Commissioner Tadpole
-
Posts
1,022 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Commissioner Tadpole
-
-
9 minutes ago, Cavscout74 said:
They upgraded to a new version of unity with 1.8 and despite introducing a pile of new bugs - some fixed in 1.8.1, most of the rest in 1.9 I believe - it resulted in a game that runs smoother than it did in the 1.4 - 1.7 versions. I don't have any hard data to share, just my opinion that it loads faster and runs a little smoother. It's not a huge difference, but enough to be noticeable and enough to make me abandon a 1.7.3 career that was just getting kerbals to other planets in favor of the new version. And I know I probably could've moved the save over, but new major versions are usually my reason to start a new save.
Does 76 really count though? I don't think I've seen a single positive word about it anywhere
Kinda sad too, as I've played Fallout since the first one.
Oh, neat! Still, I don't really think my current computer could handle 1.9, since it's already aging, and I was wanting to wait 'til I could afford a Ryzen 5 3400G CPU and upgrade to 16 gigs of RAM (versus my current 8 gigs) and an SSD anyway.
And yeah, but the point I was trying to make is, if KSP 2 fails like 76 did, people would overwhelmingly stick with KSP 1 anyway
-
On 3/10/2020 at 8:07 PM, HansonKerman said:
people will leave ksp1. it’s the human way.
You... do realize that there are several old games that still retain a massive fanbase to this day, right? Just because a new game is released, doesn't mean everyone suddenly abandons the old one.
For example, there're still a lot of people (myself included) who continue playing Fallout: New Vegas and modding it to this day, despite it having been released in 2010 and two entire new Fallout installments (Fallout 4 and Fallout 76) having been released since then. Most fans of the Mario & Luigi franchise also greatly prefer the original 2003 Superstar Saga and 2009 Bowser's Inside Story over their 2017 and 2019 remakes, to the point AlphaDream went downright bankrupt after releasing the 2019 remake because none of the old-school fans of the 2009 original wanted to play the remake. There are also several fans of Need for Speed that greatly prefer playing the old 1994-2006 installments over the more recent games, to the point the old games still retain an active modding scene to this day... really, I could go on and on.
Honestly, if anything, I really wouldn't be surprised if KSP2 actually flops and gets terminated early on due to the majority of the fanbase preferring the original game over the second. Humans tend to hate change in general.
On 3/12/2020 at 3:02 PM, Cavscout74 said:You are probably going to have plenty of company - my laptop is nearly 5 years old. It was pretty good five years ago, but its showing its age. It might still run KSP2, but I'm not holding my breath that it will run it better than KSP1. I've seen a few others mention being in similar situations on here. I haven't actually upgraded to 1.9 yet, but my 1.8.1 game definitely runs smoother than anything from 1.4 thru 1.7.3
Oh, did they optimize the game? I haven't played KSP in a very long time (it was still in 1.4!) since it ran way too poorly in my computer, and I was waiting to be able to afford to get a computer upgrade before getting back into it. That's reassuring... but I still don't expect my puny lil AMD FX-6300 to be able to handle the game well ^^;
-
Hey, I apologize in advance if this is the wrong forum to make such a thread. But I don't really know where else I am supposed to go to, so here I am.
There's an old UI mod I'd very much like to toy with again, but sadly, I've forgotten what it was called. And no amount of Googling could help me find it again - all I found was a screenshot featuring a mod that seems to resemble the one I'm looking for, but the person who posted the screenshot never said what mod it is:
Now, I'm still not sure if that screenshot is showing the exact mod I'm looking for - because, while it shows the exact kind of UI bar in the lower half of the screen featuring the space program's flag, and text to the right of the flag, the mod operated more like news headlines, and it was meant to be used in AARs to simulate news coverage of spaceflights. It even had the option to have the game be in sepia, black & white and CRT to simulate the transition of time instories, which is the feature I found to be the most appealing of it all. It's a darn shame I can't find the mod anywhere, I really wanted to toy with it.
Does anyone know what the mod's called? I'd really appreciate any help, and once again, I apologize if I wasn't supposed to post this here.
