Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1,729 Excellent


Profile Information

  • About me

Recent Profile Visitors

6,809 profile views
  1. @RedPandaz they couldn't make the whole making history dlc work on consoles so they are taking the bits they can port and repacking them as a different smaller dlc. You can get everything they are getting through making history or preferably through higher quality mods.
  2. To be fair there's ways to make it work ways like prerequisites to unlock it, giving it a severe penalty to the mass, part count, and dimensions of what you can launch from it plus a vehicle cost markup so that you'd always do much better launching from kerbin instead in about every respect but convenience, etc. The only real insurmountable problem with this is just that the one implementing it is Squad who as usual are just adding it in the laziest way they think they can get away with...
  3. I find it significant because I don't expect it to stop with just the rcs block. The old meshes were sloppily done reuseing them carries an unnecessary risk of their flaws and mistakes persisting, and it's especially frustrating because most of the meshes they are reuseing are very simple and trivial to recreate cleanly from scratch to ensure there is no risk of errors. It's just another snip in a long line of bald squad corner cuts.
  4. Excuse me? It's all valid these discrepancies wouldn't happen if parts were modeled from scratch especially considering how squad doesn't take feedback and redo's unless the parts reception is cold enough to build a snow kerbal out of. Edit: Also they are the same mesh they just added a bevel to the inside of the nozzel they are still made from the old mesh not from scratch.
  5. I notice real nozzles such as the pic above don't have such a pronounced lip on them. I'll just chalk this up to "why squad shouldn't waste time retexturing old place holder meshes"...
  6. I wasn't so much imagining colonization and off world facilities rather a "commercial service" that can deliver small payloads to various points in the solar system for you after you've explored them, but always being much smaller than what you could launch from kerbin and pilot to the same point yourself. A simple feature to cut out some tedium for smaller payloads so you can focus your time on the big ones.
  7. probably best not to make assumptions though remember when so many people still thought the mission creator would create contracts for career mode despite multiple statements to the contrary?
  8. It would seem a little less weird if the moon pad had more restrictions on it for size, mass, and part count in career mode(then you can wave it off as the vehicle being delivered there), make it something you can unlock and upgrade so you have a bit of an endgame beyond just unlocking the whole tech tree, but just as a freebie like the desert launch site? I imagine like autopilot features it would generate so much friction between those who play for the challenge to fly and everyone else that the debates would just be exhausting...
  9. Same as everyone else. Good job, but kinda wish there was an alternate shape or bare engine option for my non-spaceplanes since part variants are a thing now.
  10. sure at the hottest point but be it for physics or aesthetic it should taper off rapidly from that point. my issue isn't so much the choice of color but rather the amount of area covered by a single color. If they want to cover a lot of area with a glow then it would need to transition from one color to another as you go from coldest to hottest, or alternately if they only want the dull red they need to be more constrained with it or it'll just look amateurish. Also on the inside of the engine bell a case could be made for whiting out the center with something a lot hotter looking than dull red.
  11. a cold gas propelled reaction control system would have an isp in the double digits. All kerbal rcs and monoprop engines should be assumed to be catalyzed just based on thier minimal performance. ISP is more easily explained by expansion ratio and unseen assumptions like chamber pressure and scale
  12. I imagine people can go back and forth about that all day debating engine design, size, propellant choice, etc but to me the glow regardless of if it should be there should look nice which it presently does not. In order to not look like "my first emissive animation" it either needs more color variation as you progress towards the hottest parts or the glowing area needs to be much smaller so that there is little to no pure red area.
  13. Why's the emmisive just flat glowing red? The bigger the area it covers the more it should gradient from red to yellow to white otherwise the emmissive just shouldn't get that broad and that bright.
  14. [snip] Any way to sum up. I hate it and see little worth salvaging. Ideally since they've shown willingness to break compatibility they should start over with an encapsulated engine like the puff or thud and assuming this new twitch revamp doesn't take some cues from the spark revamp then the spark should be revised to take to take cues from the new twitch, and the new twitch should be buffed (cause again compatibility is out the window with the thrust angle change) so that their relation to each other is more intuitive. If someone wants to make some self contradictory and convenient excuses to get out of starting over the minimum they could do is redo it from the grey gimbal point down instead showing a bare combustion chamber and how it attaches to the rest of the engine to at least make it more visually interesting, and of course also incorporate a miniature turbo somewhere into the design for technical consistency, and attention to detail's sake. And if someone were to do both and let us swap between them with the part variant system I'll take back what I said about squad never going all in on a part.
  15. That's really the crux of the problem isn't it? Even when you do come up with a mechanism to explain it(like the hollow ball air duct someone pointed out not that air ducts can stand up as structural rocket parts but whatever let's roll with it) the question then becomes "why wasn't the part modeled to show this in the first place?" As it stands the part is mechanically unintuitive and visually uninteresting the design seems to ask more "what saves me detail work?" or "I don't know how to model an organic aeroshell like the puff and thud engines" rather than "what looks appealing?", "what looks consistent?", "what makes sense?" This design is just lazy if it's made for vacuum you should remove the encasement and show the mechanically ingesting bits, if it's made for atmos it should be properly streamlined and protected, and ideally you should just do both and use the part variant system to switch between them cause that's a thing we have now! I'm sick of seeing the same lazy design ethos the placeholders had just with standardized textures made by people with no apparent passion or respect for space flight. After the lengths they jumped through to recreate real engines for making history I sincerely thought modeling at least wasn't going to be a problem but now it looks like they just have to be phoning something in one way or another...
  • Create New...