Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Past hour
  2. isn't that the point of the game? You build your rocket, and you account for the types of engine, fuel, the total weight, the different stages. You plan everything in advance, based on the kind of mission you want to do. if the game is just going to put you into an orbit, why bother adding the first 2 stages, and why bother caring about drag? being able to put a massive, fully fueled lander in orbit, docking it with an interplanetary stage that you also launch from the surface is part of what makes the mission fun for me. You can use the cheat menu if you want to cheat your vessel into an orbit I guess, but the last thing I would want is that the game plays itself for me...
  3. No. Warship classes simply have predecessors and successors. The reason "generations" of fighter aircraft came about was mainly because of the bird [lol, this is getting auto moderated and changed to bird] for tat development of aircraft during the Cold War. US develops F-100 to counter MiG-15, Soviets develop MiG-19 and 21 to counter F-100 (although bomber interceptor was the primary role), Americans develop F-4 to counter MiG-21, Soviets develop MiG-23 to counter F-4, Americans develop Teen Series to counter MiG-23, Soviets develop MiG-29 and Su-27 to counter Teen Series. (If the Cold War had not ended, perhaps we would be seeing sixth gen fighters entering service now, having gone through the F-22 vs. MiG-29/Su-27 and then MiG-1.44 or Su-57 vs. F-22 in the 2010s) A similar dynamic existed with tanks, which is why the M1 Abrams is a 3rd generation MBT. The Americans develop the M60 to counter the T-54, the Soviets upgun the T-62 from 100 to 115mm to counter the M60, the Americans develop the M1 to counter the T-62... later upgraded to counter the T-72. It kinda ended there though, which is why the Abrams' design dates to the 1970s. The Soviets had a 152mm upgunned T-80 in development called the Object 292, which perhaps might have kicked off the race for a 4th gen MBT in the 90s had it entered service, but it didn't escape the collapse of the USSR. Tanks like the Type 10 and K2 have been called 4th gen, but it is questionable because they are just better versions of third gen designs (namely the Type 90 and K1). In contrast, ships have not been designed to specifically counter other nation's ships since the 1930s. Since the end of WWII, new ship classes are mainly designed around carrying new technology for countering all ships, not just one specific class. Ships also vary greatly between nations, for example, with Russian ships focusing on the anti-surface warfare mission, American vessels on land attack and ballistic missile defence, and Japanese ships on ASW.
  4. Interesting. Thanks for the information about what that line was supposed to do. I'll consider replacing that FOR with NEEDS or AFTER, and then trying to load the game once more, before having to consider uninstalling the mod. By the way, I'm only recently starting to learn how to develop mods for KSP, but I don't know where to find an in-depth guide on how to make mod patches like these. Any idea where to look?
  5. More like STS just came way too early. As I said in another thread, STS was the definition of something "ahead of its time." Rapid reusability wasn't lost back then because of lack of funding, it was lost because of technological limitations. No amount of funding would have made it work. Now is the time.
  6. The way it is supposed to work is this: Tony is from Universe A (let's call it Track A). They journeyed to Tracks B, C, and D to get the stones. They use them in Track A to fix everything. Steve goes back to Tracks B, C, and D to return them. No paradox. There is a big "upset" but it is only in the form of the events past Guardians of Galaxy Vol. 1 (Track D) never taking place, because Thanos and his army from Track D have been snapped out of existence. But that doesn't prevent them from traveling back to B, C, and D to return to the Infinity Stones. It wouldn't have worked to "freeze" Thanos- which I assume refers to putting him in a time loop like he did to Dormammu. Yes everyone could live, but they'd be stuck reliving the same few moments over and over again. Dr. Strange said he looked ahead at all the possibilities of the coming battle, and probably realized Thanos' will was too strong and he would never give in. Thus the only way was the way he chose (let everyone die and then fix it with time travel). The first method you speak of involves something called the Novikov self-consistency principal. As you say, whatever you want to do in the past, you either already did or failed to do. The problem is this would mean not only is there no free will for sentient beings, it would mean everything in the natural world is "on clock work" too, by virtue of sentient beings being part of the universe. That means not only are you destined to say, go back in time but do nothing significant that causes anyone to notice in the historical record, it also means things like the exact moment leaves fall, when solar flares occur, the exact day winter occurs, etc., are all predetermined and cannot be altered. Put simply, there is nothing random in the world. Such a theory would be very depressing, as it means nothing you do has any consequence and there is no real choice. It would be mind boggling to think about and would lead to the erosion of morals and society. It does nonetheless have numerous proponents. The second method is sometimes said to invoke the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. The problem of Schrodinger's cat is solved. Rather than having to deal with the question of how a cat could be both dead and alive due to a particle being in two different states until observed, there is simply one "world"- again, I shall call it a Track- in which the cat is dead, and one in which it is alive. The problem with this for me is it implies everyday life in the normal flow of time is also akin to time travel. When you decide whether you want to have Coke or Pepsi, you "journey" into a different Track depending on what choice you make. This then raises the question of whether it is actually feasible to "journey" backwards at all. Because natural time travel, which goes forward, does not involve you physically travelling to another Track, you remain in your own body and outwardly experience nothing. So what would travelling backward even be like? Would you even truly be going backwards, or would time simply take a U-Turn for you and continue to go forwards, but outwardly appear as if you were travelling backwards? "Suppose... time is round."- a line from A Scanner Darkly by Philip K. Dick, 1977.
