All Activity

In my experience, that's usually the opening salvo, because... ...because too much of Internet "debating" is a spectator sport that involves preaching to the converted and throwing out "sick burns".

GameData\KerbalKonstructs\MapDecalMaps\SquarePlateauSloped.png is your basic tapered plateau. If you combined a couple of those in a graphics editor, adjusting the brightness of one to make it "lower" and then drew a gradient fill from one to the other that would probably make a good starting point. Perhaps something like this?

I will touch the sky! And they're not gonna hold me down no more No, they're not gonna change my mind

Each person is entitled to their own opinion, butI have never had a KSP1 career playthrough be even remotely the same. Sure, Specifics regarding a mission may have parallel.. Take tourist here, gather reading from there. However, with contract configurator & subsequent contract content, many missions on prompted by most recent activities. However, If you ignore that mission to put a satellite around Jool, and instead head over to Duna you will be prompted to explore vastly different locations. and.. will see different things. Find different discoverables. One playthrough I focused on placing as many bases on as many bodies as I could. With refueling stations and extraplanetary launchpads. Mining exotic resources & using LP / OSE to fabricate Colonies on site. Another I decided I would skip the elaborate mining / rocket manufacturing & instead did small mining stations with orbital converters for refuel. Another playthrough I made a ton of planes and explored every inch of kerbin. As it stands now. The game stagnates quickly and has zero replay with regard to a career approach. It seems from the outside.. and no experience I'm coding.. that excrements could have been added easily & would ensure an endless amount of replay. Having a ratio of local missions VS greater amounts outside of Kerbins SOI could weight the game so to encourage pushing out system without taking the balls of what made career so much fun in KSP1.

Hello! I'm using procedural wings and near-future propulsion, OPT (J fuselage) (SCIMITAR, like Rapier but a bit stronger). My plane has 4 engines like this. According to KER, my engines receive air well into 25 km high and yet - depending on my ascent profile I either start losing thrust at 1200 m/s or go well into 1400, almost 1500 m/s. This is a pretty significant difference for deltaV due to efficiencies and I'm trying to figure out how to best reproduce the 1400/1500 ascent profile. My observations have been, given I'm using a Delta-wing lifting body fuselage with canards and V tail fins is... My best bet is to fly up to ~8 km high and point with a barely 5 degree angle of attack if not less. The body/wings will cause me to ascend still and somehow I'll hit and maintain 1400/1500 m/s until 27 km high when I swap to rocket mode. When I rise to 20 km then do level flight, I'll never go higher than 1200 m/s. Is this some sort of a feedback loop going on? That you need to break the velocity barrier when there's more air to maintain it higher? My ascent profile works either way, and I can return/launch reliably. I'm just trying to figure out how it works exactly and why.

The key thing will be to positively charge the area around the base so that dust does not fall there at night.

And I like the way you think! (I will figure out the "custom height map" as it will have "other applications" for my space program.) When I am done, I will publish Old Smokey (the spaceport, including the map decals) in Kerbal Konstructs Airport Exchange so that other intrepid pilots can feel the excitement terror... And Kryptonite, of course, in KerbalX. Meanwhile, Kryptonite 5 has shed some mass/drag. I implemented the jettisonable crew section. (It's Soviet-style: bale out when low & slow enough.)

I have played through KSP1 career more than once. It was all the same every time.

I fail to see how a Game Industry professional plans to enrich its resume by violating the EULA of a competitor (or former one, who knows nowadays). You know, their employer also has a EULA to enforce - and I really don't think such employer would be proud of their employees violating EULAs on the wild - their business model depends of EULAs being enforced! (or to hire someone that did that)

Leeky leeks from people digging through code few weeks ago

I'm genuinely curious though, have you played through the progression path more than once? Were you or do you honestly see yourself being equally engaged with the missions on second or third playthrough? My problem with the way it's done now is not that it's not engaging or fun on the first time but that it seems to lack any longevity.

Planning for the required dV for a given maneuver has nothing to do with your burn time prediction though. Many players in KSP1 had some kind of a vessel or satellite just to plan maneuvers with. I don't understand why these are built to be so heavily connected in the first place but it does explain a few things about the issues they have with the current planner.

I like the launch ramp! You might want to make a custom height map to add support below the ramp and to taper off the edges of your plateaus. Very high vertical rock formations aren't exactly structurally sound after all. Use white for the upper end of the ramp, a lighter grey for the main plateau, gradient fill for the ramp and another gradient to blend the edges of the whole thing down to black.

What hyped me the most are the NTR plume changes. I always wanted blue/purple-ish exhausts from nuclear rockets and I have to say I'm seeing my dream come alive at last. P.S. Please! Fix flat-bottom clouds before adding multiple layers. I always have a strange feeling that flying just beneath the current clouds is like faying with sheets of paper floating above. If this problem doesn't get addressed then it would probably get worse once we have multiple cloud layers.

