Vaporized Steel
-
Posts
325 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Vaporized Steel
-
-
Hello there,
I must say I had already once planned to post this suggestion but was stalled in doing so somehow. However this little issue that brought the idea forth has come again during my playing session today so I immediately took time to post it here.
I'm absolutely annoyed by the Biome system (in some way)
More precisely I think that there should either be a much more detailed information section online on a ksp wiki page about the exact locations of biomes. Or even better yet, there should be a in game option to better distinct biome areas from one another.
It is surprising I haven't yet heard anybody else complain about it. Possibly because they didn't exploit every available biome as I have. On the planet Kerbin for example there are ofcourse Obvious biomes available. Ones that you cannot miss. Like..
-grasslands, highlands, water, dessert and ice caps.
Other biomes that are assumingly easy to find but sometimes pose a challenge are the...
-mountains, shores and tundra.
The only leftover biome (badlands)
I find most troublesome.
I use this wiki page for guidance.
On this page biome maps are displayed. These maps seem to be painted in Ms paint or some cheap photoshop program and are completely undetailed and only present a vague unclear area radius in which you can expect to find the biome your looking for. Obviously it poses no difficulty for the Obvious biomes like highlands, grasslands etc, etc.
But I had alot of overshoots on on biomes like the tundra, badlands and shores.
I took Kerbin as a example here. I'm nog even going to begin discussing this issue about the Mun biomes.
In short however the way you should see it is that I have build a rocket (with a lab i.e.) to land on the mun. Which I presumed to be the Mun's canyons for example by using the Mun ms painted biome map. And then find out I landed 20km short with a immobile processing lab and other science equipment.
SUGGESTION!
1:Make a highly detailed 2560 x 1800 colour map that displays the biome map in more detail then it does now. And put a 2nd photorealistic map behind it to compare (the way you see it from orbit)
2:My favourable suggestion. Update KSP so that you can "Target" anything on the ground. Perhaps with a Key combination. Lets say you click kerbin (mmb) to select the planet as target. But Ctrl + Alt + MMB on a body to select the location on the ground. Which would then give the information what area of the planet that actually is (thus the biome))
-
I'd build a massive orbiting cillinder. The likes of the following dimensions: 1-2km long and 250-500meters in diameter and Put all sorts of living space habitats on the inside. So to create a artofficial orbiting town with artofficial gravity.
If I tried that now (with lag) I'd probably experience 1 frame every 15minutes to 1 hour or so.
-
In terms of playing time I really care.
I don't want to do to much to quikly. I don't want to land kerbals on lets say the kerbin moons, duna or any 3rd planet all within the first year.
But I also don't want it to take a decade before I land on my first planetary visit.
So I keep it somewhere in between.
I "heard" about Kerbal alarm clock.
I never actually understand what it does. But I searched for it and I really want this mod now so thanks for mentioning it.
-
1:This challenge would be alot more interesting if you could use any stock engine you want.
2:On Ion engines only you really cannot escape into orbit if the periapsis on jool has already dropped through it's atmosphere. People can barely ion glide out of kerbins atmosphere let alone on jool that has a far greater gravity.
3:It is occasional that you state rules in your challenge (see other challenges) like demanding rules like not using infiniglide, and/or to post F3 pics + pics etcetera.
4:It is also custom that you show your own attempt as a opening towards continueing the challenge.
-
@cantab
Thanks I'll give it a look. Although quite honestly I won't Judge such a mod even as a star. Perhaps a GP2 lol. I could treat it in my imagination as a dwarf star orbiting kerbol. Personally I'm about realism, I believe the dev thinks the same about the future of ksp. So the day/night cycle eye candy thing does certainly annoy. For me to really Judge additive stars as plausible ones they need the realism requirements I mentioned, which is a hardcoded program thingy the devs themselves one day have to implement.
I like your idea about terrain. And you gave me a brilliant idea there. What if every planet out there was littered with treasure maps ( I call it treasure maps but make it what you want) that puzzle you towards eventually finding easter eggs aka landmarks on each celestial body. Maybe even give science for it in the process of finding them.