  7. Since planes have generations (for example, F22 being 5th generation fighter), does warships also have generations on how they developed over the ages? If so, what's the current generation we're currently at?
  8. Today
  9. "Comrades, we can not allow a cereal gap!"
  10. Yeah, I get what your saying. Think though it would appeal to a wider audience if you could build more wacky builds that all. I didn't know about possible rotating station parts. Could be interesting
  11. If Dreamchaser proves to be capable of rapid reuse and then they combine it with a reusable launcher then we will finally get what Shuttle was supposed to be - a rapidly reusable human acces to space. Eventually working in tandem with Starship and New Glenn as heavy cargo launchers we could. finally have what was envisioned in 70s before all the compromises came into Shuttle program to accomodate different interests from those footing the bill. Better late than never I guess
  12. Apologies for the possibly dumb question, but has anyone asked the question of what is the goal of colonies? What is meant to be the incentive to build them? I mean, we build rockets to explore the different planets and moons right? So is building colonies just something to do or is there another reason to build them, like maybe as a refueling station or as a way to cheese science by having it slowly but continuously trickling out from there? Maybe I'm just over thinking it. I mean, why explore other planets? Why collect science? Why play the game at all?! Just because we can and just because it's fun (or hopefully will be when they get most of the bugs out of it!) is a perfectly valid reason to do any of these things. Maybe building colonies is the same, just because we can. I only ask because if there was meant to be some specific reason to build them, for example what if they are a necessary step to travel to other star systems, would we want that? If so, then how does that change our wishes and expectations of colonies?
  13. cutie, just begs to be petted and hugged
  14. I think it’s normal, but not everyone may like it, but it depends only on the player’s preferences
  15. 3/10 Saw you on some forum games lately.
  16. I have had the docking ports not docking issue also. In one case, when I separated my lander from the mother ship, whilst being in control of the lander as I float away from the mother ship, I right clicked the mothership docking port expecting to find "set as target" but didn't, Instead I found "undock". So now every time I separate I click on both docking ports, and from both ships and make sure all possible instances of the "undock" option is clicked. I looked to me as though the lander and the mother ship disagreed as to the state of the mothership docking port. When in control of the mother ship, right clicking on the motherships docking port didn't show an undock option, only "control from here". The "undock" option only appeared for the motherships docking port while right clicking on it while being in control of the lander.
  17. Search your GameData folder for any instance of 'RealNames.cfg' and remove, otherwise will need a KSP.log to diagnose.
  18. The missions and storyline in KSP2 definitely give it a little something to latch on to as you work thru the early game, but once you've done Minmus that source of motivation dries up. Pre-release: got it, but I can't highlight the strengths of the missions/story up to that point if I don't observe the as-is is stony cold dead at that point. What I specifically want to point out are three major weaknesses I see recreated from KSP1 in KSP2 as it exists now: 1- Auto-fear: Resistance to adding rails for fear of "spoiling the sim", (e.g 'auto' things, docking pilots, etc), 2- Too flimsy of a tech tree, 3- Inherent reward for risk only, Auto-fear: Once you've returned from Minmus and are eyeing the next planet, there are two reasons you might fire up KSP and and launch a rocket. 1/ To start a journey; Duna, Eve maybe, Jool? 2/ For the sake of launching a rocket and experimenting. Rewind a second. "To start a journey"? Yep - you were with me, too. But that's not what the game is going to let you do. The game is going to make you go through all the same rookie slog involved in getting your vehicle to orbit. While that's not the worst thing, if KSP2 wants to be more than just a launch sim, it needs to break the vice-like grip of the fear of automation. Why do we allow you to start with a fully loaded vehicle, why don't we make you wait for tanking? Why doesn't the game ship with bad weather so you might have to wait until tuesday next week (real time) to launch your rocket? I'm not proposing that launch needs to be skippable, but by the time you're ready to start heading to Duna/Eve, you ought to be able to play passenger on your kerbin launches. In MMO terms, KSP2 forces you to start every level by walking back to Stormwind/Orgrimmar, doing kill-10-rat quests for all the vendors/random npcs, before finally working your way up to a single quest you will now be able to get 1-2 quests for the zone you now have to walk back to. If I'm in the mood for flying each and every one of my launches to assemble my manned trip to Jool, I can do that. Having an autopilot doesn't prevent me doing it, but it does reward me for my work so far by allowing me to spend more time on the next part of the gameplay. Hell, sometimes I want an auto-feature so I can just *watch* kerbal space program. Flimsy-Tree: One of the purposes of tech-trees is player-teaching. "Try this engine", "you've tried a solid engine, now try a liquid engine", "and here's a parachute". KSPs tech tree is one of the worst in the industry. Near random gluts of stuff, sometimes with no obvious relation. And the way they're mixed makes it real hard to forge your own path, and the jumps in sc-cost tends to lead people to completion-spend. Which means they never experiment with those science-spends. There need to be way more nodes, more layers and more options. Infact, maybe we, as players, don't need to see the tree at all. You could visualize