• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

110 Excellent

About MockKnizzle

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer
  1. There's a very, very big difference between plans and promises. And in game development, plans change all the time as the circumstances surrounding them change. While multiplayer might have been part of SQUAD's plan two years ago, there's a good chance that that's no longer the case. I'm fairly certain that SQUAD has never promised anything in terms of future features - only laid out their current plan at the time.
  2. Wow, a game has a bug in it! What kind of awful, horrible world do we live in, and how dare SQUAD allow such a thing to happen while you're on watch! Neither time nor resources are infinite, but player expectations are. Developers have to do the best they can to find a balance. Bugs are a normal result of these constraints.
  3. Maybe just don't build stations that wide. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I find that it's often easier to just pack unwieldly payloads in multiple separate pieces and then assemble them on-site.
  4. My guess is that you don't have enough lifting surface for the weight of your craft. In the thick lower atmosphere your wings are enough, but once you get into thinner air you're having to use engine thrust to maintain vertical speed like a rocket. Care to post a picture of the craft so we can see if this is the case?
  5. Just estimating with some quick numbers: Say we have a mothership in LKO orbiting at 2200m/s, and say we launch our payload on a suborbital booster that can reach an orbital velocity of 1500m/s. The mothership drive core needs to brake by 700m/s to rendezvous, and then at spend at least another 700m/s to boost back into orbit. So the whole maneuver will require 1400m/s from the drive core, half of that with the added mass of the payload. The question is, is it more economical to add that 1400m/s to the drive core, or to just add 700m/s to the payload ascent vehicle? If the scenario is lofting payloads from Kerbin, then adding 700m/s to a lifter is pretty trivial and the added complications of a suborbital rendezvous probably aren't worth the marginal benefits. If, however, we're trying to launch a payload from somewhere that requires a lot more dV to orbit (i.e. Eve), then the cost of adding 700m/s to your lifter is much higher. In this sort of scenario, I can see a brake-and-boost orbit insertion being a lot more attractive.
  6. I work at a large game studio on a popular sci-fi shooter (bonus points if you can guess which game) and our compile times for a full-featured build are around 14 hours
  7. A, A, B I use chase cam when docking, then two-hand the rotation and translation controls. I place the camera precisely behind my craft so my translation keys map nicely and just line stuff up by eye. Even getting rotation correct is pretty easy, I just have to make sure the straight-line parts of my target don't have any jagged pixelly lines
  8. I actually really like her. Rounder face, basic eyelashes, and a no-nonsense, practical pony. Nice work
  9. The full station only has about 100 parts once all the lifting hardware falls off And nope, the ring is literally just the cabins and two struts to close the loop, for a total of 74 parts. All you have to do is hold shift while you rotate the gizmo to enable fine adjustments, which turns the 15º snap into 5º. I'm pretty sure it's a leftover mechanic from when we had to rotate things with WASDQE, but now that everyone has acclimated to just using the gizmos with the mouse it's been somewhat forgotten. I'm fairly certain that there's no possible way I could cut part count and keep a similar radius without substituting longer fuel tanks in place of the crew cabins, which would result in a less-smooth ring. The hub and spokes are just 5 parts apiece,with 6 struts to hold them together plus the probe core and battery. That's a pretty impressive kraken attack, the debris field reminds me of something out of Dead Space. At least there weren't any unlucky souls onboard to be infected and turned into necro-kerbals
  10. The root part is the MK3 crew cabin that's connected to the spoke pointing out the hangar door. The ring is built from cabins node-attached end-to-end (with a 5-degree rotation) until they wrap all the way back to the root part, and then strutted to close the loop. The spokes are surface-attached to the ring, and the hub is node-attached (with a 90-degree rotation and offset to center it) to one spoke and strutted to the other two. So there are struts, I was just very careful to make them as invisible as possible
  11. Hello, friends. I recently saw Rune's beautiful Von Braun Station and began to wonder... Just how big could one make a ring station? Well, it turns out that using 72 of the the MK3 crew cabins attached end to end, my station ended up being 90 meters in diameter with room for a small village of 1,152 kerbals at max capacity. Its mass of 500 tons and large diameter was slightly much for a single launch vehicle, so I decided to use six. At once. Aside from a few minor (read: enormous) explosions on loading and some subassembly strut problems resulting in a slight off-axis booster event (visible in the screenshots), the launch went remarkably well. Although perhaps not truly Whackjobian in scale, I feel that this project at least captures a little of the spirit
  12. Not really, because the Oberth effect has to do with the fact that the rocket/propellant energy exchange is more efficient at higher speeds, and the fact that the propellant stores kinetic energy in excess of it's chemical energy. With an emdrive, there isn't any onboard propellant to store kinetic energy.
  13. Well to an outside observer that's the case, but from the point of view of the thing actually crossing the horizon the passage of local time doesn't appear to change and you can fall across the horizon just fine.