makes them less floppy, but more importantly allows autostruts to pass through them, letting you make much more secure connections
  11. Some of you may remember that, shortly before the release of KSP 1.2, many of the recent hired devs (at least some of whom were prominent modders-turned-devs) suddenly and mysteriously announced their departure from the KSP development team. The reason behind this was unknown, until it was revealed they had actually been hired by Valve, to work on... something. Of course, what exactly this project was has remained unknown since then, presumably due to NDAs and the like. But recently, Valve released this: Half-Life: Alyx - Final Hours ...effectively an interactive look into what Valve's been up to all these years. Now, I don't own it myself, but according to Daniel Hardcastle (aka NerdCubed) in his most recent video (which I won't link here due to likely containing profanities), the KSP devs hired were working on SimTrek, a Star Trek themed VR game! Unfortunately, it was cancelled some time ago, apparently so more VR development resources could be focused towards Half-Life: Alyx itself. Just something I found interesting, it's nice to know where those people who've influenced KSP so much ended up
  12. IIRC, it's actually sorted alphabetically by default - it just so happens that the parts are named in such a way that they tend to be grouped by size. I think it would best for tanks in particular to be sorted by diameter (1.25m, 2.5m, 3.75m...), given that majority of the time that's what you care about the most, maybe even in a expandable menus to reduce clutter. Everything else would be great too, QOL stuff never hurts
  13. For me, this isn't the issue - large game companies like this don't have issues making great games when they actually want to. It's more about whether the developers who've put all that effort into making said great games are actually getting what they deserve for it.
  14. After reading that, I honestly don't think I'd be comfortable buying KSP2 at all anymore. I'd somewhat hoped (clearly naively) that it'd be spared from T2's unethical practices by being contracted out to an independant studio, but apparently I was wrong.
  15. Sure, but it's definitely a trade-off - as a development method, it certainly has it's drawbacks. I have no idea if it still exists (or how I would find it) but waaay back when Squad were working on career mode (0.24?), HarvesteR put out a blog post talking about how they were concerned about releasing effectively an incomplete feature - contracts without a monetary system, something that would be fine if they were developing it behind closed doors. He then cites that as the reason for why they delayed the release to squeeze in funds in the same update, a system which they've made very few changes to since, and is arguably quite inadequate and unbalanced. Point being, early access comes with a lot of baggage regardless of any disclaimers you slap onto it, especially these days as people are more wary of perpetual "early access" games. Personally, I would quite like to see a take on KSP that follows the more traditional route of "some people have a vision for a game, and then sit down for 3 years and make a game", rather than the very reactionary model that KSP1 used (although personally I disagree with the direction KSP2 in general is taking from what we've seen, but that's a somewhat different discussion)
  16. If you right-click on the unit, you'll can open up it's inventory, where it shows you the different instruments inside. You can left-click drag them out - just like you can in the VAB - and if you drag them to a nearby Kerbal, it should open up their inventory, which you can drop the instruments into. From there, there should be an icon that appears next to the instrument in the inventory, which you can click in to deploy it
  17. Unless you enable Kerbal Experience That should work fine - I've used it on many a science mode without issues. This may be a mod problem, I notice you have Custom Barn Kit installed, which is a mod that directly affects building upgrades. Assumably this is for Strategia, which a mod built for Career mode only - I don't know how, but perhaps that's the cause of the issue? Like it's trying to force building restrictions to be on even in Science mode? Might be worth asking on the associated mod threads
  18. That's been a part of KSP1 for ages - career mode limits vehicle sizes behind building upgrades (even if it rarely comes into play due to there not being enough tiers), and even the fully upgraded VAB tries to limit your max size by not letting the camera extend beyond the roof.
  19. Given they literally said they don't know much about astrophysics in the previous sentence, I think it's more likely to be a typo than a sneaky reveal of a massive feature
  20. Thing is though, we only consider that an important space because that's where the altitude is in KSP1. In reality, it's actually a bit of an awkward position - on larger screens, it's generally not somewhere you're looking very often, especially given the most important time you need it is during landing when you're going down. It's not massively suitable for something you need to know in real time; I'm assuming this is the reason that shooter type games often put health/ammo at the bottom of the screen.
  21. I can only speculate (I'm not a new player, after all) but I would say that for players coming into the game, the kerbals themselves are a pretty crucial part of the game - hence why even in KSP1 they take up a pretty substantial part of the screen. Aside from being a third of the title, they're argubably one of the biggest draws to the game for many people - they're the difference between KSP being a fun game about flying rockets and a dry space simulator. Consider a lander crashing on the Mun. Without the kerbals, it can be *interesting*... but at the end of the day it's just a pretty explosion, followed by disappointment as you realize you've failed. With kerbals though, there's a bit of humour to it - Bill and Bob might be terrified, and Jeb'll prolly be grinning like a maniac as they plough into the ground. Sure, it might not be a big deal to veteran players, but for new people it might be the difference between enjoying the game or ditching it. So yeah, point is I think they're important enough to be prominent on the screen, at least by default. Having options to hide it is another discussion entirely, which isn't exactly something that's shown particularly well by this low resolution screenshot of a probably-not-final UI that everyone's formed such strong opinions on
  22. There absolutely should be - all Community Tech Tree does is add extra nodes beyond the stock tech tree; it's just a framework for other mods to fill out, and as such has many empty nodes with no other mods installed. Kerbalism and Stockalike Station Parts will out some of them (mostly the habitation nodes) but all the advanced propulsion and rocketry nodes are untouched. See the Community Tech Tree page for a list of supported mods, or if you want to get rid of the empty nodes, use Hide Empty Tech Tree Nodes. I'm assuming you've used CKAN to install Kerbalism? Community Tech Tree isn't at all necessary to run Kerbalism (although Community Resource Pack is, an entirely separate mod), it runs just fine on the stock tech tree is that's the issue. Yup, Stock Station Expansion works just fine with Kerbalism (I use it myself!) and the SIMPLEX page lists it as compatible, so you should be good to go! As others have said, the SIMPLEX Kerbalism config is entirely separate from the SIMPLEX Tech Tree, so if you don't want that there shouldn't be any issues using the default Kerbalism config
  23. I wouldn't mind a perpendicular intersecting runway too - getting on target for polar landings is hard enough without having to make big sweeping 90 degree turns
  24. My headcanon is that probe cores are actually sentient AI that make decisions on what maneuvers to do all on their own, so signal delay isn't an issue. But, of course, they are still humble machines - despite their vast intellect, they get nervous when they can't phone home for support, even if they don't actually use it, so can only do a few basic things confidently
×
×
  • Create New...