Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'discussion'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • General KSP
    • KSP Discussion
    • Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission ideas
    • The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP Fan Works
  • Gameplay and Technical Support
    • Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
    • Technical Support (PlayStation 4, XBox One)
  • Add-ons
    • Add-on Discussions
    • Add-on Releases
    • Add-on Development
  • Community
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website
  • KSP Pre-release
    • 1.2.9 Pre-release Branch
    • 1.2.9 Pre-release Modding Discussions
    • 1.2.9 Pre-release Bug Tracker


  • Developer Articles

Found 14 results

  1. PLEASE NOTE THIS IS NOT A THREAD TO COMPLAIN TAKE IT ELSE WHERE THANK YOU So I am sitting here watching my modded KSP load and I wait patiently. I sit here and I wonder, what is the average time that everyone else waits for their client to load up? I am sitting pretty with about 106 some items in my GameData Folder. I usually wait for around, 30 mins for the game to load. What is the average wait time for you? By you I mean anyone that is taking the time to read this? I have a pretty modest gaming rig, I have an FX 8-core AMD processor, a dated Gigabyte Motherboard, 16 Gb of DDR3 Ram, and a Shiny New STRIX GTX 1060OC. I have thought about trimming my Mod Files, I am looking to make a Extensive Play-through Series. I will share what my GameData (see spoiler for link) Folder looks like, if anyone has some pro tips or what not, let me know.
  2. Recently, I was scouring about the internet and I realized how exoplanets are quite varied, from near-moon sized ones to some about half the size of the sun (Those ones of course might be brown dwarfs.) and I feel like we need some way to categorize them. So here are my ideas of some categories and their abbreviations. I'll be using new and some traditional planet categorizations to make this as wholesome as possible. (I'm going to be using the word planet instead of exoplanet because it's easier to abbreviate that way, anyways...) Terrestrial Planets (TrP) - A planet that is made of mostly solid materials like silicates and metals. ----- Distance from Star ----- Hell Worlds (HW or UHTrP) - Terrestrial Planets impossibly close to a star, reaching temperatures exceeding some stars Sub-Earth Hell World (S-EHW) - A planet less than 0.6 ME and/or less than 0.8 RE. Earth-Sized Hell World (E-SHW) - A planet with a similar mass and/or size to earth. Super-Earth Hell World (Sp-EHW) - A planet with over 1.5 ME and/or is no bigger than 2 RE. Mega-Earth Hell World (M-EHW) - A planet with at the most 10ME and is bigger than 2 RE. Hyper-Earth Hell World (H-EHW) - @ProtoJeb21's terrifying Tatarus (EPIC 220395236). Easily exceeds 10 ME and at the least is 3 RE. This kinds of planets can only happen if the stellar flux is at least 1,000 times of what it is on Earth and the star is bigger than a G-type (as far as i'm concerned.) ^ Hot Terrestrial Planets (HTrP) - Planets that are, well, hot. they range from ~2000K to 700K Warm Terrestrial Planets (WtrP) - tbd ----- Mass of the Planet ----- ----- Size of the Planet ----- Gaseous Planets (GaP) - A planet made mostly of gas, basically Jupiter or Saturn-like planets. Hot Gaseous Planet (HGa or HJ) - Gas Planets that orbit quite close to their home star Class III Gaseous Planet (C3G or C-LG) - Gas Planets that have no clouds, besides the ones near the surface. Class IV Gaseous Planet (C4G or AlG) - Gas Planets that have alkali metals as clouds. Class V Gaseous Planet (C5G or SlG) - Gas planets that have silicates as clouds, these are the hottest type of gas planet. Temperate Gaseous Planet (TGa) - Gas Planets that orbit within the habitable zone of a star Class II Gaseous Planets (C2G or WCG) - Gas Planets that are too hot for ammonia, but have a potential to have similar clouds as Earth's. Cool Gaseous Planet (CGa) - Gas planets that orbit at about the same SMA as Jupiter or Saturn Class I Gaseous Planets (C1G or AmG) - Gas planets that have ammonia clouds or something similar Planemo (PlM or RgP) - Planets with no star, basically a rogue planet. *Sub-Earth Rogue Planet (SRP) - Rogue planets that are smaller than Earth *Earth-Sized Rogue Planet (ERP) - Rogue Planets that are similar in size, mass, and/or density of Earth Gaseous Rogue Planet (GRP) - Rogue Planets that are mostly made of gas. However, they are likely to be hydrogen and/or helium. Warm Rogue Planet (WRP) - Rogue Planets that are noticeably and unusually warmer than the surrounding space Brown Dwarf (BrD) - Stars that failed to go under nuclear fusion: They'll still be planets since they're made of common materials from gaseous planets. Near Brown Dwarfs (NBrD) - Planets that are almost brown dwarfs but not quite. Y-Type Brown Dwarfs (YBrD) - The coldest type of Brown Dwarf L-Type Brown Dwarfs (LBrD) * = Skeptical or to be founded. ^ = Value is dependent on the type of star Notify me if you want something to be changed or add something new I'll try to update this everyday, but that might not be possible since school's coming up.
