moogoob

I got into Euro Truck Simulator 2 after watching Nerdcubed's Road Trip video and thinking "man, that actually looks like a fun traffic simulator." One of my favourite things to do in open-world games is just drive around, and here's a game filled with nothing but doing that. Now, to be fair, you generally have a cargo of some type which dictates a) where you're going and b) how heavy you are while doing so AND you're juggling the finances of running a small (or large) transport company, but that part (as Nerdcubed says multiple times in the video is actually fun! Anyways, I've gotten quite far in ETS2, and recently gotten American Truck Simulator, their new game. The scenery in ATS is astounding compared the europe. Maybe it's the variety of terrain; Euro truck is mainly farm, mountain and trees. That's it, for the most part, excepting parts of Scandinavia where you get neat things like roundabouts inside a mountain. Here's my precious Kenworth, "The Troll" from ATS: And "The Beast", my first truck in Euro Truck Simulator: So any other players of this series? Why do you play it?

The shadow.

Some bring up the rather ridiculous 45m/s crash safety margin of the size-2 3-kerbal pod, but that rarely matters unless you're trying to lithobrake or something. What WOULD be nice is if they didn't change the mass too much, but added 1) built-in RCS jets (at least for attitude control) and 2) built-in chutes. Those two would make up for the extra mass, IMO.

Plenty of snap-to, I assume. Also, the PS4 controller has a built-in trackpad. That should help assembly.

This was a few versions back. I made a gallery and typed the whole thing up already so here you go! Though remembering the mission now and what I've learned since then it was probably my piloting and not the instrumentation that caused the problem.

Which is normal rendering for a modern projection of 3d space onto a 2d monitor while using a very high field-of-view and moving the camera close to the subject. You won't get curved lines (which is what you'd get in real life with a lens/camera setup), nor would you get a cone that keeps the angle between the two sides constant (that's something a more specialized projection like isometric would accomplish). You see the same distortions in three-point perspective drawings, which can be thought of as a distant ancestor of the projection that modern 3d graphics uses. And for some more homework, here's Wikipedia on Curvilinear (ie a lens) vs. Rectilinear (ie almost all 3d computer games) perspective:

I think that's been well known in athletic circles since the Calgary Olympics of '88. That and the effect of proximity to and vector of the nearest Tim Hortons location on cross-country skiing times.

Shhh. You'll spoil our chances in Rio.

Those games don't have barrel distortion, period, so that's clearly not what you are talking about. Are you talking about them having a particular field-of-view and that the default FoV in KSP is different or handled differently? Either way, horizontal lines will still not curve when at the edges of the view area. Can you take a screenshot of one of those games you mentioned that demonstrates your point? Cause right now I'm a bit confused as to what it is, exactly.

I... no they don't. No game has this, especially not Minecraft or Quake. They distort the exact same way as KSP. Only games developed for VR - Oculus, Vive, etc have it in order to project into the fisheye lenses that project into the eyes. You must be talking about something else. EDIT: The default projection is basically (glossing over a lot of details) what those of us that have taken high school art class know as "3-point perspective drawings". They let you draw a 3d space using nothing but flat lines - perfect for a computer to try and tackle in real time! Guess what - a 3-pt persp. drawing has the same distortion effects when you get the the edges of a drawing as 3d rendering has at the edges of an image. Curved lines are very, very computationally intense, so are avoided unless absolutely needed - IE, projecting into a head-mounted display.

Heya, I'm in and from Toronto and I like doing all sorts of things in KSP. Mostly, it's building small. As in, probes. Probes are my specialty. But shuttles like the Nastybird are cool, too, especially as they can launch interplanetary probes!

I remember playing Garry's mod when it first came out. It was A) free and B) only had one tiny map, gm_Sandbox, and it looked very different from how it looks today. The gui was rudimentary, you had no control of facial features... and I built the best things out of those giant log props.

nice! How heavy?

Cool! Thanks for crunching the math and satisfying my curiosity.

No idea!! Mechjeb was no help as it doesn't consider an RCS port set to "use throttle as forward" or whatever as an engine, and I didn't bother putting an AR-202 case on for that reason. If it helps you eyeball, I had about 5/6ths of the tank left after landing.

After some more drawing board stuff, I got the lander under 0.5 tons without cutting fuel. This one has the same basic concept as the last one, only with a smaller monopropellant supply, less battery, one fewer solar panel and better probe core.

Worked on building super-lightweight lander probes, this time my self-imposed challenge was 1. to use the Stayputnik and 2. to make it all monopropellant driven. Most importantly, I had an idea to do it simply and without any reaction wheels. My propulsion is a single place-anywhere at 100% thrust, attitude control is via a single 4-way block at 20% thrust at the top of the craft. Roll control is in theory a problem, but I didn't experience any issues in my attempt. I'll see what else I can do with the concept!

When in doubt, use one or more of your existing heavy lifters as a booster. Got it!

Nothing sexy, just fiddling around with solid-based launch systems. This one is flexible and OK for cost, though I can get a few thousand cheaper by using a spark-based upper stage.

http://www.kerbalmaps.com/ Where the right and left edges of the map are, directly in the centre vertically. You can check the lat and long by hovering over. It's immediately on the big crater rim. EDIT: nevermind, it doesn't use KSC as the PM. Boo! According to my quick math, it's at 105 deg longitude, 0 deg lat. It's a spot on the northeast coast of a really really big continent.

If KSC is the prime meridian, the antipodal point would be on the equator at -180 degrees. Wouldn't it?

My SpaceM Lifter Testing Sandbox save has not only debris, but dozens and dozens of things like "Simplesat - Magician I" or "Mun Orbiter 2 - Strength II-B" at various orbits. I guess I just keep them all up there as testament to my successful launches. *shrugs*

So the Nastybird Duna Mission had a conundrum. We had roughly 12/13 hundred meters per second of fuel between the fuel remaining in the drop tanks and the onboard supply, and that wasn't enough for a truly comfortable return to Kerbin from Duna orbit. Well, it might have been, but it would have been close. The second choice was to send a rescue vessel and in the mean time get some atmospheric flight data by gliding and landing on Duna. This was also the more awesome plan. So, I did it! Landing speeds were a bit high so I elected to use parachutes. Hit the ground at 20 m/s, bounced, and was able to use reaction wheels and a tiny burst from the main engine to level and steady the craft and came to a rest. Now to get them home!

Some new images: