• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by The_Rocketeer

  1. Then why would you want it to be stock instead of mod dependent? On, it would appear, is not on.
  2. Turning off launch plume smoke helps with slowdown during launch, period. Whether that's because something else is eating up all the system resources is moot, because there's nothing we can do about that. What we can do is build rockets with fewer, bigger engines, which reduces the amount of smoke. During re-entry, presumably any part that gets hot enough will generate re-entry plasma smoke. This is a significant difference between a launch plume and this feature. If every part during launch produced a smoke plume, you might find the slowdown affecting your game too.
  3. Because answering questions from the fans would be a full time job for a much larger team, and would have a negligible effect (if any) on their key directive, which is to produce, test, release and support the game. Chatting about hypotheticals to make the fans feel loved would be a monumental waste of professional time. You're right to draw attention to things you'd like to see take a higher priority in development, but it really isn't justified to criticise the dev team for not talking about these things with you right now just because you want them to. I think this feature looks good, tho I'm more impressed by the distance shots (red streaks) than the close-ups (little puffs of pale gold). I'm also concerned about tanking performance on large or complex ships. Not every descent is just a pod on a chute. SSTOs, surface and atmospheric vehicles, bases - these are a bit more involved than that.
  4. Banoffee.
  5. Actually I heard there's a KerbalCon every year, held on the Moon. I know its a bit of a hassle to get there, but c'mon guys. A) you are ALL rocket scientists, and B) you don't even need to go interplanetary and C) your smartphones have more computing power than Apollo. Get to it!
  6. I've seen the effect after surface impacts - Mk3 parts do it very well as they have excellent impact resistance, so the parts don't pop. G-force, like impact force, is still force - you just exceeded the structural limitations of the joints. Personally I think this is awesome. I'd like to see a lot more distortion of parts and joints, and less total-destruction of parts. Makes surviving a crash landing and attempting a recovery far more interesting.
  7. Perhaps it would if Mars was 90% liquid water ocean... like Laythe. [Insert withering water-related pun].
  8. Last time I checked, space included oceans, and space exploration included the search for available water, and the search for life sustained by available water. Your explanation does not wash.
  9. I'm not sure how you define the scope of a vehicle creator/sandbox interplanetary exploration game without allowing that it's totally up to the player what vehicle they want to create and which parts of those planets they want to explore. Boat parts are long overdue in my opinion and well inside the scope. Given the lengths Squad went to to overhaul buoyancy and submersible depth issues (used to despawn at -600m), I don't think there's a lot of evidence they agree with you.
  10. This could have been suggested before but IDK. In the manner that it indicates closest approach and ascending/descending nodes, I suggest the orbital trajectory line in Map View should also indicate where and when a vessel will move into the solar or communications shadow of another body, or at least of the body that it is orbiting. To keep the path from getting to cluttered, I propose the orbital line should change to a darker hue to indicate a blackout zone with a detailed tooltip of duration and source on mouseover. This would really help manage unforeseen upcoming power or communication issues and give the player a little in-mission time to plan around them.
  11. +1 Rover Proving Ground +1 Dock - stock seaplanes and submarines are definitely viable these days. I also support the wind-tunnel idea, but I'd take it a step further and make it a 'local conditions simulator'. I envision a facility that allows you to load up a spherical-body (think 1990s-era visuals) of the same size and with the same atmosphere and gravity as any body you choose, either in an orbital re-entry scenario, or as a surface launch. Why not HyperEdit? Too cheaty, breaks immersion, can get Kerbs killed, can be saved. It isn't a simulation if it uses virtual magic to make persistent changes to the game.
  12. For solar, the visual representation of darkness-time is less useful that a read-out of how long it will last per orbit. That sort of information is critical for minimising cost for EC storage and charging parts, or for critical power depletion issues on other crafts traversing the shadow.
  13. Well, semantics, y'know? Who'd have thought humping something would be called twerking in 2017? But it's ok, I will accept your correction. My attempts to style it out have clearly failed. I'll go back to my hole.
  14. *looks at @Tex_NL extremely skeptically* What, you're omniscient now? ()
  15. *looks at @Tex_NL very skeptically* I'm sure it used to be Hoffman...
