Klapaucius

DLC brain overload

Recommended Posts

Has anyone else found the DLC has put their brains on overdrive?

 

I had been building weird aircraft for a long time. I've had a heap of fun, but was at the point of taking a break and then going back into space and learning how to plan missions properly.

 

Then the DLC came along.  I have way more ideas than I have time for, and I am seeing so many cool things shared here and on KerbalX, which in turn give me MOAR ideas. Is anyone else feeling happily overwhelmed by the possibilities?

 

Because, despite the bugs and all, this DLC is amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know when you have so many choices that you just end up doing nothing?  That's me with BG right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just tinkered with the small hinge at second tier in my new career and... i am quite impressed.
KSP has changed. Seriously. :)

My Kerbals are taking lessons in robotics for the next weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just bought the DLC. It's time to play Kerbal Again!
But first things first: I need to re-install all the mods! Especially whatever Ferram Aerospace Research mod compatible with 1.7.1.... ( I just hate stock aerodynamics, FAR is a must have in my opinion! )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

You know when you have so many choices that you just end up doing nothing?  That's me with BG right now.

I'm really glad I'm not the only one! I made an addition to an existing design (robotic manipulation of payload in a Mk2 cargo bay so satellites don't just get shot into the opposite wall on decoupling). Oh, and folding solar array arms for a space station and that's about it... there's just so many possibilities!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally overbrained :D.

I had to design a launcher and a upper stage without any robotics to get my head clear again... When i went over to the capsule, the first thing i designed, were custom folding solar arrays... and custom suspension for rovers and ramps and...

This DLC is so much fun...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never did buy Making History, but if I can use the robotic parts in the Mission Editor, I have.... ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Opus_723 said:

I never did buy Making History, but if I can use the robotic parts in the Mission Editor, I have.... ideas.

Yes you can, and Making History is very worth it, despite the bad rap it gets in some quarters. For me, just having such a powerful hyperedit tool, along with the Dessert Airfield and the ability to launch directly from the Island Airfield makes it worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had that several-day fury session where I just tried tons of things, none of them practical and most of them useless.

But now I'm back to just building stuff and have decided it's best to not try to think of things to use robotic parts with, but instead use the parts when presented with a problem that they can solve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 5thHorseman said:

I had that several-day fury session where I just tried tons of things, none of them practical and most of them useless.

But now I'm back to just building stuff and have decided it's best to not try to think of things to use robotic parts with, but instead use the parts when presented with a problem that they can solve.

So much this.

Yes, you can can now build walking rovers.  Are they of any use?  Not really.  Their forward speed is limited to the traverse speed of the hinges moving their legs, which is much slower than wheels can move the same mission equipment with much fewer parts and less design/tweaking time.  And walkers can't handle much in the way of ground slope because the parts used for feet have far less traction than wheels.

Yes, you can build helicopters, even autogyros, plus tilt-rotors.  Are they of any use?  Only if you don't have mods that do these things better with fewer parts.

Yes, you can build boats and subs powered by screws or even paddlewheels.  Are they of any use?  Only for aesthetics.  Jet-propelled boats and subs work much better with fewer parts.

To me, the main practical uses for the robotic parts are to fold up rovers and aircraft to fit inside cargo bays.  Or to make some sort of articulated docking attachment (using the Klaw instead of docking ports) to facilitate base assembly or carrying a small craft you want to use more than once inside a big craft.  They also make good tilt-jet/rocket (as opposed to tilt-rotor) VTOLs, and for very simple articulated suspension for rovers in very rough terrain.   And they're also good for making humorous Kerbal-eating machines just for laughs.  Except for these sorts of things, you can usually make a better vehicle sans the robotic parts, for a lot less effort and time investment.  So robotic parts are more of a niche thing than a panacea.

 

 

Edited by Geschosskopf
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Klapaucius said:

Yes you can, and Making History is very worth it, despite the bad rap it gets in some quarters. For me, just having such a powerful hyperedit tool, along with the Dessert Airfield and the ability to launch directly from the Island Airfield makes it worth it.

I also like that I can recover for 100% in career mode at those locations too... its very convenient.

4 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

Yes, you can build helicopters, even autogyros, plus tilt-rotors.  Are they of any use?  Only if you don't have mods that do these things better with fewer parts.

Yes, you can build boats and subs powered by screws or even paddlewheels.  Are they of any use?  Only for aesthetics.  Jet-propelled boats and subs work much better with fewer parts.

I will discount mods, and say that tilt rotors, helos, prop planes in general are of use, such as on Duna and Eve.

Screw powered subs maintain buoyancy, while jet subs do not, the jet subs do go about 2x as fast in my experience. Jet subs are not an option on Eve, or a mod world like tekto... so that's a nice benefit.