-
So, I'm not sure if this is an Alternis problem in specific, but science experiments don't give me any unique flavour text. For example, if I collect a Crew Report while landed on Laythe, it only tells me something along the lines of "Collected data from Surface of Laythe," despite the mod having an actual configuration file for science definitions. Is it because I'm on Sandbox mode? I recall that restriction being lifted in a past update, so I am confused. Additionally, Distant Object Enhancement does not give distant planets their appropriate colours. For example, when looking at Eve's glowing dot from the orbit of Jool, it glows purple instead of yellow. The OP says the planets have their proper dot colours, so I am confused.
Also, any chances of the city lights being reintroduced in a future update? I think those lights are what make Kerbin truly special, and it'd be even more notable when observing it from the surface of other joolian bodies.
-
I use a mod(KAS) that adds fuel hoses, trivializing the refuel process. You can see the hose part attached to the z4k battery in the side-view of my lander prototype.
I play on Sandbox, so the tech tree is maxed out.
The docking port does not need to be a Senior; the space station is not even designed yet.
I made it a Senior port so I could attach it directly to the bottom of the lander without having to make adapters. -
I'm sorry for the late response, but: Yes, I did think of spaceplanes; I didn't choose them because I'm not exactly stellar in flying and designing spaceplanes, or planes at all.
However, when analyzing the situation more closely, I do think that a spaceplane carrier would be more efficient than a rocket-lander, considering its higher fuel efficiency and precision. I just hope it won't be too extraordinarily hard to pilot(and perform rendezvous with the station)
-
I've been planning to establish a long-term colonization on Laythe for a while now, considering so far the only non-Kerbin planet I ever sent Kerbals to was Duna, with a very lackluster base. Because of it being long-term, I plan to have a space station orbiting Laythe with two landers on standby, which must be almost completely reusable and be able to ferry at minimum six Kerbals from the station to the base(s), with maximum efficiency. With those restrictions in mind, and considering that I plan to keep the space station at an altitude of 150-175km(to make the rendezvous easier for me), I managed to design a hefty lander packing 3.8 m/s of dV, space for seven Kerbals, and a jumbo docking port on the bottom, which also counts on being refueled when landing on Laythe by virtue of the base(s) being equipped with fuel refineries and rovers able to ferry the fuel:
As you can see, the reason for the unusual placement of the docking port(below instead of on top) is in favour of a RealChute parachute, designed to work flawlessy(mostly) on Laythe - which is why the lander is not completely coated in 'chutes. Unfortunately, RealChute has a hardcoded limit of 10 uses per parachute part, after which it will no longer work; as it will have to be replaced by a new parachute part through KIS, this is why the lander is only 95% reusable - and not using parachutes at all is a terrible idea as the lander completely loses control when entering Laythe's atmosphere - being the very first craft I've seen that prefers to fly face-first when I intend it to fly butt-first, while it's normally the other way around. (Re-entry heating is disabled in my save file because I have barely mastered proper drag-friendly crafts, let alone drag-friendly heat-freindly crafts)
Nevertheless, using HyperEdit, I did multiple simulation flights with Laythe and, despite those shortcomings, de-orbiting and landing in Laythe is something the lander can do(with some trouble regarding loss of control; it can end up flying sideways and therefore gliding far away from its intended destination). The true problem is taking off again and reaching orbit: It just doesn't have enough fuel. Sure, it can attain an apoapsis that's above the atmosphere(thanks to a planet pack, the atmo height is raised to 66km instead of 50km; pressure and grav are unchanged), but it will be left with just 900-800m/s of dV left, when over 1100m/s are needed to complete the circularization. And this is without accounting the fact that the lander would still need to rendezvous with the soon-to-be space station at 150-175km of altitude...
Either the lander is fuel-inefficient, or I am doing a wrong ascent profile. And I did check a guide for ascent profiles, but when I tried that, it just resulted in the lander deciding to fly into the ground. (Considering that guide was aimed toward large Kerbin crafts, it's possible its advice just doesn't apply for this situation) Thus, I'm wondering if anyone is able to help me with either/both problems. I'm looking to try and optimize its fuel consumption as much as I can(the aerospikes are the most efficient engines available: the Terrier is too weak, and everything else is either too powerful/inefficient, or has a mismatching size) to be useful in case of an emergency, and find out a more efficient way to get the lander up into Laythe orbit. As well as possibly find out what's causing the lander to completely lose control when braking into Laythe, as that will definitely end up causing problems later on regarding landing precision and the time spent ferrying Kerbals and fuel.
