Exsmelliarmus

Members
  • Content Count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Exsmelliarmus

  • Rank
    Rocketeer
  1. That was wonderful! I was on tenterhooks the whole time, while still enjoying the serenity of space! Great work, as always!
  2. Cool, pwolf, I don't think I'll be of much help, but I'll do my best, as I'm sure everyone else will as well. So, at the moment, are the two vessels merely told to be x distance apart, or do you have them in matching orbits? Also, how difficult would it be to allow one vessel to split into two, and have one player control each half? Because, honestly, that would be the majority of how I would use multiplayer - eg. Based on early shuttle designs, where one half boost to orbit while the other half lands at the runway?
  3. Yeah, timewarp isn't like trying to get an airplane to fly. It's more like not being able to fly, and worrying about the autopilot, so you don't have to fly long distances yourself. Also, on the multiplayer issue, could unity's floating point inaccuracies make it impossible, or difficult, to merely have both ships being calculated on both computers at the same time? What I mean is, is there a chance that if both computers are doing the positional calculations based on burns, that there may be a few inaccuracies, and that, over time, the two ships will be in completely different locations in either client, simply due to the low amount of positional accuracy available? And finally, I would much rather be able to play with friends in LKO than not being able to do any MP because we can't get over the timewarp issue. In all honesty, long voyages are mainly solitary, anyway, and I don't know how many friends would want to timewarp to Jool without getting bored/losing interest.
  4. Exactly, which is why I suggest that rather than rendering the landing, it merely calculates if it 'would' land safely, and if it would, allows you to recover it.
  5. Is there something odd about the way 0.21 renders planets? Because I can't seem to find them as easily as I used to, and apparently buildings don't show up from orbit, either. Can anyone confirm?
  6. How about we agree to STOP talking about timewarp on this thread AT LEAST until we we have a definitive understanding on how non-timewarp multiplayer will work. It would make figuring out what IS an update, or a new development, as opposed to more timewarp talk, much easier. Or, alternatively, have a look through at least one timewarp thread, or even this thread, and if it has already been posted, don't post the idea again, even if you came up with it yourself, then discovered others had already talked about it. Sorry to come across harsh, but the OP is making actual progress, while we are merely rehashing the same ideas over and over and over and over again. OP, keep doing what you're doing. One question, are the two computers talking directly to one another, or going through a server to access world time, position etc?
  7. Any news? I'd hate to see this brilliant shuttle become the next Buran!
  8. Yeah, that'll give a really good reason to use a glider/spaceplane as opposed to just a capsule. What would be nice though would be allowing reuse if parts at only minor cost - for example, if I keep launching the same rocket, only with a different payload, you don't have to buy it every time but merely pay a percentage of its cost to repair it.
  9. I think it would be useful if, in career mode, as stages are ejected, before they leave physics range, the game quickly calculates (possibly on another thread) the weight of the stage, the momentum it will have and, if it has parachutes, the amount of force the parachutes would generate, as well as the time it would take before splash (or crash) down. Then, when the stage leaves physics range, it can be deleted, as long as it is under 20km, as per usual, only to be recoverable from the tracking station x seconds after it is ejected, x being the previously calculated time to impact, provided it was able to survive. In this way, reusable/expensive components would not have to be scrapped because they are not part of the upper (focus) stage, reducing the cost of launches, and making stages less expendable. What do you guys think?
  10. Sorry if this has been asked already, but would it be possible to make it so that parts attached to the interior of the payload pay move with the doors? I don't know what sort of code-fu would be necessary to get it to work, but it would be the icing on an already delicious cake!
  11. Amazing work! Just a question, will the SRBs have a separation gimbal feature, that can be used in staging or an action group or something, so that when the SRBs are jettisoned, they fly away of their own accord?
  12. If you are on a mac, command z might work instead. Otherwise, don't know what the problem with your game is. To be honest, it would be nice if they did improve the control z function a bit, though.
  13. I've actually been playing since ~0.13. Also, I found someone posted the shots I was looking for on another thread, I am just wondering where they came from, http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/14906-Intra-Vehicular-Activities/page2
  14. Hey, I've been looking everywhere but I can't seem to find any images of the in development (pre 0.17) MK 1-2 pod, and am wondering if anyone has a link/images? That would be greatly appreciated, as I am interested in seeing the internal structure. Thanks, and hope I posted this in the right place!
  15. Although surely the game resource cost would be less than having to render physics for all the rovers you need to have parked along the runway to make it work. Even just 20 or so lights would be immensely useful.