  3. Discussion thread for @ShadowGoat's idea for a battle Royale. Results as well as the final video (If I have the time for that sorta thing) Will be here
  4. This is a thread to talk about the planets and findings of the Kepler Space Telescope. It also includes the K2 mission as well, along with candidate planets from both missions. Here are some Space Engine screenshots of a few Kepler candidate multiplanetary systems:
  5. Figure I would get this particular topic rolling With lots of modders using custom categories, we're starting to bump into each other. Is there interest in establishing, similar to CTT and CRP, a Community Category Kit (CCK)? If so... What categories are you currently using? How are you placing your parts in those categories? (Paging @Angel-125 and @Nils277 since those are two off the top of my head where we may have conflicts). Discuss [Heads up - will move this to a proper release thread, but here's the current Github link for interested parties :)]
  6. I suggest or would (very much) like to see procedurally generated planets. So that the player is able to keep exploring endlessly on different planets in/with different positions (orbits). My second suggestion is to add adequate objects such as (moving) volcanoes and cryovolcanoes. I really like the easter eggs, but this will be a more frequent special features of a planet or moon. I would like to know how/if this is do-able in KSP, and what does the community think about this? (have I spelled everything correctly? ) Apart from that: A lot of real life planets have unique features that make them special such as Tritons young surface and Titans cryovolcanoes. Some moons even have a very thin atmosphere and/or retrograde orbit. That is what I like about space, and I think Kerbal Space Program has this too but at smaller scale. Yet I love it.
  7. I love stock KSP, but there's obviously a lot of room for improvement. While mods do a great job of improving KSP, there's still some desires of mine that I've never seen addressed. I might as well share these ideas. These aren't requests, but just for discussion. Super fast interplanetary travel. I recently read a sci-fi novel (2312 by Kim Stanley Robinson, if you're curious), and in it humanity uses super efficient and powerful means of propulsion to cross the entire solar system in just weeks. They do this by continuously burning their engines as they travel to their destination. I'd love to see something like this in KSP, because not only does it make interplanetary missions almost as easy as travelling to the Mun or Minmus, you can leave for your destination at any time you want (no waiting or the launch window). Automated space exploration and construction. Launching every individual spacecraft you'll ever need and managing them yourself gets old. One idea I've had is to automate the process. By giving orders to the space center and off-world construction sites (orbital docks, surface colonies), they can build and launch spacecraft on a given schedule. For example, suppose you want a huge colony ship to be constructed and launched out to Laythe every time the Kerbin-Jool launch window arrives. Tell your colony to build the specified craft and send it into orbit, and soon enough it'll be on its way without you ever lifting a finger. Once it lands it can then do whatever you want it to. Politics and conflict. For decades you've maintained colonies around the solar system. However, your colonists and their offspring have grown tired of your control. They break away and start exploring space on their own. Now there's another space agency in the solar system, which will manage their own spacecraft and missions, and the connection between you and them is crucial. You can maintain a positive interaction with other agencies by trading resources between colonies, working together on join space missions, and sharing technologies with your partners. You can cooperate with old governments on Kerbin or new ones around the system, all with unique personalities and benefits. Or you could have it all once again by launching warships to take your colonies back by force. Surface and space events. First, let's discuss how to make planet and moon surfaces more interesting. Each world can have their own unique environment; for example, hurricanes and winds on Eve, sandstorms on Duna, quakes on Minmus, geysers on Vall, etc. All would have the potential to harm your mission, but also could return a huge science boost. Then there's space: Eve, Kerbin, and Jool would be surrounded by deadly bands of radiation; CMEs and other solar storms from the Sun; micro-asteroids (a warning would be given, of course). Again, running into them could make or break a mission. What do you guys think? Any criticisms? Additions? Sorry if any of these ideas are commonly suggested and/or already are mods; I've been away from KSP for over a year, and thus haven't checked out the modding scene in a while.