And yes, the Center of Mass is above the Center of Lift, which is above the Center of Thrust. And here is the lander's .craft file, in case you need it or just want it.
-
As there was no shown solution to the "ships teleporting inside Jool" bug, and the 1.3.1 update made my game crash with the outdated mods, I had no choice but to abandon that save and create a new one, HyperEditing my crafts back on Laythe again. (Trust me, it's harder and more frustrating than it sounds like; at least I could redesign the base to be more part-efficient and have some things I forgot to send) I managed to place it in an area that actually has trees, and boy... I see you added even more alien-like trees to Laythe. Compared to the trees that had golden rings or sunflowers growing on them, the trees with giant eyeball textures actually look pretty unnerving for me.
Guess I'll have to take care not to let these specimen somehow escape to Kerbin. A sudden burst of eyeball trees isn't something people would like to see. (Though I'm sure there'd be lots of Kerbals who would like to try out the eyeballs as if they were alien fruit)
However, please do try to find out what was causing that Jool teleportation issue sometime, please(even though I'll probably use this new savefile in the future). It was reasonably simple to restore what I did since I only set up a ground base and a few probes around(though it was frustrating), but if it happens on a save file that's very advanced with bases on Laythe, Duna, Eeloo and space stations on Eve and Tylo... well, it's going to be extremely frustrating, to say the least.
In another topic, I looked at Eve with the cloud pack, and was amused to find that there's a huge plateau located right above the clouds. Reminds me of the concept for Fonso(a planet with mountains extending above the atmosphere), as well as the idea of having flying cities on Venus, skirming at the upper atmosphere due to being more habitable than the lower atmo. My question is: does that super-tall plateau actually extend above the atmosphere? If so, how difficult would it be to land over there, considering parachutes cannot be relied upon?
-
Hi, unfortunately updating my mod from v2.0.2 to v2.1.1 caused all of my crafts on Laythe to teleport inside Jool and explode. What should I do to fix it?
-
@GreeningGalaxy The download link for your Kerbal Heads is down. It's a shame, I'd really like to get the Serious variant.
I've also noticed that many other textures are outdated or also down, while the income of new textures is at an all-time low(the only reliable pack is the Renaissance mod, and it adds too many things I don't care for). I'd just like a good-looking pack of Kerbal heads for either gender(prefferably with non-bearded males, and females without makeup).
Also, @Cosmic_Farmer I really like some of the IVA suits in this image showcasing your head mod - specifically the ones from the first and fourth Kerbals(though mostly the foruth) from left to right. It resembles casual clothes which astronauts do wear while within a space station or in a ship idling as it's more comfortable than an IVA suit. Could you or anyone else point out where to download those suits, and possibly to find a pack with more casual clothes like those?
-
22 hours ago, Val said:
Solar power is very weak on Laythe compared to Kerbin. And panels are draggy. I'd go for FuelCells or RTG.
A "car"-type landing gear, with the rear landing gear far back, is generally very unstable on aircraft. Put the Landing gear beneath CoM and Rover wheels further back.
3 engines is a lot for such a small craft. Here's a single engine super sonic craft inspired by yours.
It's stable as an aircraft both on the runway and in the terrain and as a rover on rover wheels. Quite forgiving and robust as you can see in these videos.
That worked. It's a little stiff and seems to want to stall at times, but I have that problem with all planes, so it's okay. Thanks!
-
None of the solutions worked. Pushing the vertical stabilizer back hardly had any effects, while adding canards gave the plane so much lifting force that steering it even as softly as possible causes it to spin uncontrollably - and unless I'm very high up in the air, this'll result in me crashing.
-
I've been planning to set up a base on Laythe, and one of the things I intend to send there are plane-rover hybrids to explore the myriad of islands across the moon. However, upon designing such a plane and testing it on Kerbin, it displayed severe flight issues, such as:
• Flipping out of control when taking off - airplane must taxi at ~70m/s and make a jump, then shove throttle to 100% to accelerate quickly. It will spin out and crash when doing a conventional takeoff.
• Easily losing control when turning around on the atmosphere - When turning around, it'll wackingly spin around and then go back to its initial position. To steer, you must do so slowly and carefully.
