k00b

annoyed with rotors due to not finding effective purpose

Recommended Posts

what is the point beyond being a "new part" in the game please ? (beyond vehicles that go <50/ms (hence not having effective purpose imho)).

i don't want to build fairground wheels etc... and "flying about" (i.e. "Kerbals space program") implies forward velocity..... so what is the point in them ?

(yes i bought breaking ground; thus am using my consumer rights to complain).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe they are supposed to be robotic parts rather than electric motors i.e. things to move other parts of a craft about, not to propel the whole craft forward. 

Share this post


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

i.e. things to move other parts of a craft about, not to propel the whole craft forward. 

what ? move what parts about ?? and why would you want to do that ???

(what parts need constantly rotating 360 ? < this is what i am struggling with, because as we agree... (?); vs a jet engine, they seem a completely useless part in the game... and if you don't like ferris wheels on your "aircraft", and with fully functional wheels already being available.... there is seemingly no point whatsoever in them ?)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They allow at least rotating space stations. However, I am disappointed too that there are still no good electric engines parts, even though you can make acceptable propeller craft with these (with a lot of work) 

Share this post


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

They allow at least rotating space stations. However, I am disappointed too that there are still no good electric engines parts, even though you can make acceptable propeller craft with these (with a lot of work) 

..."alot of work" to then:

5 hours ago, k00b said:

go <50/ms (hence not having effective purpose imho)).

also what is the point of a "rotating space station" ? baring in mind antennas and panels work fine and dandy, without the pointlessly rotaing bit ?, beyond being:

2 hours ago, k00b said:

ferris wheels on your "aircraft"

(hence being a "completely pointless part in the game, put in seemingly for no reason" (atleast that i can think of, what with not wanting to make ferris wheels, and it being a pita to get said completely pointless ferris wheel into orbit ?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a game about orbital mechanics, the game could entirely be text-based and run in a console. Enter the components for each stage, list them as you’re progressing through launch... The graphics in this game are completely irrelevant.

What is that? The game would be boring? Not immersive? 

Ok, now that we have established that the “optical” part of the game is essential to gameplay, you can use rotors for many things to spice up your vehicles:

  • rotating radar dishes
  • artificial gravity rings
  • scanning arrays
  • large, special shaped wheels
  • anything someone can come up with

The applications may seem limited, but how could Squad release a DLC with robotic parts that do not include “continuous rotation actuator” (aka rotor) parts?

 

Share this post


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

Being a game about orbital mechanics, the game could entirely be text-based and run in a console.

  • anything someone can come up with

The applications may seem limited, but how could Squad release a DLC with robotic parts that do not include “continuous rotation actuator” (aka rotor) parts?

 

 

[snip]

- i think you will find, kerbals space program [snip] is about launching things into space - and they could have left the completely pointless part out that "anything someone can come up with" can be used, to "rotate things" [snip] , that i am still waiting for someone to suggest a non ferris wheel type use for.... as already stated.

you can't control kerbals inside thus "anti gravity rings" would also fit into the "COMPLETELY redundant" category btw...

 

Edited by Snark
Redacted by moderator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, k00b said:

also what is the point of a "rotating space station" ? baring in mind antennas and panels work fine and dandy, without the pointlessly rotaing bit ?, beyond being:

To provide an environment for your Kerbonauts that simulates gravity through centrifugal forces generated by rotation :3

It helps with moral and to maintain their bone mass :3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we talking about the same game here?

A sandbox game, is what it is. Where even a strictly cosmetic part would be welcome as far as I am concerned.

I dont get it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, k00b said:

- i think you will find, kerbals space program [snip] is about launching things into space - and they could have left the completely pointless part out that "anything someone can come up with" can be used, to "rotate things" [snip], that i am still waiting for someone to suggest a non ferris wheel type use for.... as already stated.

you can't control kerbals inside thus "anti gravity rings" would also fit into the "COMPLETELY redundant" category btw...

[snip]

So, as you finely left out my point that any part in the game can be left out from a space simulation perspective, the point of these parts is not to provide a function per sé, but to full-fill that other premise of KSP, which is the joy of making cool looking space craft.

Is there any need to have a graphical representation of antennas on a ship? Wouldn’t a checkbox, or drop-down, with “has antenna xyz-123” suffice? Because the actual antenna is exactly as relevant as having an operating gravity ring on a ship; it doesn’t have a real purpose, it’s just some optical decoration that doesn’t do anything.

Once you go down the slope of “it doesn’t do anything” you can basically ditch  the entire graphical part of KSP. Because you can run the entire simulation without it.

The people who are creative, and who like creating things do appreciate the opportunities rotors offer, I’d say. [snip]

Edited by Snark
Redacted by moderator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rotors would be useful to create centrifugal force in space for long term habitation of astronauts at space stations. 

 

Centrifugal force to simulate gravity  does have a real world purpose. Note, in real life though the ISS nor any space stations have ever done this because the cost $ is high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Various content has been removed and/or redacted for personal attacks and/or flamebaiting.

Folks, let's keep it friendly, please. We're expected to comport ourselves like civil adults. It's fine to disagree with each other, but please do so respectfully.

This goes without saying, since you're all familiar with the forum rules (right?), but apparently some folks could use a refresher:

Do not make personal attacks,or speculate about other people's motives. Address the post, not the poster.

Don't deliberately try to provoke people. It's against forum rule 2.2.n about flamebaiting.

Do not publicly accuse other people of breaking rules. You're not a moderator, it's not your place. If you think someone is breaking rules, do not engage; simply report the post and move on, so that the real moderators can have a look.

