Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Bartybum

  1. On 4/13/2022 at 4:39 PM, ensou04 said:

    Plugin Dev Update: Air Simulation!

    A New RSE Plugin Feature that simulates how Sound Travels in an Atmosphere. It Calculates Doppler Effects, Muffling due to Distance, Mach Cones and Realistic Comb Filtering Making Flybys more interesting.

    It doesn't do Sonic Booms yet but that's what I'm working on next and its gonna be part of ShipEffects Module.


    Gah this is amazing :wub: Seeing that you can directional sound working, how simple would it be to have engine sound that changes depending on direction? i.e., fan noise dominates the front, but exhaust noise dominates the rear

  2. 1 hour ago, Mr.dobsonian said:

    I would like to see at the very least more hints at lore with ksp2 to really get us thinking and make the theory train really go off

    Yeah same here. I don't need answers, but I want to get in on mystery and speculation.

    I always thought it was a missed opportunity that anomalies didn't contribute towards science (could have been done via surface outposts and science labs), and that they didn't contribute towards any actual lore of the game by the time of release. There was NovaSilisko's Duna SSTV signal, but beyond that there wasn't really anything else.

    This leads into what always bothered me about KSP, which was that there wasn't any point to the career mode beyond the tech tree. It was far too quick to complete (and the science labs basically broke the game), so once you had all the parts unlocked there wasn't really anything left to do. Anomaly science and lore would have made for some cool progression, and could have easily been done via contracts

  3. 3 hours ago, Ashandalar said:

    This really comes down to how well-balanced science progression will be. If, like in the current game, you can reach end-game tech without even leaving Kerbin's SOI, I agree it will be a problem. Getting obscenely-powerful engines as a reward for conquering the majority of the Kerbolar system, however, I don't have a problem with, as the real challenge will then be in getting to other systems and landing on the new exoplanets, and it doesn't matter so much that it trivialises reaching, say, Eeloo.

    I agree. I think the best case for this game would be to be KSP 1 (although a proper career mode), as well as 2. It really needs to explore the same stuff the first did, as well as all the new stuff too.

  4. 20 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

    I think the main hurdle preventing modders from doing it in KSP1 is the physics bubble. Once you switched focus away from the base, it would be Missing, Presumed Crashed. Maybe modders an weigh in on this but I've understood that this isn't a limitation that would be easy to remove, e.g. by just freezing the base in place when defocused or when it drifts outside the physics bubble, instead of having it start falling and then getting removed.

    Could this not be solved fairly easy with some programming? Check whether the ship's a dirigible, and if it is and it's at a standstill then freeze it in place. The only real problem I could see would be weather currents affecting the ship's position

  5. 9 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

    But yes; you're absolutely correct that having a single ship that can process it's own fuel without needing to dock with any additional facilities makes much more sense.

    Oh no no, I mean have a mining ship that takes raw resources to a nearby processing facility. To separate helium and hydrogen there may be some more complex and heavy equipment required than what can be afforded on a spacecraft.

  6. 2 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

    In a way if Gas Giant mining is ever a thing; i think it's going to resemble Oil Derricks of all things.  Something that could be assembled quickly, moved as needed, support a small crew to do the dirty jobs, then either sink beneath the waves or be recovered. Orbital stations would constantly monitor the "Cloud stations" and provide support, prepare crews for transfer/rotation, and take on supplies from freighters while providing a place for tankers to berth and take on the valuable Hydrogen cargo.

    A derrick/floating installation kinda seems superfluous if you think about the logistics of the whole operation. At its most basic, the derrick is just a floating pump with a reactor to power it. If you have a tanker ship that needs to rendezvous with the derrick to load the gas, then you're burning through a lot of fuel to slow all the way down, collect it and then get back into orbit.

    You'll end up chewing through all that dV just to stop and hook up with a pump. At that rate you may as well just carry the pump with you, scoop up the gas, and take it to an orbital refinery.

    If you're flying a ship with an efficient fusion reactor then you have no need for a mining installation to begin with.

  7. 55 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

    Is there any way to get lift in an atmosphere of mostly Hydrogen from airfoils? If so you might just be better off brute-forcing the issue by making a massive Fusion/Fission powered plane with Nuclear Thermal Jet Engines and flying around the planet on a regular pattern/schedule.

    As long as you have an atmosphere, you can have lift.

    Assuming you have a flying fusion reactor that can scoop up the hydrogen and extract energy from it without violating energy conservation laws then it's totally possible.

    In reality though, a permanent fusion aircraft would be neither possible nor responsible, because of material fatigue life and safety precautions (what if you experience a reactor shut down in flight? That's a likely goodbye sweet prince). Eventually you'd need to punch back into orbit, dock with a newer transport and then discard the old one. At that rate, it's likely more convenient just to have a dirigible.

    To be honest, while they are cool as hell, I wouldn't really see any purpose in having dirigible installations/colonies versus orbital counterparts equipped with atmospheric skimmer aircraft to handle mining. Assuming compact fusion works, I feel like there's less material speculation with orbital installations anyway.

  8. 2 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

    I suspect that the core group of those who are pushing very hard to institutionalize Options in KSP are the very same who are pushing equally hard to have their very own set of favorite mods "made standard" in KSP.  I think Opt-out is simply a concessional device in this argument: "why not?  you can always opt out...".  (Certainly, there are many others who may be in favor of Options, considered alone, simply because they are not considering the connections (maintainability and, particularly, extensibility)).

    The agenda of this core group appears to me to be, "I want the latest version of KSP NOW!; I don't want to wait for my mods to upgrade!; I want it all NOW!  Waaaa...!!!"?