• Hard time landing - It's hard to properly orientate the plane because it will not budge when steering unless doing a full bank turn, and when trying to land, it will bounce right up and start spinning uncontrollably.
I'd like to fix the problems I have with the plane, so if anyone could point out some bad design choices I did, it'd be welcome. I have taken five screenshots from the plane in order to help.
-
48 minutes ago, samstarman5 said:
If you think about it, it's not the kerbals themselves that are the craft, but their spacesuits with attached EVA gear that makes for the craft, with the kerbal still being the operator/pilot. And as long as they are out in the field, as in anywhere that's not inside the Astronaut Complex, they will be wearing their suit.
Gets me to imagining a kerbal spacesuit with an OKTO drone sitting inside the helmet for doing unkerballed EVA missions.
That'd be awesome! (And hilarious, as well)
-
On 26/01/2016 at 0:10 PM, Evanitis said:
Ahh wait, there's a guy around somewhere who's avatar kinda' summarizes my memories from the early KSP...
Yup, there it is:
What's that, grandpa?
I also have a couple of fun scenarios in the Demo from late 2013. It's hilarious to look at those pictures in that thread.
-
5th Horseman hit the nail right in the head. I suffered a lot of burn-outs as well, and your best bet is to leave KSP on the side while you play something else. Eventually, your interest in it will rekindle and you'll be back to it in no time!
I suffered a minor burnout as well a little time ago, after thinking my Laythe expedition won't work/is pointless, so I just decided to play Driver: San Francisco, and now I feel the urge to continue setting up the expedition again. Bye-bye, study time.
-
Though I joined the forums at around November of 2013, I got the game a little later than that, and I don't remember when exactly. I do remember, however, that I got it at 0.22's last moments, as 0.23 was released not too long afterward.
Ah, I remember the times I struggled on how to go to the Mun in the Demo, and made giant hourglass rockets trying in vain to reach it... Good times.
-
Just now, Snark said:
Okay. So, yes, it's a light and fluffy payload, which is exacerbating your problems.
My advice: Lose the fairing. You're getting virtually zero benefit from it. Your payload is already fairly streamlined, with just a few radial parts sticking out. And with a rocket as huge as yours is, it's not even going to notice the drag from a few landing legs and solar panels. Replace that short conical adapter with the taller one, so that it'll be more streamlined. Rotate your Gigantors so that they're in the default vertical orientation, rather than horizontal, so that they're more streamlined on ascent. Ditch the fairing entirely.
(Do you have the tech for an RTG? If so, put on a couple and ditch the Gigantors entirely. Solar panels really suck, out by Jool. You get more power-per-mass with an RTG, out there.)
Thank you, this worked perfectly!
-
Just now, Snark said:
Yeah, +1 to that, I'd say the fairing looks like the most likely culprit. Other than that, everything about the rocket looks good.
It's true that the new aero encourages tall/pointy rockets, which is a slight ding against asparagus, but in general the bigger the rocket the less it has to care about aerodynamics, so I don't think there's too much of a problem with your design there.
- Streamlined design? Check.
- Fins on the back? Check.
- Steerable fins? Check.
- Engines with gimbal ability? Check.
- Reasonable launchpad TWR? Check.
About the only other thing I can think of (besides the fairing itself) is, what's inside that fairing? How massive is it? If it's something really light, that could also be a problem. Perhaps a screenshot from the VAB, showing the CoM marker and the fairing contents?
The payload is the base I'll use on Laythe.
The payload's mass is around 7000kg, if you're wondering.
-
As I got my new computer yesterday, I recently started playing KSP again(in glorious 60fps/30fps instead of 4fps), and decided to head for Laythe instead of Duna this time. Unfortunately, it has been a long while since I last played KSP, and I lost my flight abilities. I designed a rocket that seems to look aerodynamically stable, but every damn time it suddenly flips over and flies on its butt at around 6km altitude, no matter how fast I am going. I am not doing the "head straight up and then turn 45° at 10km" strategy as I am aware it does not apply anymore - I am slowly doing the gravity turn as soon as I take off. What am I doing wrong here?
This is the rocket:
Note: The rocket had asparagus staging when I took the picture, but I later removed it, thinking the staging was the problem. It wasn't - the rocket still flipped.
-
Why not both? (Yay!)
