UomoCapra

Kerbal Space Program update 1.4 Grand Discussion thread.

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, McFlyever said:

I think for the most of Kerbal Engineers it´s a katastrophical failure ^^

No. These engines have the same CoM offset in 1.3.1. So, the functionality of crafts remains unchanged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, McFlyever said:

Big mistake with Center of Mass at many Engines. I think for the most of Kerbal Engineers it´s a katastrophical failure ^^ Please SQUAD fix this.

  • RAPIER
  • LV-1 "Ant"
  • Panther
  • Whiplash
  • Skipper
  • Juno
  • Spark
  • Wheesley

 

Thanks and greatings from germany!

It's a feature, not a bug. It represents the fact that the "engine part" for jet engines only represents part of the engine and the rest is hidden in the part you attached it to. 

I belive that in beta 1.2 they wanted to add visual representation of that part of the engine, but players didn't like the way it looked so they removed it. 

Edited by _stilgar_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

So...did anyone else notice the Mk1-3 is WAY lighter than the Mk1-2 was?

That's great and all, it needed it; but it's like only a touch heavier than the Mk2 Lander Can, which raises the question if the lander can needs to be re-balanced now?

(Old)Mk1-2 Mass: 4

(New)Mk1-3 Mass: 2.6

Mk2LanderCan Mass: 2.5

I think it makes sense once you attach a heatshield to the capsule. no need to make the lander can even lighter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, _stilgar_ said:

It's a feature, not a bug. It represents the fact that the "engine part" for jet engines only represents part of the engine and the rest is hidden in the part you attached it to. 

I belive that in beta 1.2 they wanted to add visual representation of that part of the engine, but players didn't like the way it looked so they removed it. 

You're right!

JXBbVK6.gif

They weren't removed however: they were hidden. There's a Module Manager patch to make them visible again:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@McFlyever: Actually, that is very deliberate. For the jet engines, the bulk of the engine is invisible. Seriously, go into any of the cfg files in GameData/Squad/Parts/Engine/jetEngins and you will find something similar to:

    //MODEL
    //{
    //  model = Squad/Parts/Engine/jetEngines/turbineInside
    //  scale = 0.95, 1.0, 0.95
    //}

Remove the //s and restart KSP. The jets will make sense.

As for the rockets, it is a workaround for the problem of KSP's engines being too heavy and thus pulling the rocket's overall CoM too far down (making the engines lighter opens another can of worms). By that, it is actually the mainsail that is " incorrect" due to inconsistency.

*sigh* forgot to check for more posts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the old 2.5m capsules/landercan were poorly balanced, way too heavy. As far as I can tell the only functional difference between the old 2.5m pod and this one is the mass.

Take 3x mk1 pods: dry mass = 0.8*3 = 2.4 tons

New pod dry mass: 2.6 tons... still inferior (in terms of mass) to 3x mk1 pods

The mk1 lander can is only 0.6 tons. 2x mk1 cans is 1.2 tons. Why is the 2.5m one over 4x as heavy as 2x mk1 cans? it only carries 2x as many kerbals.

The new 2.5m pod is close enough to the mass of 3 mk1 pods, that I'd use it for a lower part count... but that 2.5m lander can is just garbage.

Even with the new mk1-3 pod, a mk1 pod and a mk1 crew cabin comes in at just 1.8 tons, a full 0.8 tons lighter. 0.5 tons lighter with a heat shield at the base of the crew cabin.

The 2.5m lander can definitely needs a mass reduction, I don't use that junk because of its mass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

You can fix it easily until the official update is released by going to your KSP install folder>Gamedata>Squad>Parts>Command>

Open the Mk1-3.cfg in notepad. Find the INTERNAL line. Change "name = Mk1-3" to "name = PodCockpit"

Now, you'll have your Kerbal portraits back, and it will use the old Mk1-2 interior model for IVA which works well enough.

Thanks, I'm still not ready to update from 1.3.1 until all of the mods I use are updated, but this is good enough untill 1.4.1

Edited by Jeb's Fireworks Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

the old 2.5m capsules/landercan were poorly balanced, way too heavy. As far as I can tell the only functional difference between the old 2.5m pod and this one is the mass.

Take 3x mk1 pods: dry mass = 0.8*3 = 2.4 tons

New pod dry mass: 2.6 tons... still inferior (in terms of mass) to 3x mk1 pods

The mk1 lander can is only 0.6 tons. 2x mk1 cans is 1.2 tons. Why is the 2.5m one over 4x as heavy as 2x mk1 cans? it only carries 2x as many kerbals.

The new 2.5m pod is close enough to the mass of 3 mk1 pods, that I'd use it for a lower part count... but that 2.5m lander can is just garbage.

Even with the new mk1-3 pod, a mk1 pod and a mk1 crew cabin comes in at just 1.8 tons, a full 0.8 tons lighter. 0.5 tons lighter with a heat shield at the base of the crew cabin.

