Jump to content

StarStreak2109

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    782

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by StarStreak2109

    [1.8.x] reDIRECT | Stockalike Orion, SLS, & Shuttle-Derived Launchers | (Fixes!) | v0.10.1

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted

    10 hours ago, Mudwig said:

    It has the ICPS from the SLS, which is basically a 5m Delta Cryogenic Second Stage from Delta IV, but it doesn't have the RS-68 ( yet ) nor the tankage. There's 3.125m tank parts for Ares I, but they're not really long enough for Delta IV. You could make some stacked abomination with multiple Ares I oxidizer tanks, I guess, but still no engine, nor adapters for the upper stage.

    *Edited for fat fingers. Woo!

    There is a matching engine in CryoEngines from Nertea. Not sure though if you'd have to tweakscale it a bit.

    [1.8.x] reDIRECT | Stockalike Orion, SLS, & Shuttle-Derived Launchers | (Fixes!) | v0.10.1

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted

    On 3/22/2019 at 10:05 AM, StarStreak2109 said:

    Just a quick note regarding the placeholder SSME. You need to whitelist the Squad model, when you install restock, otherwise the .mu-file will not be loaded by KSP.

     

    On 3/31/2019 at 5:58 PM, The_Arcitect said:

    The SSME is not in squad folder.

     

    On 4/1/2019 at 2:02 PM, Cheesecake said:

    ???

    The SSME in this pack is only a config, using the model of the stock KS-25B. And this is in the Squad-folder (path: Squad/Parts/Engine/liquidEngineSSME/SSME).
    If it is not there you deleted it. Just reinstall KSP or check your KSP-files with steam (if you downloaded it with steam).

    See my post above, if you happen to have Restock installed...

    Squad should STOP ALL development and do this now

    in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion

    Posted

    On 3/28/2019 at 2:48 AM, MrChumley said:

    I disagree fully (Tell your brain to ease up on the anger for a sec, let me explain.)  Please don't take this personally, I am talking about ideas here.

    The way I see it is that: That's what KSP is!  This WHOLE THING is a collaboration.  WE ARE THE M0NKEYs (LET THAT SINK IN FOR A SEC)

    I think that it is a safe gamble to say that some of the top minds in present on our WORLD have been involved with this collaboration.  That's part of the magic of KSP.

    I think this is the part you misunderstand... 

    Every "creator" involved with KSP modding/dev has an aim to make it "MOAR BETTER!"  It's all the little "MOAR BETTERs" together that have created what we know and love to be KSP.

    How can I be angry, just because we have a difference in opinion??? ;)

    I appreciate that some of the charme of KSP was the way it was developed. However its focus has changed, at least IMHO. Since the acquisition by T2, it now aspires to be a mainstream game, it is no indie game anymore. That is why I said, if further development takes places, it should be to create a spiritual successor, not to further disimprove the game... (Exxagerating a bit here!)

     

    Squad should STOP ALL development and do this now

    in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion

    Posted

    I think we need to be realistic here:

    1. KSP is still sort of a niche product. I think the ROI difference between a AAA title and KSP is tremendous.
    2. Having said that, we should be grateful that Skwod are still continuing work on KSP, for whatever it is worth.
    3. Furthermore, I do not believe however, that big style changes will come to KSP beyond small-ish QoL improvements.

    I have said this before and will say it again: KSP does not need anymore DLCs or continued development. What KSP needs is a (spiritual) successor that has been made with a singular aim in mind and not like KSP being a mish-mash of work of dozens of different developers and whose original scope was way below what it has become today. As has been pointed out above already, the issue with KSP is not graphics, but rather physics, so I believe that a better physics engine would be in order to take advantage of recent CPUs. Then a suitable graphics engine with up-to-date graphics would follow suite.

    My concern however is also, if there was a successor for KSP at any stage, that it would probably not as open to modding as KSP is. I would be afraid of a similar development such as e.g. going from MS Train SImulator (where you had a good payware landscape, but also literally thousands of high-quality addons that were freeware) to Train Simulator 2019 (which is basically 95% payware addons).

    So yeah, I would appreciate (and I guess the modders as well) if KSP would be frozen at a sensible point in time (e.g. when most of the serious bugs have been eliminated). If any DLCs would flush further money into T2's coffers, one would hope that it is being used to develop a KSP 2, but I would not put my hope up, especially since DLCs for KSP are kind of senseless IMHO, given the quality some modders put out...

    Space Station Design

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    My design process is as follows (consider that I play mostly sandbox):

    1. Think about what purpose your station shall serve. Consider also whether or not it shall be a) a permantly manned / kerballed station, b) only temporarily manned or c) unmanned.
    2. Then consider what parts your station will need, i.e. power, thermal regulation, ECLSS, labs, tankage, command & control facilities. If your station is for longterm habitation I usually go with the assumption that each Kerbal will need at least three times the habitation capacity to feel comfortable, i.e. I multiply the seat capacity by three.
    3. Furthermore, think about the general design theme you wanna follow. These could for instance be a spine design (i.e. following a long central structure), individual modules docked together or even a ring station.
    4. FInally, assemble the station in either the VAB or the SPH. Once you're satisfied, split up your construction into sensible elements and mate them with your favourite launcher for orbital assembly.

