Jump to content

ModZero

Members
  • Posts

    545
  • Joined

Reputation

290 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I think it makes a certain amount of sense from the "simulation" perspective - I don't imagine "storage compartments" as just large, structure-less voids with a bunch of snacks bouncing around next to a loose rocket engine. So I'd expect e.g. "an inflatable hab" to be stowed somewhere on the outside of the ship (like, you know, the one actually in space was hidden in the trunk - which is not a container). So from the "simulation" standpoint I think it makes sense for containers to be limited in what they can carry. This applies especially to mass - imagine a cube of plutonium just tearing through your entire storage at slightest acceleration. I do think that doing that properly is more complex than just a size or a single flag, and considering that putting things in inventories is also a way to cope with "game physics," I don't think this is a good limitation for a game.
  2. I'm fairly sure they wouldn't be, because yeah, it's not been updated, with a note about requiring docking port surgery. I was just wondering whether the issue is "lack of a feature" or more like "totes broken, just didn't show up in a quick test." I also didn't want to @-mention Nertea, because I'm anxious enough asking about an incompatible version of the mod at all ;-)
  3. So, because I'm an impatient girl, I kinda wanted to try using NFT Construction in a new save. At a glance, the docking ports work (just, no rotation, because duh - but for many (all) of them it wouldn't even make much sense I think? Also, I only tested the square ports on the ground with hacked gravity) - would I be massively screwing myself by using it? Obviously, warranty entirely voided if I go ahead with it
  4. An expensive, impractical and dangerous to knees coffee table?
  5. Same thing someone does at every release: go into the forum and bug modders for updates.
  6. I know exactly one, Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance. It's kinda neat, but I'd prefer a way for a separate app to read the game's state (which can be an issue in competitive multiplayer, yes), and I kinda expect that Telemachus-equivalent would be possible in KSP.
  7. Hi Angel, the link to this thread from your mod catalog is broken :-)
  8. ...the good news is that after loading a game the pop-up goes away, so it doesn't prevent you from actually playing.
  9. It seems like "large scale" space sims will become the exception - Star Citizen, for example, is built on doubles, AFAIK. But I think even they only do the physics in double precision, not rendering. And in rendering you need local space — far away objects are just dots and you don't actually do textures on them, and rendering a Kerbal walking on a surface of a planet can be fun.
  10. I doubt it can be open sourced in any meaningful way. It likely contains plenty of licensed 3rd party code that they can't just re-license to AGPL or whatever. Even if they spent the effort of separating the licensed code from their own, it's likely you couldn't run it or build it without the bits they can't even show you (at least with the engine they can show it to you and you likely can download it yourself). Otherwise we could speculate about e.g. releasing the code but not any of the assets, for example, or releasing the code for KSP1 (again, likely contains closed source code they don't have ownership of, so it's a bit of a fantasy) — that wouldn't be unheard of, notably ID Software did something like that multiple times.
  11. ...realistic look for a space program manager simulation? Yeah, that actually doesn't need bloom.
  12. Wait, you think they're there because they're realistic? I mean, sure, there's probably some authors who did them for that reason, but no, that's not why they're there. They're there to make the image more interesting and sometimes to mask shortcomings that would be impractical to correct otherwise. Also, as a glasses-wearer, eyeball grime is totally realistic.
  13. As I wrote, it enables a REPL which does help with this, but as for more complex module, eh, wrote enough of both Java and Django code and had enough of the former reload faster than latter to have doubt. But anyhow, I am happy there's a scripting interface as long as there's a REPL we can poke at somewhere, which does actually help a lot with messing with a thing's internals. Edit: of course a lot depends on the details. I didn't deal enough with C# and/or Unity (it's still Mono, right?) so maybe C# modules are really unwieldy or slow to load.
  14. I oppose the thesis of the sentence, not imply anything about whether it's good :-) You don't need an interpreted language for dynamic loading and/or unloading, nor having that automatically enables dynamic loading. You need some sort of dynamic linker (or a thing that fulfils the same purpose within the context), and if you want unloading, well-defined cleanup procedures. You can, and often have, dynamic loading with code written in C and C++ - that's how old browser plugins worked, that's how Linux, MacOS and Windows load device drivers (note to self: check how Windows does that now, they might have went all microkernely). I think having a scripting interface is great because it let's you have a built-in REPL prompt (REPL doesn't really work well for most compiled languages, they're not designed for that sort of thing and it gets unwieldy if you try), but that's different from dynamic loading. Sorry, it was obvious in my brain --' and I didn't want to take space with a huge paragraph. I didn't expect the "it's not a good thing" interpretation. Also, the forum didn't let me enter an emoji, I'm sad now.
×
×
  • Create New...