All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. KerikBalm

    KSP Loading... Breaking Ground: Hinges

    Round hinges? you mean rotors? those have already been showed. Or you mean with a circular cross section, so you could have a 1.25 cylinder, a "round hinge" between it and another 1.24m cylinder? As for a cubic octagonal strut sized version? look at the dimensions, one is.
  3. Are you going to show us the robotics control interface? Pleeeeease...
  4. FahmiRBLXian

    Guess Who Will Reply Next?

    Wrong. (Hopefully I'm not too late to say) Welcome to the forums, @buenavides1. If you'd like to mention a player, type "@" followed by the user you'd like to mention. Remember, typing the whole username will not turn the whole username you'd like to mention into a Blue box just like above. Select the username you'd like to mention from the list of matching usernames and the name will turn into a Blue box. When the name has a Blue box, this means you're truly mentions another user. @YNM, what will you have for Iftar?
  5. I cant help but notice you have both AVP and Spectra installed. Isnt Spectra a visual overhaul too? If so, thats going to conflict.
  6. why don't you build one rocket, add parts in diametral simetry. after that just set the simetry as you wish, and click on rocket. that way rocket will be mirrored simmetry, but parts on it radial.
  7. FahmiRBLXian

    KSP Loading... Breaking Ground: Hinges

    Looks really cool! I wonder if round versions of this hinge will be developed tho... I mean, round hinges match better on tiltwings and tilt-engines / rotors such as the V-22 Osprey. And could a Cubic Octagonal Strut-sized version of this hinge developed? That'll be cool for variable swept wing jets so one can build a stock B-1 Lancer or F-14 Tomcat. Or even tiny crawlers.
  8. Well, the surface feature in this case looks to fit in better than the Moho one. I think the main problem is the ground texture of the planet itself. Its bascially going to be impossible to have a nice detailed surface feature blend into a very low resolution bland background texture. The geometry and overall color are much better. Its got a nice texture, shiny like smooth ice (I guess it makes sense that it may be smooth from sublimation and buildup from the gas expelled, some of it refreezing)... that's just not going to blend in with current surface textures. So we'd have the choice between ugly bland surface feature to match the ugly bland surface terrain (that would get a lot of complaints), or pretty feature that contrasts with the ugly bland surface texture. We need a planet surface texture overhaul, with normal maps (currently, I think normal maps are only used for the textures and view of plants from high up), to go with this DLC. I'd propose the surface features are DLC only, but the graphics/planet texture overhaul goes into the base game. I'm more excited about the surface features than the arm myself. I was worried that the cryovolcano was going to be a bland cone. It actually does have some vapor, and particles floating* around. I was thinking, with these animated floaty textures, there could be some pretty cool coral reef features under the sea of Kerbin, with the particles looking like little fish swimming around, or at least little plankton floating. But something like this below the ocean of laythe, as a black smoker, and change the particles a bit to look like little living things swarming around the hotspot, as they do on Earth, that would be super cool. * from a realism perspective, I don't like the floaty particles, and the gas diffuses too slow, it should be more jet-like. That looks fine for a geyser on Kerbin or Laythe... but val has no atmosphere those small particles should be following ballistic trajectories, like dust kicked up on the moon, not floating around. Even with a geyser spewing out gas, its spewing out gas into what is effectively a vacuum, and as soon as the particles are a little bit away from the mouth of the plume. We already have workable options for building stock subs on planets with O2 containing atmospheres (since jet engines work under water, lulz), but I'm fairly sure something can be made to work with the new hinges and rotors for electricity based propulsion, even on Eve. Also robotics will make it easier to deploy and recover stock submarines (getting a sub to the water was always a bit of a challenge), so I expect that I'll be spending even more time underwater with the new DLC. Underwater surface features should definitely be implemented... and I'm sure a mod will add them eventually if they aren't already implemented. Stock subs already here, so we need underwater features: Also, 720 Science, assuming it follows this: Then it has a 12x science multiplier. A Mun (4x multiplier) feature I presume would yield 240 science. A Kerbin (surface multiplier: 0.3) feature would probably yield 18 science. I wish we had biome specific multipliers though... I'd make the poles of kerbin have higher values. If this is the larger arm, then I'd expect the smaller arm to yield less science (1/2?), so maybe around 120 science on Mun when trying to unlock the tech tree? Later, with 100% commitment to the science-funds admin "strategy", 720 science (fieldwork), at 103.783 funds per science, is 74,723 funds... not bad. This sort of science output makes it more viable to ignore contracts and self-finance missions. Otherwise, late game, I'm mainly ignoring contracts and financing through the MPL (churning out science> funds the entire transfer time)
  9. Yes but the fact remains that players apparently expect they can switch to the atmosphere while still in space. I'm thinking about adding a special window which would allow you to switch between propellants and show expected performance (thrust, isp) before you switch. Notice that for new vessels to achieve the same, you need to replace by positron reactor by the antimatter beam core reactor And replace the positron storage by an antimatter or antihydrogen storage device. This is both more realistic and effective as positron are only really suitable for thermal power applications and more difficult to store anti protons (= antimatter resource) which can be stored as a solid ball of antihydrogen.
  10. LunaTrick