My goal is an air transportable eve sub, just using props and screws. I've got a sub design that I like, now I just need a suitable carrier aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

I will discount mods, and say that tilt rotors, helos, prop planes in general are of use, such as on Duna and Eve.

Screw powered subs maintain buoyancy, while jet subs do not, the jet subs do go about 2x as fast in my experience. Jet subs are not an option on Eve, or a mod world like tekto... so that's a nice benefit.

My goal is an air transportable eve sub, just using props and screws. I've got a sub design that I like, now I just need a suitable carrier aircraft.

As a matter of personal taste, I have a hard time justifying any sort of hand-made prop (using reaction wheels or robot parts) for serious purposes due to the magic involved.  IIRC, the general consensus is that 1 EC/sec = 1 kw = 0.75 hp.  So, when I compare EC usage of KSP prop planes/helos/boats to  the hp required by real aircraft/boats of comparable size and performance, I see UFO technology.  Granted, mod electric props also use far less EC than they really should, but generally it's considerably more than a home-made prop doing the same job, so they make me feel better.  Plus, it's only 1 part, which is a nice bonus. 

Thus, I prefer to use mod props for my serious missions, although I find it quite entertaining to fart around with home-made props in my humorous test lab save.  I have a long, long history of flying electric props on Duna* but I can rationalize their magic there due to less gravity and drag requiring less power.  Not so on Eve where the reverse applies.  But hey, that's just me.  If you feel otherwise, knock yourself out.  Designing complex stuff that works in an alien environment is always something to be proud of, and this being a game, it doesn't have to make total sense :D

I've been away from KSP for a while.  Is there now any real purpose in doing anything underwater?  Last time I was here, there wasn't.  The ocean floor regardless of depth was still the same "water" biome as the surface without even terrain scatters to break the monotony, and you can't EVA because Kerbals immediately bob to the surface.  Are any of the new BG surface features down there now?  Have they allowed Kerbals to walk the ocean floor?

*https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/46541-closed-flying-duna-again-thanks-for-participating/&tab=comments#comment-653080

 

Edited by Geschosskopf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

As a matter of personal taste, I have a hard time justifying any sort of hand-made prop (using reaction wheels or robot parts) for serious purposes due to the magic involved.  IIRC, the general consensus is that 1 EC/sec = 1 kw = 0.75 hp.  So, when I compare EC usage of KSP prop planes/helos/boats to  the hp required by real aircraft/boats of comparable size and performance, I see UFO technology. 

Well, then the same applies to Ion drives... and power transmission should absolutely melt the antenna. EC has always been a bit off. The torque to mass of the electric motors seems ok (better than reaction wheels). So then the only issue should be how easy it is to supply the power. I'll grant its far too easy to make a solar powered plane, but I see that as an acceptable gameplay convention, relative to stopping very often to recharge. I view it as less unrealistic than solar powered ion thruster landers on minmus.

Quote

I've been away from KSP for a while.  Is there now any real purpose in doing anything underwater?  Last time I was here, there wasn't.  The ocean floor regardless of depth was still the same "water" biome as the surface without even terrain scatters to break the monotony, and you can't EVA because Kerbals immediately bob to the surface.  Are any of the new BG surface features down there now?  Have they allowed Kerbals to walk the ocean floor?

Well, not in stock. The surface features can be modded to show up in ocean biomes, and I intend to do so for my mod planet, Rald. Also my mod of Duna with water floods some of the easter egg features, thus requiring a sub to get to them and get their bonus.

I think they missed an opportunity here though

Share this post


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

Well, then the same applies to Ion drives... and power transmission should absolutely melt the antenna. EC has always been a bit off. The torque to mass of the electric motors seems ok (better than reaction wheels). So then the only issue should be how easy it is to supply the power. I'll grant its far too easy to make a solar powered plane, but I see that as an acceptable gameplay convention, relative to stopping very often to recharge. I view it as less unrealistic than solar powered ion thruster landers on minmus.

Yeah, if I want to use some type of ion engine, I get it from Near Future, along with the nukes to run it.

Really and truly, rover wheels have the same power disparity between reality and KSP as electric props.  So I guess that if I can stomach rovers, I should have less of a problem with electric props.

  • Tesla Model 3:  270hp = 360 EC/sec, but in KSP only about 14 EC/sec
  • Cesena 152:  110hp = 147 EC/sec but in KSP only about 6 EC/sec

The 1 EC/sec = 1 kw convention works fine for most circuitry-related things but is WAY off (more than "a bit" :Dwhen it comes to motive power.  But hey, at least electric props are consistent with rover wheels.  So maybe I should let my hair down and embrace them...

