Vaporo
-
Posts
577 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Vaporo
-
-
0/10: I've never seen you before.
-
The shock wave is so scared of me it turns around and goes back to where it started.
The next poster is trapped at the KSC with no food or water. The only way to escape is to complete Whackjob's challenge without ever entering the VAB or SPH. Oh, and you have no mods and the debug menu is disabled.
-
Floor 826: Advertisements for extreme bungee jumping are on every wall.
-
He feels right at home there.
-
1. In principle, this works great. However, this sounds like it would also cause a whole new set of bugs that need worked around. And collisions could be difficult to handle as well, as each vessel would have its own "warp bubble." Of course, you could create a single, master warp bubble for vessels that come close enough together, but planetary collisions still may be a problem.
2. Good idea, but maybe it would be better to implement "fake" not cpu-intensive physics for objects that have low movement, or apply a movement damper to low-force craft before putting them on rails. That way it doesn't end up causing very long structures that are being slightly bent, but still considered low-force, from magically being straightened at though you suddenly went into time warp. There are dozens of ways to get around that problem.
3. Really? I thought this was already implemented. I thought that Krakensbane was only applied every couple of seconds, and that's why we have bits of smoke that suddenly appear in front of craft while in the atmosphere: Krakensbane is moving the origin, which in turn caused the smoke to move. Still, you're the programmer. Maybe, instead of being on a timer, Krakensbane only applies every time the craft move a thousand kilometers, per se, from the previous origin.
-
If you don't mind mods, you should try Editor Extensions. Lets you use SPH-style symmetry in the VAB and vice-versa, among other things.
I do use Editor Extensions. That's where I go the idea.
-
I manage to quadruple my money by counting cards.
The next person is a companion cube being dropped into a furnace.
-
Why? All the tools for building rovers are in the SPH. Actually, I would be in favor of consolidating the two editors that we have now in to a single master editor, that way there would be no more frustrating problems of having to export whatever Laythe SSTO you built in the SPH to the VAB via subassemblies, and you could properly edit said subassemblies without going back to the SPH. I don't think that the game needs another editor, especially when all the necessary rover editing tools are already in the SPH (except, maybe, closer zoom options).
-
I don't see why saves corrupting is so much of a problem, though. We can make multiple quicksaves now (alt+f5), so just save at every step of the assembly process. That way if the game crashes you just reload your most recent save.
-
-
A kid at my high school was doing this last November. I didn't participate because I just can't write fast (even though I love to write).
Edit: It was two years ago, I guess.
-
Reminds me of the planet I made in Planet Factory.
-
I'm suspecting that mayhap there was a wee bit of voting malfeasance on the behalf of one or more parties, and they decided to have something of a re-do.
That or the votes were just so close that they just decided not to call it.
-
Sounds like you ran out of reasonable arguments.
I was joking.
I just think that "flashing" ion engines would seem more artificial and unrealistic than ion engines that are automatically thrust limited to meet fuel limitations, almost like the game is breaking rather than the fuel flow. It comes down to personal preference, I guess.
EDIT: Maybe xenon fuel flow could remain the same for electric charge starved ion engines, as realistically they still have propellant, just not enough power to propel it at maximum velocity. Just a thought.
-
We do have the same problem with Ion engines as with jets. My idea is that they either all thrust, or are all off due to insufficient charge. With storing the leftover to battery it may mean that they will thrust every other frame, but they will still thrust all at once, not just a few of them which are first in the craft file.
Sounds like you hate epileptic people (all those flashing engines...).
I think that it would be better to just limit the thrust of all engines, that way people can say "all right, I am getting exactly 75% thrust. I need 133% of the electricity that I have now for full thrust." It's a more elegant solution, one that's already partially implemented (ion engines will currently limit thrust if there is not enough electric charge, they just limit it unevenly), and takes some of the guesswork out of construction.EDIT:
I feel like the whole issue could actually be side-stepped if the players were able to set the priorities for resource usage.Yeah that's a good idea too. It would get kind of frustrating remembering which engine you set to what priority, though. Maybe the current fuel lines should stay, but there is also the fuel link that you suggested.