But really, I think both have their perks. Dogs are loyal and friendly, while Cats are just plain adorable and fluffy. Problem is they have their flaws, too; I've met more than a handful of dogs who have an "attack first, ask questions later" policy, and some cats made a habit to ruin every object they see by scratching it.
-
7 hours ago, Rune said:
Hum. The first thing that comes to mind is the the star's swelling to red giant is not something instantaneous. I will be the first to admit that I now next to nothing about the particularities of star evolution, but that seems to be the kind of even that, while happening in the blink of an eye in cosmic timescales, might be quite long on human scales (say, 100,000 years?). So your impending doom might very well be a slowly swelling star, still far from full-fledged red-giant, creating a runaway greenhouse effect, increasing the acidity of oceans, thus killing plankton, which causes the entire biosphere to collapse in short order once some critical isolation level is reached. In the meantime, the climate swings will create plenty of natural disasters like supertornados and that kind of thing. As the oceans slowly evaporate and the rate of atmosphere loss increases, the oxygen content in the atmosphere falls, and CO2 rises. Long before tides can crack the crust (a pretty extreme scenario, BTW), you will have a barren rock of deserts and extremely salty shallow seas. Volcanism would accelerate the greenhouse effect, by releasing trapped gases from underneath the crust.
Rune. Unless you also have a huge moon that is coming close to it's Roche limit at the same time... that would be a pretty spectacular Armageddon, with rings and Kessler syndrome involved.
Ah, biological collapse. I like it. And also lets me keep the plant concept(which is indispensable). And yeah, maybe the tidal forces were over-the-top. I guess they won't occur.
6 hours ago, Scotius said:Red dwarfs do not go through red giant stage - you need a star similiar to our Sun sizewise. Another matter is the distance of the planet - To survive star's expansion stage mostly intact, this planet would have to orbit far away from star's initial habitable zone. For instance Earth will be burnt to cinders by Sun in couple billions of years. Heck! Mars will be a scorched desert then. If initially your star would be a red dwarf, its habitable zone would be tiny, and very close to the star - no way it would survive the expansion. And finally - planet-wide forcefield keeping the planet somewhat habitable while skimming outer layers of red giant's atmosphere? Now that's a feat of engineering that should register on Kardashev's Scale. What is keeping this super advanced civilisation from abandoning the proverbial ship?
Oh. What a shame. I kind of wanted the star to be red, as it'd give me an excuse to make the plants red without it being unrealistic. And yeah, I was also concerned about the planet-star distance, but I figured it'd end up being answered anyway.
And yeah, this is a pretty advanced civilization - in the Kardashev Scale, they would likely be entering Level 2. Unfortunately, they're too stubborn and don't accept changes, which makes them unwilling to leave their homeworld. This ends up being the moral of the story: "don't be stubborn, and know when to accept change or stick with the old ways".
4 hours ago, Rune said:Whoops. As I said, not really great on stellar evolution, THAT would be the first thing to bring up. The "forcefield" I purposely ignored, since it's magic by definition... and as I said, the planet dies in a very short timescale (compared to stellar evolution timescales) when the star's energy output changes by even a small percentage.
If you change the star completely, though, you could make it a big one and then the instability that threatens the civilization could be as simple as solar flares (think Carrington Event every few weeks/months) and a slight increase in energy output. Most big stars are nowhere near as stable as sun-like ones (again, anything star-related happens on long timescales, from a human point of view, even supernovae can last months, and that is the closest to "instantaneous" a star gets), and their radiation bursts would sterilize any accompanying planets... and against radiation, you can use magnetic fields as protection. It would be an astronomical energy expenditure to protect a planet, but perhaps cities can be forgiven by the educated reader (and let's gloss over the fact that dumb mass is a much better radiation shielding than electromagnetic fields).
Yup, a big moon close to its Roche limit + a finicky big star seems to be the best realistic fit to the scenario you seem to want, even though its effects are substantially different than the ones you describe. That would produce, at the same time, big tides, huge climate chanes, runaway greenhouse, increased volcanism, and a big Kessler syndrome when the moon breaks up, plus a lot of meteorite impacts. Very apocaliptic indeed!
Rune. Stars can also have radiation bursts when stuff falls into them, IIRC, but it has to be pretty significant stuff.
