Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by passinglurker

  1. 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...

  2. 6 hours ago, Deddly said:

    Isn't that just the thickness of the metal on the model? Is that really a significant issue for such a small part? I mean, I get what you're saying, but the artist is evidently very skilled and I think the work on this should be applauded. Besides, when zooming out to the level we would normally be at when viewing a craft, the "lip" may well make it look more attractive and realistic at normal screen resolutions.

    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.

  3. 1 hour ago, MaianTrey said:

    The first part is a valid comment, but looking at the comparison image in the OP these are two different meshes - the new one seems to be modified from the original but it is different.

    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.

  4. 33 minutes ago, Tyko said:

    I could imagine a late game "vehicle construction facility" that was unlocked from various nodes the end of the tech tree and required you to launch and assemble a number of heavy specialized modules  - a mining rig, a 3-d printing bay, an automated assembly module, a nuclear power station, etc...

    Then you could assemble all of them and produce vehicles on another moon/planet. This would still require you to launch them from Kerbin and you'd still need to fly crews there - no 3D printing Kerbals. Maybe part of some end game colonization DLC. 

    I don't like the idea of a magical launch site on the Mun though. 

    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.

  5. 30 minutes ago, klesh said:

    Warping craft to the Mun... seems really weird, and not in a good way.

    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...

  6. 50 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

    If monoprop decomposition generates a 1000C hot gas, then it makes sense that the glow is red or slightly orange.


    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.

  7. 3 hours ago, Lupi said:

    Yeah, my going assumption is that RCS is simply operated on tank pressure, where the Puff is using a catalyst. this explains the thrust and Isp increase, doesn't it?

    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

  8. 3 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

    I question whether monoprop would actually get hot enough to cause the metal to glow red.

    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.

  9. 6 hours ago, Deddly said:

    please get back to the topic: The new engine. Like it? Hate it? Constructive feedback and suggestions for this part? That's all cool, go for it. 


    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.

  10. 2 hours ago, Deddly said:

    Have you seen the internal structure? 

    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...

  11. 21 minutes ago, Deddly said:

    Think about the recently redone lander can. Not only did they listen to feedback and act on it, they even made a video about how they listened to the feedback and acted on it. I think your criticism as to their attitude is unfair.

    After we beat down the gate with the force of public opinion. They don't fix anything because they screwed up but rather only because the reception was cold enough.

    51 minutes ago, MaverickSawyer said:

    That grey gap is actually a ball joint, if you look closely. That's the gimbal point

    Wait... How can we have a ball joint without a socket to wrap around and hold it? It'll just fall out it's just hanging by the flexible fuel lines I can only imagine are running through the ball...

    Ok @nestor massive technical oversights like this are why you need to run rover's designs past the Community or QA team before be sinks time into them...

  12. 2 hours ago, DMagic said:

    These two parts are supposed to be different versions of the same thing right? That's what I always thought. Looking at the old versions they definitely look like basically the same thing:

    Exactly that's how their original author described them for the kspx mod, and I would love nothing more than for squad to take one or both of these back in order to iterate on, improve, and perfect the design. I simply offered an alternative as a compromise because everyone here knows how allergic squad is to revisiting revamps despite how naked their corner cutting can be at times...

    Seriously if they ever looked like they gave it their all on a part it wouldn't be so easy to criticize... 

    Instead since they seem intent on giving the minimum effort as usual it might be prudent to show parts at a mute conceptual stage so community feed back can be given before to many man hours are spent and the sunk costs fallacy takes hold...

  13. 49 minutes ago, T1mo98 said:

    1. Add a turbopump to the design. I'm not a designer, but I don't think it would work in such a small engine, correct me if I'm wrong

    The Ukrainian hypergolic wizards would probably want a word with you they stage combustion basically everything even the little vernier thrusters.

    Also the micro launch market is presently awash with gas generator cycle engines a 9th the size of Merlin or smaller (fun fact in porkjets design document the spark and twitch take their cues from the Merlin engine)

    49 minutes ago, T1mo98 said:

    2. Reduce the thrust, thereby pushing the Twitch out of it's intended role and breaking the balance.

    Rebalancing and adding more parts to flesh out the use cases would certainly be an option squad is already basically hard breaking things changing the angle of thrust. In which case the engine you see here would play the role of a larger pressure fed like the spider/ant engine and also get a stack mount variant and then squad can introduce a slightly larger engine that looks like a radial version of their spark engine and hey if they design it right maybe that odd choice of mounting the turbo separately from the thrust chamber would actually start to make a modicum of sense because it would suggest that the engine was radial first and adapted to stack use later.