As for making planets interesting I definitely agree. I would actually like it if rocks were solid instead of moving through them. As for the solar system. Earth is just the best place around here. To me the most varied landscapes in the solar system besides earth are that of Io, titan and Europa. And even they seem "samey" in the appearence of earths large variety of climate, soil, vegetation and culture.
So even although it is to my wishes for bodies in ksp to become places of sightseeing their terrain I think that with much effort on the developers side it will Always remain 'samey'
Oh, and I find your Sig absolutely hilarious btw:sticktongue:
-
1: if there is going to be a second GP I don't really care only if it has a selection of moons like Jool. I mean just a gas planet isn't very interesting. Unless it's not really a gasplanet but a super planet with a abnormally thick oxygen atmosphere for the battle hardened giving them a change to launch from a body even harder to orbit contrary to eve.
2:I believe I heard there are mods that add aditional planets to the current kerbal planetary system with orbits further then Eelo. I think one mod contained a second GP. I don't have the name of the mod but now that you know I''m sure your willing to search for it.
3: IMO there are far more valuable updates for the game to be considered. Like massive bug fixing. The further development of the career mode like finishing the economic part, adding biomes to all the planets and etc, etc.
@StainX
Adding a second solar system is to one of my greatest wishes. However a second star system goes against the code of the game for some reason.
Otherwise I might have assumed somebody already modded a 2nd solar system.
The same issue goes for the Space flight simulator Orbiter where game code also locks the possibility of a 2nd additional star.
I also believe the issue involved for both Orbiter and ksp is the transistence of SOI and the switch over of 2 individual light sources of 2 stars.
Exspecially since KSP tends to keep planetary thus also star distances at an arcade meassured distance.
By distancing yourself from kerbol no light fade is simulated. And if it were simulated it would still mean you had to travel several hundred billion kilometres away form Kerbol before it would be realistic to SOI to another star. Which could be made comfortable by higher time warp settings.
And then comes the issue of navigating to another star.
In order to navigate to another star you need a 3rd SOI presenting the center of the galaxy.
Just like traveling to another planet you don't travel to another star by just pointing at it and hit the gas.
Traveling towards another star at interplanetary speeds is impossible in the scenario you want to reach a star at your six o clock in the motion you are spiralling through the galaxy.
So you would have to retrograde burn relative to the center of mass of the galaxy first if you want to reach a star in the galaxy thats spiralling behind you and you have to do a massive radial out burn to prevent your spacecraft from spiralling towards the galactic core. Even in the arcade like KSP universe this interstellar encounter would require 10-20000 units of delta V at the least just for a one way trip.
So in addition a futuristic propulsion method must be implemented. And I believe KSP isn't based on futuristic spaceflight capabilities.
The only possibility would be to add a closeby twin star. Either generating 2 light sources with decent light fade which ksp doesn't yet simulate. Although to make that even remotely realistic ksp should throw the SOI model out of the window as 2 closeby twin stars Always interact on each other. Meaning you would have to need 2 interacting SOI's at once. In fact this SOI model already proves itself highly unrealistic in the Joolian system of moons where a real spacecraft could not navigate as how it does in KSP today.
Or place the twin star far outside the realm of Kerbol which would still require the simulation of a galactic core.
Either adding a 2nd star into the system is going to be completely unrealistic and arcade like neglecting the issues I mentioned above. Or it is going to implement the fixes needed to accomodate the realism factors for interstellar travel and KSP needs a overhaul greater then the actual code already written as it is in her current state.
So I agree with you, I to want a 2nd solar system. But will it happen... most likely not.
-
How can any mod (not to mention the spare selection that are given in the poll) be essential gameplay wise when the game works fine without them? Please define your meaning of 'essential'
If you find some mods essential to feed your joy and playstyle it will vary completely for everyone. And my idea about modders anyway (selfreflection) is that they would classify several mods similar 'essential' and would be ridiculous to name just one from the list.
My point is, why make a poll about this.
If you want to do something similar make something like a Piping Q&A on a blog of yours or through other means. And redirect us towards it.
