All Activity

Ooh nice meme, it seems very familiar *wink wink*

I had seen many creative members who create interesting stories in the games threads, so I thought this would be something they might like. Any thoughts on why this is of no interest?

Marvelous clams compliment

Science that is magic is cheating.

Here's an experiment: in ksp2, plan a 1000 dv maneuver with a rocket with a 1.0 twr. Now plan the same expenditure with a .01 twr. Notice any difference?

Calling 911 because you are bored.

6692

Kiama (A town in NSW Australia.)

When you hit "stage" by accident... Poor cow. https://medium.com/@shermikeholmes88/the-time-we-accidentally-nuked-new-mexico-301489770be2

N 2

Floor 4766: A Shelby Cobra display room and a test track.

Granted: You now have one left. I wish for porld weace.

Hi @Stormpilot, another member I don't see very often these days. Also what happened to @SSTO Crasher?

Bangalor ( see an atlas for this) Or Ban Galore.

Exactly and that's why I'm genuinely asking if people really feel the new system is not repetitive. I was never a fan of the KSP1 system either, it was unbalanced and quite boring. But it did allow for some variation in the gameplay which seems to have been replaced with a hand crafted but incredibly rigid mission progress. Not really a fan of that either. I guess my hope lies still in the modding community.

@JadeOfMaar Thank you for this very interesting information,. Very interesting how modules can be paired this way. Great to have more information in my knowledge base. I should have given more information. What I meant to ask is how to add animation to the material applied to a mesh inside a 3d model editor. I only work in BforArtists/Blender using the .mu plugin. I can see and copy materials from other models that have an animation such as the one that goes from dark to bright to show an engines throttle amount. First time I did this was making use of the material used by the stock Ion engine and applying it to things like my X-wing models. And recently I have seen an animated material that makes a TARDIS go almost fully transparent when toggled. But I have no idea how to create these effects from scratch. I realise that it might be something that can only be done in the Unity editor, but I don't know how you can get all the software needed to do that these days as the old links seem to be broken. So was wondering if it could be done in Blender, and if so, how. Or if in UNITY how and where would you get the setup you need to do it?

Clouds is just blackrack working his magic... the rest of the team is working on colonies and bugfixes as well as visual improvements and heat management @Nerdy_Mike since you guys are doing that awesome work on exhaust plumes, are we gonna get more reentry improvements this next couple updates? Please let there be sparks at least. I imagine the VFX team is working to blend the current style with what we saw in the SpaceX and artemis 1 reentry videos

*whimpers* I made it since it was an easy edit after being inspired by this image; I don't know any more context than that Yes, I don't think I can change that. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but the required orientations for lifting/control surfaces and wheels are hard coded and can't be changed. So all the aero surfaces need to start in the "wing" orientation, even if they're meant to be vertical tail surfaces. And the nose gear needs to be oriented such that the deployed wheel is Y-down. When I made the X-15, I made it at 1.25m (actually, 1.27m on accident). I didn't check the real scale. It never occurred to me that a KSP X-15 wouldn't be 1.25m. But 1.25m X-15 is nearly real-scale. If I kept it that size, it would seriously throw off any potential carrier aircraft, and I just didn't want to cause a cascade of issues leading from that one lazy decision. I haven't rebalanced any of the aero after making the scaling change. In my defense - my tummy hurt a bit last night. I think the rescaleFactor is messing with it, I will have to look. Fine. EDIT: Pic unrelated, brought to you by the X-15 gang

These are the kinds of things I was talking about when I mentioned in a previous post in this thread about the gameplay loop itself being infinitely more valuable to get fixed than to focus on clouds and graphics. There's no point in things looking pretty if the core systems aren't functioning enough to keep people playing.

Russia vetoes UNSC resolution against placement of nuclear weapons in space after a Russo-Chinese amendment adding a call against conventional weapons in space fails in a closely-tied vote https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/04/1148951

I'd like to point out that these aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Everyone plays different from everyone else, so what one person experiences may not necessarily be what someone else does. What one person sees as the same thing all the time may not be what someone else sees. With that said, I am of the opinion that parts of the KSP1 career mode are the same all the time. You start with nothing, have to grind out science to unlock the first few nodes, then launch to the Mun. It's only after the Mun - in my own experience, not anyone else's - that the game starts to deviate from previous playthroughs. And as @Fizzlebop Smith pointed out later on in his post, it boils down to the contracts you select or the flights you undertake. I think that, at least for now, it is. The contract system in KSP1 - although broken and not very beloved by all - at least changes up the missions you undertake. All basically the same - go here, test that, build this, etc. - but the parameters change enough to at least make some people think "I wonder what happens if...". KSP2, on the other hand, has a very rigid set of missions to undertake with zero chance for deviation. The story missions all have to be done in the order they are presented, and there aren't any randomly generated ones. The side missions can be done in any order, but again, they aren't random but very strict and rigid in what you have to do. My hope is that KSP2 will, at some point, have a system that is akin to what KSP1 has, but on a larger and better scale. A guy can hope, right?

Landing SSTOs is a big one for me. But so is skin-of-teeth apollo style missions where a lander just barely reaches the orbiter due to needing heavy plane changes (I messed up the way the 2 docked so I couldn't just move the orbiter around). Esp with life support mods.

But what about KSP2? Is it not also all the same every time?

1. Adding fins to the rear of small rockets can improve aerodynamic stability during early parts of flight. This may not be needed if you have engines with a high degree of gimbling instead. Most but not all rocket engines in KSP have quite large amounts of gimbling (this is shown in the right hand side of the part menu in the VAB) Adding to this, although modded - I found taller/longer rockets to fly much, much nicer than short and stocky ones. Using cryogenic engines, you build very tall for the same deltaV/mass and they... you let go of SAS and naturally do a gravity turn and it's beautiful. Is there a way you could make your rocket taller without making it heavier? 2. On the flipside, payload. Make sure your payload is not much more wider than the rocket underneath it. A super wide fairing will introduce more lift than the fins at the rear and make you flip out like crazy. If you can keep your fairings relatively straight, you're good. Slightly flared out (with symmetry on bottom and top ideally) also works but... don't make it too wide. This too wide is sth I ran into a lot during my early lander designs and struggled horribly because of it. Something that can help you there is knowing you can attach fairings to rocket parts. Like, rockomax tank, 2.5m fairing, science junior/random junk, heat shield and pod. You attach the fairing to the pod's bottom rather than cover it as well.