    EDIT: I should add that kerbal has a tendency to spark curiosity and learning in people so while it may be the case that a user might not know a thing about engines now they may want to in the future, and if kerbal made even a small nod to accuracy and consistency well then that would be all the better when the user realizes it.

  14. 39 minutes ago, Deddly said:

    Isn't it actually slightly less efficient?

    Enough to attribute to a reduced throttle or shorter engine bell not a fundamentally different engine cycle.

    If it's supposed to be pressure fed (Ie no turbos) then it would be more like an upscaled spider more thrust but similar twr and efficiency. With the spark establishing what is needed to achieve a certain level of performance then for consistency sake I would expect the twitch to follow (and ideally just be the same engine with a shorter bell and different mount as it was with kspx, but I'm guessing the artists didn't think that far when they churned out the spark and shrugged the feedback so I'd settle for having two different turbo fed rockets.)

  15. @StylusHead thanks again for responding its good to have a dev who'll provide insight into his work

    15 hours ago, StylusHead said:

    we needed to create nosecones that matched previously revamped parts in 1.5 release like the FL Tanks

    Way I see it this is backwards I'm afraid. While its good that you can detail panels like porkjet at this point or rather since you started revamping the adapters onwards your style has turned into "panels for panels sake" there doesn't seem to be consideration paid to why there are panels especially those symmetrical rings of tiny panels your team seems fond of. For example why is say the C7 cone fabricated and assembled the way it is instead of just being formed as a single piece? it serves a purely structural function, and no plumbing runs through it so there is no need for an access hatch and its quite a small part so there would be no need to break it up into even smaller pieces for transport. 

    15 hours ago, StylusHead said:

     keeping that same look & feel which was of course based on the porkjet style and if I'm not wrong those new options were quite well received

    half the active forum users here you could probably feed an untextured cylinder and they'd receive it well you should see the stuff they used to praise and defend before you got here... as for the other half which are more discerning speaking from my perspective the FL tanks were the first to at least tick the mandatory checkboxes, and taking in allowances for creative liberties they could have gone either way, but things have gone a bit panel happy since then. I'd now say they've gone the wrong way if they're acceptance is being used as evidence to support this creative direction.

    15 hours ago, StylusHead said:

    these new nosecones can now be combined with their respective variants plus UVs and meshes were optimized where needed

    My only concern here is the porkjet nosecones the rest you could have just scrapped and started fresh honestly I never cared for seeing old meshes recycled as you already know.

    15 hours ago, StylusHead said:

    and for the porkjet ones we didn't actually removed them just kept the paneling based on the parts that usually go attached to those nosecones but mostly kept their original spirit. Different from what others could think these are not thought as one only part but as part of a whole vessel.

    My concern here is you've basically made it so they can only be paired with thier usual accomplices, and they'd look terrible anywhere else (the C7 cone for example now only goes with the NCS adapter as part of a complex spaceplane, and instead looks out of place when used as part of a cheap sounding rocket whereas before it could do both with reasonable versatility).

    The advanced nose cone meanwhile I've basically just seen for rockets and rockets can mismatch nose and body styles with industrial impunity so I'm not sure what you were trying to pair it with. Still its not as bad off as the C7 is with the paneling gore but I hate how loud it looks now. I try and imagine a whole vessel incorporating these, and I think its just gonna look extra busy especially if you keep changing other porkjet parts to match these tastes. Wouldn't you agree that part of a good whole vessel design is giving player some options for subtler structural and fuel pieces so the can control what on a vessel grabs attention instead of making everything the same degree of attention grabbing?

  16. @StylusHead I'm not mad I'm just disappointed. Please tell me you guys redid porkjet's nosecones on accident.(Oh who am I kidding I'm quite livid it's been said before with the adapters that the style is getting too loud and busy for inconsequential structural parts and now it looks like you guys are doubling down and trying to over write the parts that should have been used as your design references in this regard)


  • Create New...