-
I first heard about it (2 years ago I think)
From a old student after we talked about several conversations like including games for this instance.
I remember he dicussed ksp with me and even gave me the ksp website. But having a busy life I discarded/neglected the note I stored on my smartphone and never visited the ksp website.
Until just since 6 months ago I was browsing YouTube. Before really learning about KSP I watched a SpaceX dragon video on YouTube.
And a cartoonish thumbnail of a game took my interest in the suggested videos panel so I gave it a try and watched it.
Pressing that button is why I still play KSP. About the only game I actually still play. That really says something.
Use a time machine, go back into the future 6 months ago. And knock on my door prior to pressing that video button and annoy me with a uninteresting conversation and I might have never pressed it and I wouldn't be here.
-
Hi,
In our own solar system we have had a mission to take the so called "grand tour" of our own planets (voyager 2)
The Grand tour is a planetary alignment of all the planets in our own solar system. This alignment could use the gravity assist of Jupiter to slingshot towards any of the other outside planets.
The Grand tour in the Sol systems case was first brought to attention by a aerospace engineer of JPL in the early 1970s.
It was estimated that this Alignment occured every 175years (roughly) and could send an object to any of the planets Jupiter, Uranus, neptune and dwarf planet pluto. Maybe even a assisted flyby of mars with the least amount of required delta V.
My question is. Does such a launch window also occur in the Kerbal (Kerbol system) Preferably to reach Duna, dres, Jool and Eelo in one mission only to use delta V for small slingshot course corrections as voyager 2 did.
Ofcourse the Kerbol system doesn't have 4 large gas Giants as gravity well. But to my theory any planetary system has a window for a grand tour to be made possible. In a system with bodies of lesser gravity the scenario would only be less likely to occur but instead take place every multiple hundred years.
What I don't know yet is which Kerbal year is the perfect alignment. And how long would it take for each cycle to return for a perfect grand tour alignment.
Has anybody learned the perfect planetary alignment in his KSP experience throughout play.
If so my question is what is the year, month, day, hour, minute or maybe even the very second for the optimal launch window to succeed in a Grand tour of the Kerbal system?
EDIT: Accidentally posted this in general ksp discussion. But I ment it to be posted in questions and tutorials. I think I might get much more support right there. Could this Thread be moved please?
-
The day that man said moon landings were impossible was in the early 20th century and before.
They didn't have liquid rockets back then.
The Stock parts of KSP doesn't have warp drives or naquadah sublight engines. So the comparison is rather invalid to me.
When we get any of those engines in stock KSP perhaps then we can say "but a long long time ago we thought we could never land on eve'
Btw, Ion engines are already an exploit from a realistic point of view.
Real world Ion engines do nothing more then to add small course corrections to small space probes or orbiting sattelites) over the course of years. The fact that it has enough TWR to lift anything from the ground means that KSP ion engines are either 30.000 AD ion engines. Or not really ion engines.
-
I try to perfect my launchers and in space assemblies for my missions so that they equal enough Delta V necessary only with a relatively small amount of delta V to spare for miscorrections.
The result is that I sometimes badly plan the maneouvre nodes, get into trouble with SOI shifts, or simply waste delta V by not landing near immediately (in case the mission requires landing)
So when I find out a miss 100-200Delta V to get back or to finish the mission I hit ALT - F12 and press Infinite Fuel. Flaming at myself in the meanwhile that I failed again.
I also once tried landing 9 Kerbals on the Mun on a very low decent path. Couldn't see that mountain coming at muns Sunrise. I tried to evade the mountain (wasting that precise amount of delta V I had planned for the mission) and crashed into the mountain at 470+ M/s.
Bill, bob and Jeb were among them.
A couple more but these I find the worst atrosities.
-
To reduce lag I would suggest Welded parts Click
Although it doesn't really seem to work with all building configurations since v0.23 it might let you merge all parts together for your interplanetary buildings.
My advice is to make large buildings and weld them together.
Building a home would generally require the living module (hitchhiker container) or mod living module part, batteries, solar panels, ladders, structural panels, landing struts or whatever.
