Jump to content

KerikBalm

Members
  • Posts

    6,176
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

3,464 Excellent

6 Followers

Profile Information

  • About me
    Capsule Communicator
  • Location
    Switzerland

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. My main use of the Kal was for differential torque/throttling of engines/motors for quad copters and similar vtols. Anyway, I consider it better than making history. Robotics open up so many possibilities (particularly with underwater exploration, which may not be expected), and surface features add a little something to surface exploration (I love the animated geysers and cryo volcanoes)
  2. Ignoring his lack of understanding of what combustion is - you are, and I guess he is, describing a resistojet rocket https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistojet_rocket They are pretty bad, but better than cold gas thrusters. I wouldn't use them for more than RCS - or maybe station keeping on a small satellite
  3. I prefer 6.25x, ie 2.5^2. It's easier to multiply orbital periods and dV requirements by 2.5x than... checks sqrt 6.4= 2.529822 I would have there be various difficulties Difficulty: rescale factor: orbital period and approximate dV multiplier Easy: 1x: 1x Medium: 2.25x: 1.5x Hard: 4x: 2x Expert: 6.25x: 2.5x Or maybe, depending on bodies and part stats: Easy: 1x: 1x Medium: 4x: 2x Hard: 9x: 3x Hard would be close to "real" scale, and would require parts with stats quite a bit better than those found in KSO1. In all cases, I wouldn't scale the atmosphere up by more than 1.25x Not true, you can make orbit in RSS with stock parts, payload fraction is terrible though. 1x scale is still much easier than real life - compensation is partial at best. I find 3-4x rescales to be about right for balance purposes. 6.25x gets to the limit. With a 350 isp LFO engine (poodle), you're getting a proportional dV less than that of a hyrdolox engine, while being saddled with poor mass ratios due to heavy empty tanks, and poor rocket TWR. For saves where I enable KRnD in KSP1, I play at 6.25x
  4. I don't fit any of those. I don't have a positive opinion of the product as is, and I don't have confidence that they will sufficiently remedy the situation. I hope they remedy the situation. I'm not going to be on here much, spreading the pessimism, because that may become a self fulfilling prophecy. I'm not going to blow smoke and say everything is great, because if the devs believe it is, that's not good either. So, I think it's best to sit back and be generally silent. Give praise where praise is due, and greet disappointment with silence.
  5. ^this^ As far as control, I haven't really made any helos that I would describe as "nimble" Quad copters are technically helicopters, you can make an ok control system with the KAL controller modifying rpms of the 4 rotors. I've made workable quad tiltrotor cargo aircraft that are controllable enough to land on top of the VAB, hangar roofs of the island airfield, etc. They are ponderous and require patient and gentle maneuvering in hover mode Other than quad copters, I do contrarotating rotors, Kamov helo style. With enough reaction wheels, they can be fairly nimble Another thing is the speed we expect from the helos. IRL, most helos fly slower than 200mph/320 kph, or less than 90 m/s. Really slow in ksp when you get used to jetting around at >mach 4 Helos don't do well at high speed, and retreating blade stall should also manifest in ksp
  6. No, it cannot be placed. Notice it is red. That is the preview for the placement, it won't get placed at all. Yea, I'm trying to go full stock, but text file editing is needed to use a ground anchor. Of course, a ground anchor is only really needed with scatterer modding which goes beyond visual mods and adds wave effects to spalshed down craft. So I had another idea, and that would be to: 1) send down a diving rig, while the floating part stays above, really light (floating high) Then after joining the floating part to the miner, the mined ore will weigh down the top part, which will be resting on the miner, preventing it from sinking down as it increases in mass - and hopefully it won't rise up with the waves, and will thus be stationary despite the wave action But this was very tedious, so I turned to robotics There were multiple candidate locations A simple set of linked extendable pistons (one hinge to pivot 90 degrees to point the drill down, another hinge to swing 180 degrees to allow for the drill to fold in half for storage) can give quite