And finally... c'mon, people, have some perspective. Different people like different things. It's fine to state what you, personally, like or dislike... but other folks don't necessarily have the same priorities as you do, and their viewpoints are just as valid as yours. So arguing about that is silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally haven’t found a practical gameplay purpose for them either. The only one would be from a mod contract that asks you to land on the VAB (but that can be done with VTOLs easy enough). 

If they had proper propellers THEN they will have a purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MechBFP said:

If they had proper propellers THEN they will have a purpose.

I don't understand.  Folks are making all sorts of helicopters, tilt-rotors, and conventional prop airplanes with the rotors.  Check out the "What did you do in KSP today?" thread over the past week for countless examples.

Share this post


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

I don't understand.  Folks are making all sorts of helicopters, tilt-rotors, and conventional prop airplanes with the rotors.  Check out the "What did you do in KSP today?" thread over the past week for countless examples.

Those aren’t practical devices. You can’t actually use them to accomplish anything worthwhile, like getting an Eve rocket off the ground and into thinner atmosphere.  They work great for making devices just for the fun of it, but aren’t practical for actually accomplishing any career goal. 

Edited by MechBFP

Share this post


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

... but aren’t practical for actually accomplishing any career goal. 

There you go. For some players, myself included, KSP is still just a sandbox game.

Like I said, even a strictly cosmetic part would be welcome by some.

Arguing about the practicality of parts makes only sense in a certain context, and since everybody can play KSP however they want this argument is a bit pointless.

But I get your point, for what it is. Just consider there are other players and ways to play too. Personally I couldnt care less about everything related to career mode in KSP.

Share this post


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

Those aren’t practical devices. You can’t actually use them to accomplish anything worthwhile, like getting an Eve rocket off the ground and into thinner atmosphere.  They work great for making devices just for the fun of it, but aren’t practical for actually accomplishing any career goal. 

There you are wrong.  Flying machines are much faster and generally safer than rovers, allowing you to get science from multiple biomes, often the entire planet, from a single landing.  You can often totally pillage an entire planet this way, at less cost, in less time, and with less tedium than with a rover or multiple landers in different places.

If you're just looking for a simple way to fake yourself off Eve, just cheat your way into orbit.  Otherwise, recognize that the gravity and atmosphere there are naturally difficult obstacles and require significant effort.

Share this post


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

There you are wrong.  Flying machines are much faster and generally safer than rovers, allowing you to get science from multiple biomes, often the entire planet, from a single landing.  You can often totally pillage an entire planet this way, at less cost, in less time, and with less tedium than with a rover or multiple landers in different places.

If you're just looking for a simple way to fake yourself off Eve, just cheat your way into orbit.  Otherwise, recognize that the gravity and atmosphere there are naturally difficult obstacles and require significant effort.

That is true, a well made helicopter is actually better for biome hopping than a rover. Point conceeded .

Share this post


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

Those aren’t practical devices. You can’t actually use them to accomplish anything worthwhile, like getting an Eve rocket off the ground and into thinner atmosphere.

Have you tried that? Because that's exactly what I plan to ... well, at least try to. Put a rotor on top of my Eve lander to get me a few kilometers off the ground with electrical power. :cool:

First I have to teach my Kerbals how to make those big Rockets again in my new career game. Right now they are all exited about a mysterious green sandstone that Val, Bill, and Bob have claimed to have found on Minmus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Dafni said:

There you go. For some players, myself included, KSP is still just a sandbox game.

Arguing about the practicality of parts makes only sense in a certain context, and since everybody can play KSP however they want this argument is a bit pointless.

But I get your point, for what it is. Just consider there are other players and ways to play too. Personally I couldnt care less about everything related to career mode in KSP.

EVERY other part has practical use though ? or is a variant of a part that has practical use (pretty sure / can not think otherwise for any) even the goo pod etc; yields science.

however rotors, have no use WHATSOEVER - we have wheels already..... and as stated - why go at 50m/s when you can go at 1000m/s. why even bother playing on kerbals if you like "snail pace theme park sandbox games".

if they were for "visual purpose" then, they could have saved themselves ALOT of programming time and given us fairy lights or something (WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, k00b said:

why go at 50m/s when you can go at 1000m/s.

Because the engineering challenge of building a functional helicopter, no matter how slow it is, is fun for a lot of people on this forum. KSP isn't just a space simulator, it's about being free to build whatever you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2019 at 2:05 PM, Geschosskopf said:

I don't understand.  Folks are making all sorts of helicopters, tilt-rotors, and conventional prop airplanes with the rotors.  Check out the "What did you do in KSP today?" thread over the past week for countless examples.

because rotary wings don't belong where there is no atmosphere and zero gravity.......

(what with having to to pay "real life" money for the DLC, that doesn't give you, what is insinuated by the completely useless part in question)

 

Just now, RealKerbal3x said:

Because the engineering challenge of building a functional helicopter, no matter how slow it is, is fun for a lot of people on this forum. KSP isn't just a space simulator, it's about being free to build whatever you want.

which would be totally fine ...if they weren't putting MASSIVE ROCKET ENGINES on them.

- you are telling me a "spinny thing" makes the game better for you in your opinion and believe the "novelty of putting a spinny thing" is going to be lasting thereafter ? because i am of an alternate belief... - considering the junk is now in the game forever.

it's a slippery slope..................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, k00b said:

which would be totally fine ...if they weren't putting MASSIVE ROCKET ENGINES on them.

 

5 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

free to build whatever you want.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RealKerbal3x said:

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

Because the engineering challenge of building a functional helicopter

make your mind up ? functional helicopter OR "strange contraption"...............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, k00b said:

 

make your mind up ? functional helicopter OR "strange contraption"...............

It doesn't matter. The point is, KSP is a sandbox game, and you can create whatever weird thing it is that you like. The only rules are the laws of physics.

And while you can't find an effective purpose for the rotors, many others have. The DLC wasn't created for your benefit only.

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.