With this mod you can merge the 10-50 parts of one single home into 1. The KSP physics engine will generate one home as 1 part. Thus reduce all the computer power to handle it.
It would be the ideal mod to make a ksp city as large as possible.
Since ksp starts to get laggy between 750-1000 parts on the higher end computers I don't think you can build more then 750-1000 homes assuming you would weld their parts together. Meaning you would have 750 - 1000 ships (homes in this case ofcourse) each counting as 1 parts is still 750 parts (OBVIOUSLY)
But as I said this mod has some incompabilities since 0.23v. But in regard to some issues it's definetely still working.
-
I tried to reach a new goal by making a huge SSTO spaceplane to get a Orange Jumbo 64 tank into orbit.
Sadly I lose lift just under 20km altitude so it will probably need a large tri wing instead of a bi wing. And I'm actually curious wether my goal is achievable. I'm not even sure if I can manage the intake to keep the engines running when I achieve to get any higher.
Any thoughts?
-
The question here compares 2 totally incomparable games.
In ksp with (far) you won't easily build a boeing 737-747 sized aircraft. (ok it's possible but it's not like it's been tested to resemble actual boeing 7xx specifications and capabilities)
Feel free to test it though.
Furthermore if you compare KSP planes to stock 747 planes you basically are comparing one cartoon plane with another.
What I'm saying is that the stock FSX planes are far from realistic. The stock FSX boeing 737-300 acts like a Cessna 172 flying at MLW with the proper trim and ailerons setup. Which setup would stall a realistic boeing 7xx plane.
Furthermore if you want to compare fsx flying to ksp flying you should actually compare a highly rated user made ksp aircraft like a type boeing 737 with far installed VS a PMDG 737-300NG aircraft in fsx.
And even with far installed you still feel that in fsx theres much more realism in aerodynamics compared to ksp.
Ofcourse the question was in which games landing a plane would be easier.
Since controls are different in both games and the Physics universe actually acts differently both games will differ in their difficulty of landing a plane.
Even although one of the games is clearly specialized more in flying aircraft and quite assumably is so much more realistic.
-
No site.
But my main Kerbal space agency is called [uKAAA]
Or UK triple A for short.
[united Kerbals Aeronautics and Aerospace Agency]
[NKAF]
North Kerbin Air force. For all my non interplanetary suborbital rockets and my weapons like missile platforms and aircraft bombers.
PRRA [Probe research and Rocketry Agency]
For all my probes and sattelites.
-
Here you can see Jebediah on a hohmann flyby aproaching the mun.
At the north pole of the Mun. The mun is exiting a solar/Kerbol eclipse.
Jeb is foating admiring the flag he planted at the exact mountain peak where the North pole magnetic center of the mun is located. It was a freaky experience I can tell you. Very disorientating. Because we know that both the navbal and the Kerbal sense of direction is directly linked with the magneting forces of a planet. Luckily jeb could still navigate with his jetpack while is FOV was twisted around and make a save landing.
Jeb is back at his lander. He only worries why 3 of his buddies are whispering unto each other.
-
-I didn't say nasa finances weapons. I said that other companies make weapons where the same technology proves usefull for spaceflight and is contracted to them.
So if I would think what you thought I was saying I am indeed a moron. But I wasn't saying it so there.
-I do know what JPL is and I know more suborbital (near orbital) rockets are created (thousands) to deliver warheads then to getting probes or humans into space.
Perhaps JPL was a bit of a bad example but more of the propulsion innovations are sold for production in the military then into spaceflight and I think YOU are ignorant or atleast narrow visioned to possibilities if you think all that research goes towards putting sattelites into space rather then cheap lightweight ballistic missiles etc etc.
The pros about these companies you mentioned I share like you said in areas of commercy and transportation. I also don't think the companies should stop what they're doing in terms of research. Ensuring your famlies and neighbourhoods commerce and job occupancy. I'm merely stating that it would be ideal if the industry and production based on the research would not go to weapons and war but instead use that budget on spaceflight.