  8. This has to do specifically with orbits and them not stay where I damn well put them. Also this is more of a mod request thread then anything else. I propose a mod that does a few things, mainly to improve remote tech and the new satellite systems. But could also have uses outside that. It would work like so: 1. If an object has a extremely similar orbit to another object (what the mod considers 'similar' could be tweaked till it felt right) the moment that the object loses focus (you switch to another vessel outside of the render distance) the objects orbits get changed so that they match perfectly. 2. I was going to have a few more points (stipulating that unless thrust was intentionally applied, the orbit would be reset back to what it was before focus was gained in order to avoid accidentally changing orbit while twisting or otherwise interacting with the craft in a way that doesn't provide force but changes where exactly the centre of mass is relative to the orbit) but I realised that 1 would more or less solve that issue anyway. I have played around with making the mod myself but outside of some rudimentary dives into things like Lua my coding skills are sub-par for sure. If anyone could potentially make this mod, you would have my eternal gratitude because this seemingly insignificant details has frustrated the absolute hell out of me since I noticed it.
  9. Given that the upper tiers are not yet filled, it seems pretty clear that Squad intends to revisit Kerbal experience at some point, so I thought we could chat about how to improve the system. While skills have been discussed a few times, how to make pilots more useful etc, I don't think we've talked much about how gaining experience works. I've been playing for some time and I’m not sure even I’m clear about the most efficient way to level kerbals, so I can imagine newer players might be having trouble. A few thoughts: - There are a number of factors leading to experience grind, but one of the biggest to my mind is how and when experience is awarded. I actually think exploration as the principal activity is the simplest, least grindy way of measuring what kerbals have done, but the fact that they only receive XP upon recovery does slow things down. It creates the incentive for repetitive one-off missions rather than building ambitious multi-vessel space programs. For instance a player who sent a kerbal on a Jool-5 would stay level 0 until they returned home to Kerbin. This seems wrong somehow. First, Kerbals ought really to collect experience for each new place they reach as they reach it. They also ought to automatically level up in flight. Not only would this just be clearer to understand and work with, but it would properly reward multi-world missions and missions remounted through stations. - I've mentioned this in regards to science but a nice move might be to differentiate the payouts for different biomes on the same body. The difference needn't be much, 10-50% at most, just enough to make the difference meaningful and encourage players to select landing sites carefully. This could be extended by expanding the world-firsts and Easter-eggs/anomalies into a real system of sites that reward players with rep, funds, science, and/or XP bonuses. I'd personally like to see them made a bit more 'sciency', with mineral formations, geysers, signs of life, etc, but either way giving them real gameplay value could further encourage precision landings and rovers for surface exploration. - Flag planting really ought to be removed from the list of things for which a Kerbal can gain experience. It just ends up being grindy and repetitive in practice. In general, the tasks which will award a kerbal seem a bit finicky. It really could be reduced to Orbit and Landed for each world. When a kerbal was selected in the Astronaut Complex their profile would show a list of each place they had visited with the XP earned for each beside. This way players would have a visual log both of where each crew member had gone, but what they had earned for going there for future reference. If a Kerbal returned to a previously visited body, their landing bonus would only increase if it was in a biome with a higher multiplier. - To balance for this the XP values would need to be reduced. Really a Kerbal who had visited the Mun and Minmus should be at level 2. This might be stretched to level 3 by visiting an asteroid or a few bonus sites. Levels 4 and 5 ought really to require interplanetary missions. - Im sure they plan over time to fill out the upper skill levels. I’ll admit I’d love to see KAS for a level 5 engineer, things like aerocapture and landing site prediction for high level pilots. Im not crazy about the current Mobile Lab setup, but I tend to think higher level scientists should collect more valuable EVA reports and surface samples. It was also suggested that higher level pilots might offer XP bonuses to other crew members, which I like, but would need to be carefully applied to avoid exploits. I haven’t compiled a list of skills, but Im sure others have thoughts on that? - Cosmetically, I'd also love to see different suit colors/stripes/stars indicating a kerbal's discipline and rank. That be neat. What issues have people been having? What fun things do you think kerbals could do?