The 2.5m lander can definitely needs a mass reduction, I don't use that junk because of its mass.

2.5 capsules have probe control point and higher tolerances, so they are better than just 3x mk1 pod.

Mk2 lander can also have probe control point, but yes, it's too heavy even with that (you can add PCP for 0.1t with RC-001S) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, thx guys for the fast answers. I never heard about this "hidden Feature". Sounds really plausible... I'm a bit shame ^^ 

 

@taniwha

Thx for this Info, i think i let it Stock, cause it makes more sense now.

Edited by McFlyever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

Try @INTERNAL, just in case the line is already in there. :) 

Ok so I was just being an idiot, it is already in there lol.

My bad, been working too much. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, _stilgar_ said:

It's a feature, not a bug. It represents the fact that the "engine part" for jet engines only represents part of the engine and the rest is hidden in the part you attached it to. 

I belive that in beta 1.2 they wanted to add visual representation of that part of the engine, but players didn't like the way it looked so they removed it. 

I liked the idea of it, but it killed every VTOL design due to having a massive turbine sticking out the top.

 

I'd like to see it brought back as long as a couple of dedicated VTOL engines were added as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Frozen_Heart said:

I liked the idea of it, but it killed every VTOL design due to having a massive turbine sticking out the top.

 

I'd like to see it brought back as long as a couple of dedicated VTOL engines were added as well.

1.4 have mesh switching now. Engines could have different variants. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pizzaoverhead said:

You're right!

They weren't removed however: they were hidden. There's a Module Manager patch to make them visible again:

 

 

!!!

An awesome mod I didn't know about!

39 minutes ago, _stilgar_ said:

1.4 have mesh switching now. Engines could have different variants. 

Seriously.  Add it to the variants.  That would be fantastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, DoctorDavinci said:

Not true ... Like @GoSlash27 said above, they're just accessories (like a purse or something)

Long time ago, in a KSP version far far away we used to land kerbals on their heads if they were coming in for a splattery landing

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

What do you mean 'used to'? Parachutes only work if there's air out there! :D

That said, I can understand why they've done it from a gameplay balance perspective, but it really doesn't seem logical that a Kerbal can only learn how to use a parachute by leaving Kerbin's sphere of influence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, _stilgar_ said:

1.4 have mesh switching now. Engines could have different variants. 

Imagine using a ramjet engine as a vtol engine...:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, RockyTV said:

What changes will 1.4.1 have for modders and when will it come out?

1.4.1 will mostly just be bug fixes I'd imagine.

Shouldn't affect modders unless they have to recompile against it.

I'd wager a lot of them will just skip 1.4 and wait for 1.4.1 since it's should be out pretty soon; with the DLC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parachute availability would make more sense if tied to the level of the Astronaut Complex rather than Kerbal level. The idea that a new recruit won't get a parachute while their experience cabin mate has one doesn't make sense.

Availability should be tied to improved suit technology, not the Kerbal's skill.

just my $0.02...thanks!

 

Edited by Tyko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, goldenpeach said:

Anyone know if there is a way to change the level required to deploy and repack the EVA parachute?

Not as far as I could tell when I poked at it yesterday. It doesn't look too be exposed in the api either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Tyko said:

Parachute availability would make more sense if tied to the level of the Astronaut Complex rather than Kerbal level. The idea that a new recruit won't get a parachute while their experience cabin mate has one doesn't make sense.

Availability should be tied to improved suit technology, not the Kerbal's skill.

just my $0.02...thanks!

 

Astronaut Complex level and/or unlocking a specific tech tree item could work. It would be nice to see different varieties of space suit on the tech tree: Start out with a flight suit, then research a vacuum-capable space suit. You could even have tradeoffs in equipment: Should you add a parachute or a jetpack? Maybe a small non-steerable parachute could fit alongside a low-fuel SAFER-style jetpack if you research both technologies enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, _stilgar_ said:

2.5 capsules have probe control point and higher tolerances, so they are better than just 3x mk1 pod.

Mk2 lander can also have probe control point, but yes, it's too heavy even with that (you can add PCP for 0.1t with RC-001S) 

 

Well, yes, I know the tolerances are higher, but I've never really encountered a case where it really matters - but that is why I'm comparing it to mk1 pods, and not so much the mk1pod+mk1 crew cabin that I mentioned earlier.

As you mention you can add a PCP for 0.1 tons, so that means 3x mk1 pods + a PCP is 2.5 tons, the mk1-3 pod is 2.6 tons... Its not that bad, the old mk1-2 was terrible.

The landercan still needs a mass reduction (not an entirely new model though, its fine, and I thought the old pod model was fine too, but whatever) 

2 hours ago, 53miner53 said:

Imagine using a ramjet engine as a vtol engine...:D

Well... its not a VTOL, but similar concept:

pglambC.png

WGtFZV8.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What means *Advanced Mode added to Messages App - Toggled via Settings menu.* What is the Messages App?

To be fair, I have to say that I haven't installed 1.4 yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.