Lupi

Members
  • Content Count

    203
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

377 Excellent

6 Followers

About Lupi

  • Rank
    Resident Dragon of the Media Group

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://twitch.tv/lupidragon

Recent Profile Visitors

1,397 profile views
  1. Yeah, but setting it to 3 made my vessels I landed on Eve explode and shoot into the sky, and the auto spring/damper would always set it to 3 for whatever reason. That was fun to triage.
  2. Hey! just wanted to drop a nugget of information before anyone freaks out. If you're having weird glitches on your steam install, try doing this: Exit KSP, if it's running. Validate the game files. (Steam has been having issues pushing files correctly.) To do this, rightclick kerbal on steam, hit properties, then local files, then "verify integrity of game files". It'll probably say some files are missing, then redownload them. Go into the root folder of your KSP install, and delete PartDatabase.cfg. (It may have become corrupted, and validating doesn't fix it because this is a locally generated file.) Restart KSP. Should hopefully fix things! Like, weird nullrefs, odd behavior, et cetera. If something seems wildly wrong or just acts out fully like this: If that's not helping, try removing mods if you've added any. Could always be a compatibility issue there too!
  3. Not entirely true. The 1.25m rocket tanks were upgraded in place in 1.5. Other parts have received the same treatment, though it's not clear what the criteria are for "upgrade in palce" or "deprecate the old ones but leave them in the game"
  4. Ooh, this is super cool! I have a mechanics question, though: when kerbals run out of oxygen, is there/can we have some sort of early warning? Like with g-force, there's an orange warning about "x kerman is nearing g-force limits" before they pass out from the g-force and you get the red message that 'x has passed out from g-forces'
  5. If they give them artpasses, then their collider will probably have to be made faithful to their model rather than being a 2.5m cylinder or whatever it is now. I'm down if that's the case.
  6. reread the post again; you have to hit "cut chute" if i read it right
  7. Everyone getting so upset over the notion of a dab is making me want to suggest the fortnite dances as idle animations, or easter eggs. I want to watch the people who get upset over the things other people enjoy pull their hair out, and see the world burn Spyro did it.
  8. ...what base? we're looking at the same engine, right?
  9. As far as i can gather, all of the revamps have to fit into the same dimensions as the original parts. So, the mk2 landercan is the same size now as before, the sparks, adapters, the pods, rockomax tanks, 1.25m tanks, anything. Making the poodle longer wasn't an option in keeping with that.
  10. A few things to note: An engine is generally determined by the amt of turbopump assemblies/power packs that make it go, not the amount of combustion chambers/nozzles. It's why things like the RD-107, RD-170, RD-180, and so on were single engines despite having multple chambers. (As for why i'm only naming russian engines here, well, the US figured out big chambers (F1 and such) where Russia figured out more chambers. Different means to the same end.) As such, the poodle is still one singular engine, as such, just with dual chambers. More topically, russian upper stage engines like the RD-0110 and RD-0124 had four chambers. In addition, from what i was able to read and even more relevant to the subject matter, the RD-0124 does not individually actuate its nozzles for gimbal; it uses a structure much like the Poodle does here, where the whole frame is manipulated by those struts. While I agree roll control might be neat, engines like the Poodle do really exist and it's not wildly infeasible for an engine like this to lack roll. Most upper stages and landers (at least, the ones I can cook up) would have reaction controls anyway, and we also have the torque wheels to play with. Agreed here, though there's also an argument to be made for preserving 'character.' Like, I would love if they added the 4-way symmetry.... thingies, back to the Rockomax Brand Adapter in some way, as well as grey variants for the flat ones. I was trying to think up an idea for a rounded tankbutt shroud for the new Poodle as both a callback to the old mode's curviness, and because then it would look like a centaur tankbutt kinda. That, and it'd also probably satisfy the people who want a shrouded variant/boattail/what have you? Problem is, the poodle is really squat. with this i just mean the hemispherical part, i can add the greebles myself if i wanna put batteries, monoprop tnaks, cubesat storage, etc back there.
  11. In regard to compact variants, I'd direct you guys here: As for roll control, if you look at the model, the gimbal hardware is for the assembly as a whole, with those hydraulic/pneumatic/whatever struts connecting the ring to the engine assembly, so probably no individual roll control on the nozzles.
  12. That might be a trick of the backgrounds. My picture from the wiki is on a white background, where the preview is a dark blue. Of course, i haven't taken an eyedropper to it to see, but it looks right.
  13. It looks like the nozzles are based on the Cheetah from Making History, which is itself based on the LR-91 as Roverdude linked literally as i was typing this: Which i suppose makes sense, and adds more consistency to the kerbal family of engines. It seems like it's bein' panned a lot, so I'm curious. What other styles of nozzle might you guys suggest for this thing?
  14. Lupi

    KSP Loading... Our New Dev Diary!

    As for aircraft expansions? NASA was founded from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. Since its inception and even before, it pursued experimental aircraft alongside the military, including weird lifting bodies, the x-15, the hl-20... they're landing a helicopter on mars, creating solar electric aircraft... it was NASA research that concluded that adding winglets to airliners would substantially increase their efficiency. You can't just say "NASA hasn't done it, there's no room for kerbal to do it" without being grossly short-sighted and omitting a great number of the things NASA has worked on, past the shuttle. That first A? Aeronautics, buckos. This is largely just being brought up to refute a lot of the points people were making in bad faith about the merit of one. I have no strong feelings about getting one, one way or the other. Propellers, fuel or electric or otherwise, would be NICE, but between mods and stock bearings, they're vaguely doable without an expansion.
  15. Lupi

    KSP Loading... Our New Dev Diary!

    Hi! Time for another assembly of thoughts: First: This is a crude mockup, as most of mine will be, but the rockomax brand adapter 02 had all those ridges to help break up a very simple texture and add detail where there was none. Now that the revamp is giving it detail, the ridges might be a bit excessive. I kinda used clone stamp to thanos-snap half of them out of existence. I think cutting half of them out would preserve the spirit of the part while also bringing it up to new standards. Second: Would there be a way to add the external greebles back to the conical Rockomax Brand Adapter? Or at least, do something with the part's texture and normals to allude to them? I feel like omitting them, or any symbolic representation of them, falls away from "preserving the spirit of the part" like these other adapters have. Third: Can all of these adapters have plane white for structural or aircraft use? The black stripe is nice and all, but solid white is always a good option to bring to the table. Maybe even, for the flat ones, a grey variant for backwards compatibility to make sure my ships don't look radically different once 1.6 drops. a classical texture variant for the flat adapters (i always called 'em pizza plates, the rockomax adapter 02 and fl-a5) would be a nice offering! Fourth: I'm really glad the lander-can got shored up, those windows look a lot nicer now! You guys even rounded the corners! Going with the addition of a node to the back, would nodes on the sides be considered? They could be used for rover things in the butter stick variant, or used to node attach things within the service bays on the full side.