  10. KSP continues to show sadly lacking performance for the level of graphics and functions the programming has to accomplish, especially on weaker computers. This game really shouldn't take that powerful of a computer to run at vastly better performance levels than it does now, yet its performance for any given CPU and graphics card setup *is* lackluster relative to what it should be and a sometimes laggy game (especially on weaker computers) is what we have to work with... I have started this thread as a development discussion thread: to solicit discussion of what the devs could actually do, in concrete terms, to improve the performance of the game (this is NOT a thread for off-the-cuff suggestions by people with no understanding of game programming, I want to see people with actual programming and optimization knowledge make specific educated suggestions here), and to remind the devs at SQUAD that the poor performance and lack of real optimization in KSP is still a major issue they need to work on, one that is still very much holding the game back from reaching its full potential. For that matter, a small tangential bit of commentary and a liberty I am taking as thread author (please do not side-track the discussion by commenting further on this, it is only my opinion)- I do not think the game should ever have been declared "released" in its current state. In my mind, the game will never truly be an acceptable product for a released game until it has seen a substantial amount of additional effort devoted to improving the game's performance (reducing lag, CPU load, etc.) within the context of its existing features. Go forth and discuss! And remember to keep the discussion educated, knowledgeable about the subject of programming, and on-topic! - Northstar
  11. So, while @SAS123 and I were engaged in a PM thing about the orbits of Jupiter and the other planets (which was really informative, thank you) I thought of a good topic to discuss. Put anything related to planet for,action here!!!
  12. Everyone plays KSP differently, and some of us play it with different controls or devices completely! So tell me, what do you use to play KSP with? Some use a normal keyboard, others use gamepads, like an Xbox Controller or even something else. In the picture below is an example of what most would use, so tell me, what do you use to play KSP? Why is that? Tell us all below! Option A: Keyboard Option B: Super Nintendo Entertainment System styled PC remote (This is a thing) Option C: Xbox Controller Option D: (Other) Gamepad Option E: Joystick Option F (not shown): Anything else! Please tell!
  13. Using some procedural tanks I was trying to make something sort of like the Boeing LEO concept, Martin Renova, Douglas SASSTO, etc (though smaller). Basically, a large, capsule shaped SSTO. Anyway, the nose needed to be a very large fairing with the payload within. It seems like a fairing that would perhaps open like a flower or clamshell (pictured above), and could then close again would be useful. Does such a mod exist? If not, is it possible?
  14. Hello All. Well. Pol is Bugged. Pol is Bugged since ? (eons ?) If i land on Pol i seriously explode in Mid Space (200 from 800 in Space above ground) or if by sheer luck i manage to land, go to space center and back (Or load a game) My ship/Flag is suddenly 200 to 800 meters in deepspace. This is known for long times. (read this half a year ago somewhere else) (eons?) Does anyone know if the devs are planning to do something about that or do they decided because with all the new airplane parts noone would go to pol anyway so we can let this Bug as it xor ignore it, and concentrate more on airplane parts anyhow ??? This really *sucks* because Pol is the First Moon you get to if you enter the Jool System. Does anyone know if the devs already stated this as a Game feature ? (if then, nevermind then, remove pol please) Is there a mod what fixes that (well i would pay for eh, uh, ah, i forgot, i ALREADY paid for the game, whats the Problem with fixing that collision mesh ?) greetings PS: i refer to Bug #5235 in the Bugtracker. i strongly guess that the state '10% done' only assumes that someone from the dev's team just tried out and found out that the bug exists. this was 4 months ago. It would be better to remove the Moon from the game at all than leaving something in that doesnt works. im just so pissed on that. Besides that im just Proud that i made it to the jool system and back without mods. hard stuff. Makes fun if you get the 5 minutes while gameplay you did not get krakened from bugs. PPS: this Bug exists since >1 Year: Related to Bug #3423 Related to Bug #2501 Related to Bug #2049