The EC values come from ExtraplanetaryLaunchpads/Resources/ECSmelter.cfg. There's an explanation in the config as to why it uses the settings it does. There's also a patch at WildBlueIndustries/Sandcastle/Patches/ECSmelterClassic.cfg that tries to adjust the value, but it just adds an extra config node rather than modifying the existing one. Modifying the patch as follows or adding the following patch to your own patch folder would apply the intended settings:

Nice plumes, nice clouds. I don't care about memory usage, I have a strong gaming rig, mwahahahaha Sneakpeek it soon please.

I wonder how many years it will take for the game to reach the level of playability of the first part? I hope in three years the second part will be fully playable?

Thanks for the suggestion. I had thought I had just succeeded but inspecting the screenshot closely the orbital figures were 93,822 x 86,612 m. It looks doable now, though... [click + arrows = slideshow] Just short.

You might also try placing a decoupler below the crew section (and parachutes/heatshield) for emergencies. You'd lose the rest of the craft but the crew would survive and could be rescued from the surface using some sort of prop powered plane/VTOL or rover.

This is the exact type of review we have all been wanting. Next time could you post it in the year we asked for it? I am 100% serious. To an outside observer, this game is a couple steps away from abandonware. I am not suggesting the game is going to be cancelled, I am saying the effort being put out to communicate is barely above "we aren't working on the game, so why bother?" There is, unofficially. You have to bind it yourself, but axes work, no problem. I dunno why the devs don't mention it.

N 3

In KSP 1 where manoeuvres were modelled as a single impulse, it sort of made sense to allow them to have any deltaV the player wanted, but with the KSP2 model where the manoeuvre is correctly modelled over time there's going to be issues if you exceed your real deltaV. With the new planning model the predicted acceleration of the vessel needs to change over the manoeuvre as the mass of the vessel decreases / the TWR increases and if you can exceed your vessel's deltaV then you'd either: have to special case what happens when you run out of fuel (i.e. how much does the acceleration change over time when you're burning non-existent propellant) run into the point when you have so much negative mass of propellant that your vessel has zero mass and infinite acceleration Neither of these cases make for good manoeuvre predictions. But I do understand that some sort of planning mode where you can model future missions to determine the amount of dV needed before designing the vessel would be useful.

I feel like the reason the world is so divided is because no one has the modesty or backbone to conduct extended, intense debates/arguments. If we fail more than 2-3 times to convince someone of something, we don’t have a hard look at what we’re saying to see if it’s wrong, we accuse the opponent/target of being “brainwashed” or “lacking good faith.” Idk, maybe I’m spending too much time with the people on this forum who are mostly old enough to remember Apollo or STS-1 and need to interact more with my own generation.

Because Ice Age people actually might have had varied culture and not a monolithic way of thinking across Eurasia. Hence why I said within their group. The objective of all life is to survive, no? Would you say one’s desire for food and water is an opinion? I suppose it could be. The Wendat did have punishment mechanisms for things people agreed were bad, like murder. Instead of punishing individuals, the whole clan would have to pay tribute to the clan of the slain person, creating an incentive to prevent others from committing murder. Kandiaronk said this was more effective in preventing crime than European punishment of the individual, but we don’t really know for sure whether that was true or not. What the Wendat did not do was force people to do something they didn’t want to. No one was forced to participate in war against another tribe if they were not convinced it was the right course. I don’t think a decision requires punishment of those who don’t agree and cooperate. Sometimes decisions involve recruiting volunteers to execute them, in which case those who oppose go unpunished because they aren’t needed. Not the case. Pacific Northwest tribes were “peasants of the fish” in that they conducted mass harvesting and processing of salmon according to the right time in the season. The environment they lived in was unsuitable for HG lifestyle because the main trees were conifers. They raided each other for slaves because the leaders could not convince their own people to take up the intense labor needed for processing salmon. But the northern Californian peoples, who lived with access to similar abundance of salmon, consciously refused harvesting salmon and preferred the hunter gatherer way of life, because they valued work for the individual and did not believe in slavery, unlike the almost bourgeoise-like leaders of the Pacific Northwest peoples who showed off their immense wealth (and shared it) during potlatch. But the Pacific Northwest people never raided the northern Californian HGs, despite being in close proximity. (The northern Californian peoples actually did keep a small number of slaves, but the institution was frowned upon and those who owned them were ostracized)

I believe ballisticfox has said it elsewhere, apparently it's because the codec (?) used for compressing the files isn't supported by the windows file explorer zip extractor however it is supported by 7zip