    Decouple Happens Upon Docking

    Here's the log file. Sorry, I'm new at this stuff. I believe that my mining ship has an action group of 4 and the rover has an action group of 4. I think they are interacting. Don't you need the ship files to be able to deal with that? Seems like you'd need the space station, the mining ship and the rover files to be able to recreate the problem, because they have to all have to hooked together to make the problem happen. BTW I saw the rover decouple 3 different times. But I have moved past the problem by landing the rover without connecting to the space station first. The miner crashed into Vall. That is probably where the log file is now. -
  11. Rudolf Meier

    [WIP] Kerbal Joint Reinforcement - Next

    It is for sure some sort of "unplanned" behaviour of the gameengine. I'm now having the problem, that adding a joint wich does nothing... so it has no forces, no limits, just nothing... this let's everything freak out and start oscillating enormously... and I've not found out how to predict such things. I think, it has to do with object without mass or with very small mass... but, I'm just guessing at the moment. An other idea I have is... if it also works with just 1 frame. Maybe the problem is only, that unity is normally destroying objects delayed. But what this means is unclear to me... do they still affect the scene? When are they used for calculation? Before or after the FixedUpdate call... a lot of questions here and not that much documentation... all I found about those problems is unity forums with questions that don't help
  12. I've been getting that too. Everything still seems to work though so my main issue is still the MEM.
  13. Today
  14. IKR, my English is just not good and I think I didn't express what I meant precisely. I was just mentioning it doesn't work because nobody mentioned whether this works or not
  15. I've seen some youtube videos where the game looks quite pretty, I don't know what mods they were using, it was more than just scatterer for sure. But sure, better graphics are nice. I'm not sure KSP 2.0 is needed for that though... but I'm not sure how I'd feel about a "High Def" graphics overhaul DLC. For 2: that's really just a squad business model, doesn't really relate to KSP 2.0 or KSP 1.9 DLC... For 3... again, I don't know if they need to go to KSP 2.0 for that. With that said, I do like the system that many games have - where you just subscribe on steam, and select the mods you want from a launcher on start-up. While I accept that mech jeb isn't unrealistic, it is a game, and before I got the game I had an interest in it, but I then lost all interest in mechjeb. It is a game. Right now astronauts are kind of useless as far as getting to space: not needed at all, they are a payload. Given the scale of the game and dV margins, I'm fine with it being manual. Anyway, given that we have mech jeb already, I'd again say this isn't a reason that we need a KSP 2.0 (not that I wouldn't like a KSP 2.0 if it was polished and had the right features) 5) I'm pretty sure that would be easy for them to change (even games back in the 90s often had console commands that let you change the FOV, like "FOV 90" or "FOV 70"). I really doubt KSP 2.0 is needed for that. KSP 1.X could probably do that I mean.... sure... but I don't think modern direct X graphics really are needed for a sense of scale? KSP already has a sense of scale that puts most other games to shame. All that is really needed for your suggestion is that a plane starts just outside the spaceplane hangar, or you add a crawler animation for rockets. You can already spawn an unmanned plane on the runway, then spawn a bus from the launchpad and go drive your kerbal to the plane. KSP as it is supports adding launch/ spawn points so really they could just add a kerbal spawnpoint near the astronaut complex, and add an option to spawn rockets/planes outside the VAB/SPH or on the runway/launchpad. I'm pretty sure all this could be modded in, so while I think they are good suggestions, I don't think they need KSP 2.0 Perhaps this could be implemented with the part switching function, and the (currently unused in the stock game, but the framework was put in place) part upgrade system? Well, a big thing I think we need is mission planning. I mean, the ability to make manuever nodes and such before launching a craft. I'd love to have a mission planner function where you can enter in a launch time, and