some reach, the bottom was accessible here: But one candidate location was almost too shallow, I had to drill at a slant - the next iteration will have the hinge oriented so that I can just point half the "drill" down, and leave the other half in the cargo bay: Of course, this looks more like a boat than a fixed base like the others, but it can serve the same purpose. Due to the robotic drift bug, in use I would just have it maneuver to one undersea mount, extend the drill, lock everything in place, and then stay there. I may try to change the robotic mounting so that the drills are below the CoM, and have some supports so that the craft can rest on the drill arm as it gets heavier (again, to avoid going up and down with the waves) So, EVA construction vs robotics: EVA pros: Lower part count, more flexible? EVA cons: Tedious to build, requires some precision to look right and be level, cannot get down lower than crush depth (if part pressure limits are turned on: 400 m for Kerbin, 500m for Laythe, about 235 for Eve I think) Robotics pros: Easier and quicker Robotics cons: higher part count, robotics associated bugs must be designed/worked around.
  7. One should always try to limit part count - so my fuel depot's are large 3.75 or 5m tanks It's a fuel depot, there's no need to be fancy. Some docking ports, a big LFO tank, and a big monoprop tank. Throw on a reaction wheel, probe core, solar panel, and relay antenna for convenience.
  8. You don't have to turn them fast, any reaction wheel will work for eventually. Or you could unclae, and re-claw facing the right direction
  9. Let's not forget that size and detail aren't the same thing. In 1999, Arma:CWC (then called Operation Flashpoint/OFP) had maps 12.8x12.8 km, with almost 60 km^2 of land 17 years later, Arma 3's expansion came with a map.... 15.36x15.36 km, and about 100km^2 of land. A modest increase in map size? The maps went from a 256x256 grid with a 50x50m cell size, to a 4096x4096 grid with a 3.75x3.75m cell size. The difference in the number of objects was astounding too. You should also look at detail, and resolution. A 1000x1000km featureless plain is not really "bigger", computationally speaking, than a 4x4km jungle map just packed with objects, and with a 1m terrain resolution Ksp planets, for the most part(including mods), are rendered from 1024x2048 (or 2048x4096) height map and texture, or simply from procedural generation, and have simple procedurally generated ground scatter. It actually not that impressive. It's the physics system that is impressive for KSP
  10. I don't know about the mods, but the stock one can't be placed by a Kerbal underwater, which was quite a disappointment for me. I had to place it on solid ground and text edit it underwater. So much for an underwater sub fueling/ballasting station - transfer too much stuff out of it, and it floats up, no sea anchoring. Also would be useful for floating bases with a seafloor connection and scatterer oceans that make waves actually move your craft up and down if floating
  11. With breaking ground in ksp1, you could have electric rotors propel your sub, powered by RTGs. Simple text editing could make surface features show up there
  12. Do they have the equivalent of a Kopernicus mod for KSP2 yet? This would also be a big factor for whether I purchase the game. I'm not interested in playing at 1x anymore
  13. No, I am not saying that at all. You have your opinion, I have mine. I am saying that our opinions different markedly, not that you opinion is dishonest. I just want them to do better. What I have seen is not enough, and I wouldn't want them to think their progress so far is satisfactory
  14. I absolutely agree that the science and career modes are lacking. I was quite disappointed by the "First Contract" update. It remains to be seen if KSP2 will do any better Agreed, the increased terrain detail was one of the things that excited me about KSP2 (I said as much on the giveaway thread). I'm sure the terrain is still polygonal, but I am guessing the "grid size" is much smaller (like arma:cwc's islands being about the same size as arma 3's Tania island, but the original had a height map with a 50m grid size, and tanoa's grid size was 3.75m). I haven't been able to judge that well from videos though. Can't tell how much is due to more detailed geometry vs just textures Not in it's*current state*. I do still hold out hope that it will get good. However I am not going to contribute to any impression that what they've done so far is satisfactory for the price
×
×
  • Create New...