various different vehicles and highlight the parts that scientists are currently "experimenting" with as a way of showing what's currently available to research. IMHO almost every single upgrade - except variants - should be individually selectable. But won't that require a lot more science? Yes, and that leads into the 3rd item What's the pay off? Excerpt from a 90s TV interview: Q. "But what do we get from going to space?" A. "Surviving in space challenges scientists and engineers in ways that our safe environment down here doesn.t It was NASA scientists that invented the microwave ovens and cellular telephones!" KSP struggles with a lack of things to do - other than fly rockets, which is going to be a game killer when you want people to build bases. But doing things *can* be inherent - KSP already relies on that fact heavily, it just doesn't leverage it. Watching stuff explode or crash is fun, but it's also punitive: you get nothing for it. KSP ought to reward failure to properly integrate it as part of gameplay. As long as parts of crashed vehicles are recoverable - and you could build around that - they could produce science, for instance. You should be able to get 1 science point from every single component in the game by launching a launch-clamp holding one and dropping it from > 100ft. "crash tolerance". Another point for burning one up in every atmosphere? How about some science for overheating and destroying engines? Blowing up a tank with a badly placed separatron? Look at this way: Player has two vehicles in orbit for their first attempt at docking. The game autosaves, and they begin docking, but they're not watching their mp and when they finally get an accidental roll under control they realize they're out of fuel and the two vehicles are going to crash at unsurvivable speed. Does the player: a) let the vessels crash, return to VAB and launch 2 more ships? b) hit esc and avoid the annoying mistake? Why would anyone select a? Buuuuut... If science "experiences" paid off, well, now that might be some justification to roll with the occasional punch.
  19. Floor 4678: much needed beverages after those crackers 004003292024
  20. Y4 D176 - Y5 D34 - Kerbin System and Duna Surface Operations While all of Kerbin is enthralled with the progress of the Duna mission, we here at KSA have to keep things moving along. In addition to the consolidated crew rotation/resupply (Which went swimmingly, by the way. That is officially our new standard procedure.), we have some additional housekeeping to get done around Kerbin system. Since the construction of the Kerbin system infrastructure was completed, several years ago, the demand for orbital tugs and hydrolox tanks has dropped off sharply. Three tugs, Tugs 4 through 6, have been parked in orbit above Minmus unused for over a year now with full hydrolox tanks attached to them, waiting for an opportunity to be used. And no opportunity has arisen. So, management has decided that it is time to cull down the fleet. Because Orbital Tugs 1 through 3 have the highest number of operating hours, they will be retired and brought back down to Kerbin, along with three hydrolox tanks. Before that happens, Orbital Tugs 4 through 6 will visit Minmus Station, Mun Station, and Kerbin Station to transfer the fuel loads from their hydrolox tanks. Once that has been completed, Tugs 1 through 3 rendezvous at Kerbin Station with the empty hydrolox tanks and will be brought down as spaceplane cargo. This will leave us with a standard compliment of two tugs at Kerbin Station and one tug at Minmus Station, as well as one hydrolox tank at each station with one extra at Minmus Station for fuel transfers. The returned tugs are refurbished then placed in storage at KSC. They will be redeployed once the three operating tugs reach the end of their operational lives. Once that evolution is completed, we need to add additional upgrades to Kerbin Station and Minmus Station. Since we have increased the crew rotation interval to a full year now, crew health and morale has become more of an issue. However, since the spin habitat module that was deployed on Draco has been operating so well, KSA management has decided to order additional spin habitat modules to deploy on the occupied stations to increase crew comfort. So, three spin hab modules get lifted to Kerbin Station on Marvin. Once there, two of them are installed and inflated on Kerbin Station. The remaining module is carried via orbital tug to Minmus Station, where it is installed and inflated. Now the crews of the stations will be able to participate in the virtual foosball tournaments with the crews of Farside Base and Minmus Base (once they get handicapped for coriolis). Meanwhile, on Duna, the crew of Duna Base are keeping themselves busy. They are using their rover, Syrtis, to explore as much of the surface of Duna as they can reach. They even make the trek to inspect Duna Rover 1. They collect a large variety of samples, many of which are analyzed in the base lab, and many of which are stowed away in Olympus for return to Kerbin. But, at the end of the day, it's always good to get back to the base for a nice hot shower and dinner in the wardroom. While the crew on Duna continues their history-making mission, we back here at KSC greet the new year and look forward to the arrival of Sarnus Explorer in our next report.
  21. I simply gave up, assuming it was probably only a surface-area (like if I wanted to scan Capyrock from LKO)
  22. No worries, I just wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing anything. I can put together some basic versions of stuff but I’m not much of a modeler and even worse at texturing. Icecovery is really the person you’d want doing this stuff (they made all the hatch models in FreeIVA) but I already asked and they’re busy. So I’ll do my best.. I also noticed that the IVAs are much bigger than the external part - perhaps they’re scaled for real scale? Not really sure how to handle that… I hope the surgery went well, and you have a speedy recovery.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...