  16. Straight up admission, I haven't thoroughly tested whether Tourists can swap seats. For reasons see spoiler. So assuming I'm right about that... WHAT THE HECK?! Is the 'fasten seatbelts' light stuck on or something? Why can't I use an ascent vehicle to reach an orbital station, transfer my tourists to the station, wait for a rendezvous with a Hoffman transfer shuttle, transfer them to the shuttle, travel to Mun, rendezvous with my Munstation in orbit again, and descend to the surface after the next ore shipment comes and goes? I kinda get the EVA no-no (most dangerous job in space, amiright?), but seriously, seat-locking is dumb. I await your criticism.
  17. I don't expect Making History will have a hard time selling, simply because KSP has a lot of critical acclaim to trade on. There are 2 places I see KSP offering more than currently-available mods. The less-intensive is in consistency and balance, but disappointingly it's also an area I real feel has been neglected for a really long time. That said, it wouldn't surprise me if Making History or other upcoming releases took this in hand - I have seen a few dev posts this year that seemed encouraging. For the most part, modders do a great job of making their parts sit well with the stock game, but the devs hold all the cards when it comes to how all the parts balance with each other and what the visual themes and standards are for everything else to match up to. The second is in breakthrough changes in core functionality - not changing what the game looks like or tweaking the way it does what it already does, but making it do newer more various things. Examples would be multiplayer, flowing water, surface excavation, lavafields, or floating ice-caps. Mods that do this (if they ever even can) will always seem cobbled together and flakey, but the dev team have options to change the code in ways that modders fundamentally don't. I don't feel too much of this is likely tho - the amount of work to make any one of those example features happen seems prohibitive even to a layman like me.
  18. So I just discovered this thread, and was already thinking of my own Sea Dart from a few versions ago, before fairings were really a thing. Then when I found the post above, I just had to share Supersonic Seaplane Album Here
  19. I actually think there's a lot to be said for speed-of-sound effects and doppler effects in KSP. This is a pretty sciencey game after all. I also think fade to silence in space is an excellent reason to occasionally get into and fly from the cockpit, and makes re-entry an even cooler experience. On the other hand I still can't think of a single occasion when I, as a player, would actually experience a sonic boom in game. I mean, I could set one up but man would it be contrived... So I'll slot this in next to a proper water-cycle model (or other extra-Kerbestrial fluids) model, volcanism and Kerbal life cycles, i.e. imho would be awesome, much love for the idea, but no practical expectation of ever seeing it happen. It's just not how KSP rolls.
  20. @Ossan3 MAKE THE TRUCK FLY!
  21. The Rocketeer approves
  22. I decided to take a new approach to this. My new attempt uses an unguided rocket tractor for a tow up to 10,000m, then cuts the tether (the tractor has chutes) and glides back down.
  23. Ooo, goody... a chance to play with my toys Here's Koncorde. If she goes up and stays there, she can do a whole lap of Kerbin in ~90 minutes:
  24. Why wouldn't you want to use RCS to dock? I mean, unless you're one of those people who thinks it's ok to build a hotel everytime you land on your property in Monopoly.
  25. In a word: gravity. It's weaker the higher you are, and that is a one-directional change. At no point on the way up does gravity increase (unless you started underground, but that's another point). Therefore anything that weighs 1 ton on runway weighs less than 1 ton at 5000m, not because it burned fuel but because there is less gravity. Therefore anything that has a Thrust-to-Weight-Ratio (TWR) = x and can lift off from the runway will have a TWR > x at 5000m. Therefore if a rotorcraft can take off on its own rotational lift, it can definitely climb above 5000m. Weighing it down will only work to keep it below 5000m if it stops it from actually leaving the ground. Using rockets to get around this would result in a flight that either returned to Kerbin's surface at destructive speeds, or that eventually reached equilibrium somewhere in more rarefied atmosphere above 5000m. Now you're right to say that the air gets thinner at higher altitudes - in fact I said that myself last time around, and I just said it again - but the point at which aerodynamic lift fade off kicks in enough to seriously affect rotorcraft TWR is a lot higher than 5000m. But by all means, prove me wrong if you can