already start placing maneuver nodes, then start the mission with all the maneuver nodes already there and in place (or perhaps you select a target starting orbit, and then once you reach it within acceptable deviation, as in a contract, you can load the maneuver node set) I'd also like probe cores to be able to execute maneuver nodes on their own, automatically (even if signal is lost, as long as the maneuver was entered before signal loss, it should do it). It could be nice if they'd even execute the nodes while "on rails" in the background/not the active flight, as long as their TWR is within a certain range, and the maneuver node estimated burn time is within a certain percent of orbital period (so you don't have a 9km/second burn with ion engines executing on some probe that is on rails and not the active vessel). This would allow you to set up target vehicles and let you handle routine cargo launches. Currently the limit of 1 active vessel is one of the biggest creativity limits. Trying to make flyback boosters when only 1 vessel is controllable at a time is very difficult. Air launch to orbit from something with high bypass turbofans will basically only ever let you get your payload to orbit, or recover the launcher aircraft, not both. If the rocket payload could have its maneuver nodes pre-set and if it executes them on its own, you could air drop it, and fly the launching craft back to KSC, while your air dropped rocket continues to orbit. Mabye KSP 2.0 is needed for this? I dunno Yes.. they need a mission set... they kind of maybe sort of get close to this with some missions that sort of come up sequentially... like get to orbit, rendezvous in orbit, dock, explore Mun (flyby, then orbit, then land)... but often this progression gets broken (oh, you flew by the Mun before rendezvousing first... never mind your explore mun contracts, and I think the docking contract may go away). The "worlds first" achievements sort of kind of get close to this... especially with "leadership initiative"... you can do missions to reach those goals, ignoring contracts. The problem is that you can't really rely on "leadership initiative" early in the game because of the investment needed to upgrade the admin building, and commit to it at 100%... by the time you've accepted enough contracts and done enough stuff to unlock all that, most of the achievements are already gone, and you need to go interplanetary for more, and each planet gets you only a handful of bonuses. A campaign consisting of a structured and well defined contract/mission sequence would be good. Alternatively, a list of "worlds first" achievements remaining (as another tab, so you can switch between those and cotnracts) could help. I'd rather have the option to effectively start with a 100% commitment to leadership initiative..and then later switch to a "commercial space initiative"... basically reversing the situation with leadership initiative Well, that's a consequence of building planes part by part. I don't know of any flight simulator that allows you to build craft the way KSP does. That said... something more like FAR would be great. Wing aspect ratio currently doesn't matter, straight vs swept wing doesn't matter. you can clip a bunch of wings into each other, and they all work equally well, etc. I'd guess a KSP 2.0 could do this better than the way FAR does it as a patch on top of the KSP system. That said, its quite possible to have something that is aerodynamically stable in two orientations... and woe to anyone who exceeds the limits of one, and ends up transitioning to another. A space plane to orbit? super easy with KSP's small size and the high performance of jet engines for that size. An STS style rocket, much harder due to asymmetry and shifting center of mass. That said... this is difficult because of physics concerns. KSP 2.0 isn't going to help. You've already got the tools to do it in KSP, and many many people do it quite successfully. I'd like a better SAS though, that would help. Well, that's what the DLC is meant to address... but even so, there are practical limits. The game No Man's Sky basically ran headfirst into this problem. With no real storyline, players got bored pretty fast of just wandering around planet after planet... collecting stuff, fueling their ship, going to a new planet, collect stuff, refuel their ship, repeat. You could add all the interation that NMS has, and it would still be the same issue. I like to