Furthermore your a anticlimax by summing up all your worries based on atleast partial if not complete miss interpretation.
Your "no offence" does nothing to prevent the offence I have felt from your comment.Oh dear:huh:
You obviously don't know much, hell, you don't even know what JPL is, so I highly doubt you understand what is being said when you condemn military contractors, namely the loss of jobs for millions.Plenty of examples the loss of jobs with such fine heads could convert into from the military Industrial complex they will come from. But that doesn't pop up with you somehow.
you have an extremely limited, narrow-minded, overly-negative view of the world, to the point that it causes you to be extremely ignorant and foolish.No! And even if I do I feel absolutely positive. And that is what it's all about to me. I would scratch the "extremely limited, and "narrow minded" parts. And change "overly-negative" to constructively negative. To me a person that can't see negative things is naive and is bound to balance from a cliff one day. Lastly this is probably the first post you have ever read from me.
Making assumptions on a first impression is off the limits. Which is probably doable for you since this is a forum with anonymous persons around. But I probably upset you and I'm sorry anyways regardless of what you have just called me for.
-
Lol:D
Lot's of calories in those tiny packages.
I Always wondered how Jebediah survived my interplanetary missions.
But I'm assuming he got his command pod stuffed with milkway all stuffed but around the control yoke and buttons.
And when he is hungry he just looks outside. And know we also know why Jebediah always smiles.
Because he sees snacks in the stars.
-
I think Orion is a very promising project and I will follow it with all my spirit when it lifts off the launch pad. Assuming it will ever lift off the ground let alone in the mentioned time estimate with all the many space enthusiasts around the globe (sarcasm)
No there are not many space enthusiasts around the globe. Mainly because they are assumingly ignorant about it. What you don't know you cannot yet like! If they weren't ignorant they'd probably love spaceflight to.
The budget is as small enough just to make the mission. Meaning the GOV that funds the aeronautic and aerospace institutions don't give a... (word I'm not going to say)
I think the aim to spaceflight is all wrong.
Still there are more people around the world that rather abuse their neighbours not to mention the mass practitioners of that called politicians all to gain maximum power before any steps are taken into marketing spaceflight industry, marketing itself and re-educate the masses into what it's all about.
In the meanwhile (probably still the couple next centuries) we are left with sending man with puny ice scoops every so many decades to the moon to keep up the pretends that it is just barely possible to do what we do now. And then fill the minds of the stumbled behind their TV for a decade or 3 before attempting another spaceflight military operation.
No offence but NASA and her suppliers boeing, lockheed, jpl etc are also the companies that finances the weapons for wars which has more aim in todays world then rockets.
As long as that remains the system of manned spaceflight it actually is a wonder there might ever gonna be a Orion space mission.
^^My thoughts.
-
Hi,
To my knowledge there is yet no known name for the Galaxy Kerbals live in. Right?
But Kerbals do live in a galaxy. Atleast so it seems when I pan my camera around the sky. A spiral galaxy it seems.
Officially there is also no known name for the Sun. But some call it Kerbol anyways.
I would call Kerbals galaxy >
"Kerbuzz Galaxy"
or
"Kermitway Galaxy"
How would you call the Kerbal galaxy?
Share your names please:cool:
-
I have been a space, astronomy enthusiast since a kid. So I knew pretty much how to do anything in this game as I started. In fact I actually landed on the mun without maneouvre nodes the third day I played ksp. Basically by guessing the intended orbital path by burning prograde at moonrise on the 90degrees equatorial orbital path. Then readjusting by burning normal and antinormal, pro and or retrograde and checking regulary on the blue lines orbit line in map view and retro burn at the muns periapsis and keep burning untill I land. With alot more Delta V then doing it with maneouvre nodes and mechjeb though.
My first 1-2 days were catastrophic into more or less learn the games interface and how to get a stable and efficient rocket. Many launch failures I can tell you as I didn't knew the staging system on first sight or to determine the center off mass etc I eventually found out in the VAB.