 

3 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Well, not in stock. The surface features can be modded to show up in ocean biomes, and I intend to do so for my mod planet, Rald. Also my mod of Duna with water floods some of the easter egg features, thus requiring a sub to get to them and get their bonus.

I think they missed an opportunity here though

That's depressing.  I remember it was a big deal a while back when they changed the water so boats and even subs would be possible.  But yeah, they've never exploited that in the least.  There used to be a mod that allowed Kerbals to sink, which solved one of the biggest issues with going underwater, but the lack of anything to do there keeps that from being much use.

Is it possible, when making a custom planet, to put multiple biomes  underwater?  I've always wanted to see multiple levels of biomes based on dept, each layer having separate in-water and on-bottom biomes.  IOW, have the existing surface "water" and shores biomes extending down a dozen meters or so, but then you'd have epipelagic, mesopelagic, bathypelagic, abyssopelatic, and hadalpelagic biomes on down to the bottom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Geschosskopf said:

Is it possible, when making a custom planet, to put multiple biomes  underwater?  I've always wanted to see multiple levels of biomes based on dept, each layer having separate in-water and on-bottom biomes.  IOW, have the existing surface "water" and shores biomes extending down a dozen meters or so, but then you'd have epipelagic, mesopelagic, bathypelagic, abyssopelatic, and hadalpelagic biomes on down to the bottom.

If I understand what you are asking... no. You can have multiple biomes, which are all ocean covered, but the biome will not depend upon depth of the ocean. for a given lattitude and longitude, the only science options are high space, low space,  flying high atmo, flying low, and landed OR splashed.

I wish we could at least get landed AND splashed, so that on the surface of the water is landed, but if you dive down to the bottom and make contact, you get landed.

Adding shallow and deep to that would be great. At least with mods, you can make the sea floor have scatters, ore, and surface features (I haven't tested the last one, but I'm pretty sure it works)

 

Mainly I do subs for cool points.

I suppose you could have a sub that can mine ore from the bottom, and refuel craft landed out in the middle of the ocean on (slightly modded) laythe.... but the sub won't be able to bring much ore up, while still having enough ore to sink again.

Edited by KerikBalm

Share this post


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

If I understand what you are asking... no. You can have multiple biomes, which are all ocean covered, but the biome will not depend upon depth of the ocean. for a given lattitude and longitude, the only science options are high space, low space,  flying high atmo, flying low, and landed OR splashed.

Well, that's a shame.  I was hoping that altitude was also a coordinate.  So, even if you drew a biome boundary around, say, the 100 fathom line below sea level, then everything at every altitude within the lat/lon of that line would be the same biome.  IOW, the bottom of the sea and the sea surface in the middle of the ocean would be the same biome, but different from the biome around the edges.  Damn, that's a bummer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

Yeah, if I want to use some type of ion engine, I get it from Near Future, along with the nukes to run it.

Really and truly, rover wheels have the same power disparity between reality and KSP as electric props.  So I guess that if I can stomach rovers, I should have less of a problem with electric props.

  • Tesla Model 3:  270hp = 360 EC/sec, but in KSP only about 14 EC/sec
  • Cesena 152:  110hp = 147 EC/sec but in KSP only about 6 EC/sec

The 1 EC/sec = 1 kw convention works fine for most circuitry-related things but is WAY off (more than "a bit" :Dwhen it comes to motive power.  But hey, at least electric props are consistent with rover wheels.  So maybe I should let my hair down and embrace them...

 

That's depressing.  I remember it was a big deal a while back when they changed the water so boats and even subs would be possible.  But yeah, they've never exploited that in the least.  There used to be a mod that allowed Kerbals to sink, which solved one of the biggest issues with going underwater, but the lack of anything to do there keeps that from being much use.

Is it possible, when making a custom planet, to put multiple biomes  underwater?  I've always wanted to see multiple levels of biomes based on dept, each layer having separate in-water and on-bottom biomes.  IOW, have the existing surface "water" and shores biomes extending down a dozen meters or so, but then you'd have epipelagic, mesopelagic, bathypelagic, abyssopelatic, and hadalpelagic biomes on down to the bottom.

Grab Buffalo rover mod, play with submarine parts and get KIS to wear the Outback backpack for buoyancy compensation. Underwater surface features would be really cool and currently beyond my art list. If someone makes them though the BuffaSub can reach them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Angel-125 said:

Grab Buffalo rover mod, play with submarine parts and get KIS to wear the Outback backpack for buoyancy compensation. Underwater surface features would be really cool and currently beyond my art list. If someone makes them though the BuffaSub can reach them...

You need no sales pitch with me :)  But what I wan't to know is whether BARIS is working in 1.7.2 yet :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

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.