Not really magic, just science so advanced it's indistinguable from magic.
I'm open to changing the star. I suppose a Blue Giant can work(and nicely, since I quite like the colour blue). Could it also influence plant life to get a blue colouration like red stars might make plants reddish? I do like the idea of stellar radiation bursts, and using a magnetic field is more realistic than "lol its a magic barrier in everything but name".
Also, protecting only the cities rather than the entire world is actually a rather good idea, since later on I do pretend to have the main characters return to the world and explore its ravaged wilderness - the cities being the only safe places.
3 hours ago, Scotius said:I just don't understand why are you trying to cram so many disasters, at the same time, into one story
A single extinction event should be enough to push any civilisation into panic mode (hopefully controlled panic).
Well, it was mostly to show how this civilization was so determined to not leave their homeworld behind it'd end up being their death in one way or another. But, looking back at it, I notice I went quite a bit overboard...
Also SomeGuy, your idea seems rather similar to the Fallout series.
-
I've been imagining a fictional species(three, actually) for writing a story/game(whichever comes first), and a key point for them is that they reside in a world that is on risk of being destroyed by one of three risks - if a risk doesn't end up killing it, the other one(s) will - but are too stubborn to leave it behind. However, I want those to be as realistic as possible, and i'm not sure if I made them to work correctly - I was never that good in physics or chemistry - so, I'd like to discuss whether those disastrous outcomes would actually occur when in the right situation.
• The main risk, and arguably the one who set everything moving foward, is when the planet's star, previously a red dwarf, suddently swelled into a red giant, consuming the inner worlds and causing the surviving ones to be burned into a crisp. The homeworld survived, but its temperature was far higher than normal, its plants have been withering away under the heat, the seas and lakes were drying up, and the ozone layer was being destroyed. In order to stop the chaos from happening, they created a force field to serve both as a makeshift ozone layer, and to hold up against the increased heat. This force field later ends up struggling a lot as the red giant continues to grow bigger.
• Also in a bid to prevent the previous risk, they made artificial plant life to replace the previous one. Made to be far more resistant to the current climate *and* to filter hot air into cold air, they were spread across the entire planet to rebuild. Alas, even though it was a noble attempt, it did little to stop both the next risk and to calm down the population, which agreed that their homeworld was lost and that it'd be better off to just leave. This ends up being the risk that destroys the world, as one of the leaders - there being six in total, due to the government being a technocracy - grows rabid and too attached to his homeworld, and takes control of the plants to "assimilate" those who don't agree with him - at this point being everyone.
• The final risk, while not exactly related to the star, was almost certainly caused by it. By mixing the tidal forces of the star with that of the homeworld's biggest moon, the result wound up being far, far more potent tidal forces storming against the homeworld, causing numerous cracks to open on its surface, releasing both molten lava and abominations which resided deep underground - and as they were primarily adapted to survive in such hostile conditions, the overground was easy prey for them, and became essentially an invasive species, taking over large swatches of land at alarming rates. The ravines also continued to crack open due to the relentless tidal forces, eventually taking down entire cities in the process. The planet was basically becomming swiss cheese.
This all sounds pretty macabre, but my abilities to make characters suffer is not the key point in here - and most of the plot would not take in that world, anyway. Would those apocalyptic scenarios actually work in real life, presented in appropriate circumstances, or they ultimately end up being fantastic and unrealistic?
-
Could you explain how you made the lava oceans actually work on Kovus? I'd like to make a few lava worlds myself.
A single extinction event should be enough to push any civilisation into panic mode (hopefully controlled panic).
I have a big problem
in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion
Posted
What's an NVME, and how do I tell if a motherboard can use it? Due to getting a new CPU that is incompatible with my current mobo, I'll have to upgrade to a new one - a Gigabyte GA-A320M-S2H Micro ATX AM4, to be specific - and I'm wondering if it'd have a slot to put it in.
Hey, KSP isn't the sole reason I intend to get an SSD for - I have plenty of other games that are extremely slow to load (Paradox games, heavily-modded Starbound, heavily-modded Fallout: New Vegas, etc), so there are still plenty of reasons for me to get an SSD ^^;
Hopefully the 16 gigs of RAM would greatly help out as well. I also hope that my new build will also be enough to run KSP 2...