    The extensibility of KSP has been a superb aspect of this game.  If you want "options", you can get anything you want at Kerbals' restaurant.  Install the mod (and leave my game alone)

    I consider myself in the core group, because I think options are necessary to help cater to more casual and inexperienced players, which has been the general consensus here AFAIK. However, I've seen no indication of us in this thread wanting mods to be made standard. I also don't agree with the idea that we have an agenda to rush the game.

    To me opt-out is by far the way to go - this is the game, and if it's too hard for your liking, here's some things you can disable to help you along. Balance the game to be played to its fullest first, and then sort the other stuff out.

  9. 11 hours ago, KSK said:

    Emphasis added. It's perfectly OK to just state that you disagree with me and move on without tying yourself in logical knots trying to get the last word in.

    Hurr durr I doubt that it'll affect balancing, but then I just say oh they don't care about balancing anyway. You are correct, and I apologise. I was under the impression we were talking about sandbox, and forgot about career.

    After thinking about it, I can see how optional/difficulty-based features like aero heating, and comm line of sight may affect career balancing, regarding funding rewards.

    If I don't need to set up a relay network first to send probes to a low orbit, the surface, or really far away from mission control, then my spacecraft will be cheaper. The reward I get will hence be worth more than the effort I put in. Likewise, if I can ignore aero heating, then I don't need to pay for heat shielding, nor do I need to carry as much life support (if enabled) to support multiple aerobraking events, and/or fuel for capture burns. I don't really see plasma blackout and G-limits impacting reward balance.

    For the player who doesn't really want to be penalised, leaving rewards alone would be okay.

    However, for the player that feels that they shouldn't be receiving as many rewards because they're not using all the hard features, fixing these balancing issues could entail identifying what each reward in the game is based on, and making them based on what features are and aren't enabled. Assuming the rewards are all hand crafted (I don't really think this is unreasonable), then I don't really see this as much of an issue in regards to balancing, as they need to spend time figuring out appropriate rewards anyway.

    So I'll concede that balancing may be impacted, but I don't think that balancing would necessarily be very difficult to do, at least from a rewards perspective. For the moment I think it's still too early in development to tell whether optional difficult features will have other balancing issues that negatively affect career mode.

  10. 6 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

    Walk the dog. Cook up a nice curry. Go to the beach. Kiss a girl (or boy, if that's your preference). Play some other game. Lots of things you could do.

    I'll take "gatekeeping" for $500, Alex. That sort of game really seems to be hostile to those who may just want something a little bit between relaxed and full on.

  11. 33 minutes ago, KSK said:

    Sure - but what else does ignoring thermal effects do? Does that stop engines overheating? Does it make any difference to the parts that need radiators? Okay, removing those effects also makes the game easier but it still means that switching off aero heating has knock-on effects that need to be balanced and that the player might not want.

    The player's already not looking for gameplay to be balanced, they're looking for it to be easier. You can still ignore aero heating while having overheating engines and functional radiators, since the two aren't solely dependent on aero heating.


    36 minutes ago, KSK said:

    So you phase in the various concepts gradually or have a decent and easy to find in-game reference to explain how they work.

    By all means, but that's not guaranteed to convince the player to keep them. They may be totally incompatible with what the player wants to do, like drop a large cosmetic mech out of orbit and land at the KSC in sandbox.


    37 minutes ago, KSK said:

    Antenna range isn't a particularly hard game mechanic to grasp and it's barely a factor anyway for LKO or Munar flights which is where new players are going to be spending most of their time.

    And yet the player may go nah screw that, I'm here for cool stuff not realism.

  12. 6 minutes ago, KSK said:

    G-limits - I remember seeing contracts where the whole point is to spin a kerbal fast enough to cause them to black out. What I don't know is how that is impacted by joint strength between the different parts and whether parts will separate under enough tensile stress, for example by spinning them fast enough. Any feature that relies on getting joint strength right is probably (maybe? sort of?) going to affect the game whether or not G-limits are switched on.

    But even then, that's just one contract out of a range of available ones. All it takes is to not make that one pop up if G-limits are disabled.


    8 minutes ago, KSK said:

    Aero heating - that seems like the most clear cut case to me. Off the top of my head it's going to depend on three things - achievable velocities within atmosphere, the atmosphere model of density against height and some kind of thermal model that tells the game how hot a part gets at a given speed in a given atmosphere density and at what temperatures do parts start exploding. Changing the first two of those is definitely going to impact the game even if aero heating is switched off and the third one might, depending how the thermal model is set up.

    Thermal effects are very likely gonna rely on velocity and air density. All the game needs to do is just ignore thermal effects. It's going to impact the game by making it easier, which is exactly what the person who's disabling it wants.


    40 minutes ago, KSK said:

    If I could flip your question around a bit though, what is it about those particular features that makes folks want to get rid of them? And rather than just throwing in the towel and making them optional, could you change them to be fun enough  that folks don't want to get rid of them, or at least are less likely to?

    I dislike the notion that it's "throwing in the towel". By all means, I'll welcome an attempt, but the way I see it, the only thing that's fun about it is the cool flames. Keeping the flames and disabling the heating is already a thing in KSP. It's wise to cover your ass in case the players you're trying to persuade with fun mechanics aren't persuaded.


    47 minutes ago, KSK said:

    That may not be possible of course, and I'm also mindful that too complicated or complexity for complexity's sake can be just as bad if not worse than a simpler feature. But still - fixing the feature rather than just making it optional is the way I tend to lean.

    A hard game is still a hard game, even if it's well made. Some people are gonna want the game, but aren't yet ready to tackle the learning curve in one go.

  • Create New...