set up modular and relocatable surface bases myself... but once built, there's nothing really to do with them. The DLC is going to allow me to use them as a home base (necessary as I play with life support, otherwise I could endlessly rove with Kerbals) to go searching for nearby terrain features, but its only ever going to be: land, plant flag, do science. People have commented over and over on this, but I have yet to see any suggestion better than what the DLC is doing (add science hotspots that you have to search for). More interesting small scale terrain detail seems like it would help, but NMS had that, and it seems players get equally bored (never played it, so... I can't speak from experience) I would like a planet overhaul, but that doesn't need KSP 2.0 either That's just changing the companies organization, they could do this with KSP 1.8 Mods can do that, but I'm not sure another star system is within the scope of the game, especially not something lightyears out. Instead, making KSP a binary star system, with a companion star hundreds of AU out is a much better idea to me. Even something like proxima centauri vs alpha centauri AB is too much... Proxima centauri is about 13,000 AU from A cen AB (0.21 light years). I agree, a budget model could be good, better than the contract system, or in combination. Build times have been modded, so I don't think KSP 2.0 is needed. Even very early they had a part inventory (I guess you'd have to buy/stockpile certain amounts of parts, and could only use the aprts you had to construct a rocket). So limiting the rate at which you can acquire parts could do this. I think this is beyond the scope of the game, and not very realistic... although I suppose if you've got an entire asteroid to mine. And again... mods allow this, where you can mine and manufacture stuff, then launch ships. KSP 1.X could do this as the game as it stands has the ability to make additional launch sites. Yea, at least add buildings as a type of terrain scatter (ideally clustering to form towns), and have some basic highway/train system crossing the land... this could be done fairly easy. I could make a planet with a road network using kopernicus. Could be a new contract type, I suppose. Overall, I don't see many things that would require a new game engine/KSP 2.0. Many are suggestions that could be used to improve KSP 1.X, or as a DLC.
  16. The surface features still look like they popped out of nowhere though, will you work on them to make it less artificial ?
  17. Well i finally made it. this is the lander i used mod you see just for testing of the lander. i do not use any mods or whatever otherwise. It is quite harsh to get to and take off from eve, but this lander is actually very stable and aerodynamic. When i returned to orbit i had a lot of fuel left in mothership. Actually i made it to Kerbal with half tank of fuel left.
  18. If you want to use rcs thrusters for forward thrust , then you need to enable fore by throttle in the editor. You can now use thrust /throttle as normal when in map mode. It's best if you can do this in the VAB as it will set all rcs blocks placed in symmetry to fore by throttle. It can be done in flight it just means you have to click on and activate it on each rcs thruster block seperately. Hope this helps.
  19. buenavides1

    Guess Who Will Reply Next?

    Ho Lam Kerman, this is just a wild guess.
  20. CatastrophicFailure

    Ask the Mods questions about the Forums!

    How about a rapid planned server crash? That would be quite an event.
  21. No, the build counts are broken, which makes the mod functionally useless, I've pulled the release from github. I'm just waiting for BG to hit, as I assume we'll be getting 1.8 then, and I'll do a release
  22. And you are assuming that this was an assured fix for that bug. Note how i said "try and see" instead of "add this and it will fix it". You are not alone. I had the exact same problem and i ended up just remaking every Scatterer config + texture from scratch, although some things are still incorrect (and i still do not know what the actual fix was). Stick with 0.053 for now.
  23. if you try to surface attach things to Corvus long fuel tank, the part goes very far...
  24. Gameslinx

    [1.6.1] Beyond Home 1.1.0 - After Kerbol has Died.

    Yeah it's a KK bug I'm afraid
  25. purpleivan

    Show off your awesome KSP pictures!

    A few from the last couple of posts in the K.S.C.
  1. Load more activity