I actually played Orbiter space flight simulator prior to KSP. Although I didn't play it much I did get a hang of Orbiter quite much. But in Orbiter I was no better then orbiting and landing deltagliders or planes I got at AlteaAerospace at the moons brighton beach outpost.
Whenever I played Orbiter in the past I felt I drowned more of my time into modding the simulator (which wasn't Always easy to mod) then actually playing it.
-
As I actually thought that mechjeb didn't have a autoland function that can navigate through atmosphere.
Well, I guess I was wrong.
I couldn't get the hang of it.
I clearly did not yet know how it worked and assumed mechjeb couldn't do it.
google searching for "mechjeb autoland" and some YouTube videos hopefully does the trick. I'm gonna test it now.
-
Hello there.
I have been playing KSP for a very long time already. I never showed my face around here as of yet. But I do now because I have a problem that I wish to solve.
I'm getting tired of the fact that there is no tool or way in which to accurately deorbit and land at or near KSC. And with "near" I mean within a radius of 10km. Since Mechjeb doesn't seem to be able to do that I do hope other mods / tools can.
There is some sort of a imho very inaccurate (noobysh) wiki article describing the procedures Click
Which steps don't work and are noobysh to say atleast.
However that article did help somewhat. I could get my deorbiting SSTO plane within a radius of 50-100km from the KSC. And would then be able to fly to the landing strip. Although I had to reload my quiksave a couple of times to get the exact periapsis right. IRL there is no quiksave and quikreload button and I intend to master game aspects without trial and this part of the game gives no alternatives to use the game over (reload) function.
However only a spaceplane can fly to a designated area once it's deorbited. That doesn't work for capsules and other non flying deorbiting modules with parachutes attached to them.
It is my hopes that there is some sort of mechjeb equivalent kind of autopilot and/or calculator. One where you can input total amount of drag by selecting the contained parts of the deorbiting module. A calculator where you can add such information like that and other parameters like the apoapsis and periapsis. So that it calculates based on you orbiting altitude at the apoapsis (which can be 100km but also 300km) to generate the sum where the periapsis should be.
I mean the exact place of splash down differs if you in scenario
A: retrograde burn at 200km altitude (apoapsis) to a periapsis of 35km
or
B: retrograde burn at 100km altitude (apoapsis) to a periapsis of 35km
In scenario A you land at a different spot then scenario B
Because in scenario A you come in steeper/faster and you probably land shorter from a designated target compared to scenario B
Other things like amount of drag also come in to play. Or whether you orbit kerbin 180 degrees on the navball (against the planets rotation) or with its 90degrees on the navball or if you deorbit from a polar orbit.
The only way I do now somewhat semi accurately land near ksc is by quiksaving hit for a altitude at the periapsis and see what happens and then reload and hit a few hundred meters lower or higher on the periapsis. Repeating that step until it's somewhat close to right. And from the retrograde deorbit burn a change of a few hundred meters to 1 km on the periapsis actually shifts your landing zone miles and miles further or shorter.
THIS^ issue is a problem. And I used the planet Kerbin as a example this time. I won't even begin about Duna. I
I honestly admit that although I wish to land nonflyable deorbiting modules to land at a desired area the real use of landing non planes at a desired area is on other atmospheric planets like duna or bodies like Laythe where you want to land near the base.
I have a base on the equator of duna. With the low dunar atmosphere it is even harder to calculate the landing zone. And for the sake of realism. Duna has no infrastructure. No cars or trains to transport kerbals landing miles ofcourse from the base camp. Preferably it should land near the base with the least amount of fuel.
I actually had to resort using unlimited fuel to navigate my dunar lander to the base as every attempt at deorbiting failed to hit the area of the base camp.
got any tips?
Stuff wrong with space movies
in The Lounge
Posted
I Facepalmed for 10 minutes with the movie armageddon when they performed the lunar slingshot boost. Using a engine exhaust flame equivalent to what seems of a 12000 kn srb on a shuttle without room for such propellent and some how gravity assisted with 22.500 mph behind a asteroid at supposedly a acceleration rate that caused 11 g and somehow the 400 pound fat mommy kid didn't break through from his chair or through the fuselage and survived.