Bartybum

Members
  • Content Count

    183
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

37 Excellent

About Bartybum

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. @Dale Christopher I'll concede, but I should express that I'm not interested in FTL for FTL's sake, but as a consequence of wanting more systems. If there was a non-FTL method that necessitated stuff like life-support, hydro/aquaponics, etc. then I'd ABSOLUTELY prefer that.
  2. Bit hostile there but okay . You've misread my comment; I consider FTL a feature, not polishing. There's a slight difference between the two that I'll elaborate on in future (I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment). If we don't get FTL then I can understand (albeit more star systems and planets will still be definitely highly desired). Regarding something sci-fi having no place in KSP, I'd argue that given the fact we have: 1. a dead Kraken on Bop 2. an alien head and ancient Kerbal progenitor SSTV signal on Duna 3. the alien stone henge on Vall I'd argue that the game has already shown it's somewhat okay with science fiction being part of it. In addition, when it first came out the Interstellar mod was one of, if not THE most popular KSP mod. Plenty of people could hence argue that FTL can have a place in KSP. My wish for FTL is a consequence of my wish for more star systems, because of how significantly the game would change (with respect to interstellar base and station construction). At those time periods, you're looking at multidecadal voyages and contracts being conducted while trying to manage your space agency. Sub-luminal space travel just isn't workable with multiple star systems logistically in the scope of career mode.
  3. I don't think it'd be too hard to come up with defaults for a prop disk / prop unit. You'd have something like tweakables really similar to what the current options allow: number of blades, deployment, direction, authority, blade variant. And just use the same resultant vector values for lift and drag that you get with the standard props. It'd take some amount of work but I don't think it's anything too complicated.
  4. I’d like to see inflatable modules and some more science module types. I’d also like to see special contracts to visit and research anomalies once discovered, and provide science incentives to set up bases near them, as well as contracts serving that base from time to time so it’s not just a one-off thing.
  5. I'm quite surprised that we still don't have some form of basic life support ala Snacks! in the game.
  6. High priority: - More landing wheel variants/adjustable landing gear height (Highest priority!) - 2.5m trusses for larger stations - Longer fuel tanks: It'd be really nice to have an FL-T1600, Jumbo-128 and S3-28800 instead of having to stack two of the largest tank lengths we already have - Inflatable habitation modules - More station modules i.e. labs doing different experiments, logistics modules, etc. - More small aircraft wing panel sizes: they're almost there, but there's one or two missing shapes I'd like to see Medium priority: - More structural adapters: one short length like the Brand Adapter 02, and a long one like the normal Brand Adapter - More 5m part skins: I don't want every large rocket to look like a Saturn V derivative - Flatter inline RCS tanks - More Mk3-compatible wings: referring to both panel wings and single piece wings, with corresponding control surfaces. The current selection is really lacking. I'd like a way to make larger airliner wings and SSTOs look nice. - More 0.625m fuel tanks - More fuel tank adapters: the current ones are a bit varied and random when it comes to lengths and diameters. A more comprehensive selection would really be nice Low priority: - 3.75m probe core & reaction wheel - Longer Mk3 adapters: something to allow nicer noses and tails instead of the stubby ones that are only possible now - 2.5m Rapiers, turbofans and turbojets - Larger solar panels - 2.5m SRBs
  7. Regarding a storyline, I'm not sure I'd want KSP to actually have one that plays out via plot. I'd much prefer we get given small snippets of lore over time that tease information about ancient Kerbals (it's obvious at this point that they had interplanetary ancestors) - stuff like the face and SSTV signal on Duna, the Kraken, the ruins on Val, the pyramids near the Dessert launch site. Small bits and bobs that are added from time to time. Stuff that when discovered, incentivizes you with science via contracts to set up a base, collect samples, data, reputation, etc. Nothing necessary, but stuff that'll reward you for your curiosity with snippets about ancient Kerbals. I see this as the perfect non-invasive way of including a story.
  8. [snip] Personally I'm not against the idea of it, as long as it's optional. From what I've gathered you're open to this, so we can move on. My issue is that I don't think it's the time to start tackling it yet - not when after more than six years there's still serious polishing (more complete part sets, weather/clouds) and features (life support, more planets, more systems/FTL) that have been missing from the game - features that are vastly more integral to the mechanics/logistics of spaceflight, and the game's story/identity. Features whose absence leave me feeling like I'm playing an incomplete game. Once that's all done, by all means please, bring it on.
  9. Well you'll need more than that for a discussion lol. I'm talking nothing more complicated than one or two resources, ala the Snacks! mod. It's really nothing complicated.
  10. I understand that some players will relish in the opportunities that more realism offers, but KSP is a game at heart - I can guarantee that 90% of the community isn't gonna care for compressor stall, mixture control, proper starting sequences etc. They just wanna fly in space and visit planets. I'd MUCH rather the devs focus their efforts on content that majority of the playerbase will want to utilise - more/better parts (we REALLY need more adapters, long/short landing wheel varieties, more 0.625m fuel tanks, etc.), basic life support, more planets, clouds, art improvements, etc.
  11. I mean, it's not really fair to blame them, because it's in the name - COUNTER-clockwise, "counter" meaning "opposite to the default", the default being clockwise. I don't really think one should be worried about default settings not lining up with arbitrary standard practices, especially since Kerbals are their own nationality. To me, the issues relating to physics are much more important than those relating to national convention.
  12. I wonder if having tweakable prop discs as a single part would’ve been a better idea. That way you could use smaller fudge factors.
  13. Yeah no you’re right, that’s pretty much what my argument stems from. It’s more about the principle of it, and teaching KSP players the right thing. Because at the moment what it teaches imo makes it more difficult than it should be. Regarding the European CW/CCW stuff, that doesn’t really apply to me because I already knew that the direction was defined being viewed from the front. But yeah, changing your engine to CCW fixes the invert issue.
  14. Sorry, I should probably elaborate that when I say that the devs got it wrong, I mean that the blade variants should have been mirrors of each other around a plane 90 degrees to the current mirror plane. The inverted deployment stuff would be solved by changing that. Under my method it'd be like this: Clockwise: Counter-clockwise:
  15. Can you elaborate what you mean by design-time creation of multi-engine layouts?