-
Note that greenhouse is not only sun but also water circulation which needs to be powered.
Not necessarily. If there is gravity (or simulated gravity) and sunlight/heat, water would condense on the ceiling of the module and "rain" down on the plants.
And a greenhouse in general should be large (XL-sized)... greenhouses should supplement your kerbalsOnly if you're using a small greenhouse. And, yes, greenhouses should be flat out enormous (except for the miniature one I mentioned), not to mention heavy. You would normally only use them on stations and bases.
also if it'd spend too much time in the dark it'd lower crops down to the point where they die out completely if kept in a shadow for too long (eg. over 72 in-game hours?100 percent agreed.
Imho the only way to avoid using energy would be by sending your module to sun-synchronous orbit (read: plants are always exposed to the light) with at least one guy tending the plantation at all time.Good use for storing a Kerbal in it. Also, I suppose that the modules could rotate like solar panels so that they are always exposed to the sun. Or could be cylindrical and are exposed to the sun from all directions.
-
I've seen a "reputation" currency mentioned a few times. I don't know if it's still planned or not, but reputation is what I want to see.
-
And if there is not enough electricity to match needs of the whole group (e.g. all ion engines) then neither gets any and the leftover is stored in batteries.
I think that it would be better to set it up so that ion engines could continue to operate if the total electric charge requirements are not being met, but at a reduced power level (all ion engines would operate at the same level of course. Otherwise we just have the same problem that we have now with jet engines).
-
Maybe you could have two types of greenhouse modules: type one only works on the surface of a planet, and even then only if it's facing upwards towards the sun and in line with gravity (not on its side). Maybe it could be opened up to the atmosphere on Kerbin and Laythe, resulting in massively increased efficiency. If you open it in a 'dangerous' situation (such as re-entry or while in space) it will be damaged, resulting in either needing to be replanted or being permanently unrepairable (maybe depending on the level of damage). It would also have reduced efficiency the further gravity gets from Kerbin's gravity. Maybe it could also house Kerbals. It could be an interesting IVA.
The second type would be a centrifuge that simulates gravity while in low-gravity environments, allowing plant growth while in orbit. It would have all of the features of the planetside version (except maybe being openable), though is heavier, larger, maybe produces less life support, and requires an infintesimal amount electric charge to operate.
Unless you are using Electric charge to give light, both modules will "die" after not being exposed to the sun (or not being in any environment where they can grow) for a certain amount of time and need to be replanted.
Maybe both parts could only be unlocked after doing a particular type of experiment. There could be a plant growth experiment, available low on the tech tree, with an experiment that you must gather X amount of science from it in order to unlock the larger versions. (It would still give an infinitesimal amount of life support, but not enough to sustain even one Kerbal.)
-
3/10 What is that thing? It looks like a character out of a bad stop-motion film.
-
Pro: Not being a mutant.
Con: You don't have any superpowers.
The ability to absorb, store, and release electricity (at any amperage or voltage you want) with no harm to yourself.
-
I'm so tough I had a leftover hamburger... for breakfast.
Welcome to the story that I am writing. How soon can I kill you off?
-
I turn into the Incredible Hulk, and am very mad at the next poster for being encased in molten uranium.
-
I think that it would be better to just limit the thrust of all engines, that way people can say "all right, I am getting exactly 75% thrust. I need 133% of the electricity that I have now for full thrust." It's a more elegant solution, one that's already partially implemented (ion engines will currently limit thrust if there is not enough electric charge, they just limit it unevenly), and takes some of the guesswork out of construction.
What should be worked on after .24?
in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
Posted
Yes. It should be implemented alongside fishing (Which is the most important feature coming our way. The implementation of fishing will give scope completion.)