    The New End-User License Agreement is Unacceptable

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, sturmhauke said:

    TLDR: Binding arbitration is nothing new, at least not in the US. It's unlikely to affect you personally, but if it does you are probably going to have a bad time. If you don't like it, you can either boycott the company (along with literally thousands of other companies that do the same thing), lobby to get binding arbitration made illegal like they do in some other countries, or grumble and accept it.

    Exactly, you have to keep in mind what would happen so that this new clause needs to come into effect. If you play the game "normally", this should not affect you in any way... :)

    The New End-User License Agreement is Unacceptable

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    10 minutes ago, Elthy said:

    Im quite sure such a clause is illegal in Germany. Im not sure why anybody sensible would ad such a clause anyway, its extremly anti consumer and shows how little KSPs Devs care about the players...

    Well, I am no lawyer*, but I know a bit about this whole arbitration stuff from work.

    • First of all, arbitration is pretty expensive, one might even call excessively so, which is why it usually is only used in high stakes corporate conflicts. I do not know how issues between end users and companies are dealt with in arbitration, but in corporate issues I know that there are special courts of arbitration, which are really private entities essentially.
    • In arbitration, the parties appear in front of an arbiter and explain their claims. The arbiter then makes an irrevocable, final decision on the matter. There is no appeal, no second round.
    • Afterwards, the parties pay their dues to the arbiter including whatever claims have been ruled by the arbiter who then distributes the claims to the claimant.

    So, to make a long story short, I guess this would apply to bigger issues, rather than what is going on in this forum, unless somebody is stealing IP. Is this enforcable in Germany? I do not know, but I guess that T2 have a pretty good legal department who would find a way. Otherwise my suspicion is that lawyers might go with the strategy "Let's just do it, the defendant might break under the pressure of impending legal doom...".

    I also appreciate that T2 have a vested interest in securing their legal positions, whatever they might be. Which does not mean that the end user has to be happy with it. I would probably not make such a big issue out of it, but then again, I am not a content creator. OTOH, what interest would T2 have in destroying the only reason, why KSP still has such a large following? Mods and user created content is what is keeping this game still going with such a big user base. If they killed that, this game would disappear to oblivion sooner rather than later, especially since I think KSP is already on the declining end of the product life cycle.

    Finally we need to remember making the differentiation between Skwod, who are merely devs (i.e. service providers) these days and T2 being the IP owner.

    So, as the British like to say:

    Keep-calm-and-carry-on-scan.jpg

     

    * Funny how this kind of post always begin....

    Anyway, lads, keep your shirts on and lets wait how this turns out. If this goes south, T2 and Skwod are merely hurting themselves, I got a copy of the game stashed away on my computer, along with all my favorite mods, if the forum and further content creation is killed by T2, so be it. But I do not think so.

    Cheers,

    Sebastian

     

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    Further notes on this whole BFR thing, my personal impressions:

    • BFR is still very much an engineering concept only, along with some basic feasibility studies. Much development work will have to go in the spaceframe itself, but more importantly in all the nitty gritty details (ECLSS, EDL, interior design*,...). Let's call basic design.
    • The basic design will definitely bring significant changes to the spaceframe itself as the various components are being developed and integrated into the whole system 'BFR'. Some ideas that float around now will be discarded as being unfeasible, others will be added and so on.
    • After the first test missions, they will need to do a detailed design, which will integrate lessons learned from the testing. Again, with potentional changes, probably mostly under the hood.
    • What I am trying to say is that the BFR which will eventually fly, might look drastically different from what we saw now.
    • Moreover, there are still no current and reliable infos on reusability (did I see tiles on the heat shield???), on costs, on mission profiles, on-orbit refueling, abort systems, you name it.

    TL;DR: I do not know how far advanced the BFR prototype construction has gone beyond that single part they showed in the presentation, but if they really want to start tests soon, it's gonna be tight. I rather see the first moon mission in 2025 to 2027 at the earliest, especially since so many of the BFR systems are depending on prior experience from Dragon 2 with regards to life support etc.

    If I were SpaceX, I'd not only look to people like this Japanese chap, who seems pretty willing to pay probably in the range of 150 M$ as venture capital**, but I'd also look at public/other corporate funding to find future customers who are willing to participate in BFR development, probably with the option to introduce features that benefit them as well.

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    On 9/18/2018 at 11:37 PM, zolotiyeruki said:

    During the presentation last night, did anyone else feel like Elon was acting a bit...odd?  Hesitant, stilted speech, odd pauses, etc.

     

    On 9/18/2018 at 11:51 PM, CatastrophicFailure said:

    Naw, that’s how all of his presentations are.  :rolleyes: A gifted speaker he is not. 

    Well, he never was a good public speaker. He always stammered a bit, searching for words. There are a couple of things though, that I noticed, which also fits in the recent reports on his "behaviour":

    • He looked quite tired, worn out. Puffy around the eyes, face a bit swollen. That looks to me like a combination of huge workload, not enough sleep and some pretty significant stim intake to compensate, probably combined with too much unhealthy food and drink.
    • At the beginning, he seemed quite anxious, lost for words. Later on it got better, to the brink of boyish behaviour. Stims kicking in?
    • He always had this attitude, that was a bit childish at times, were he jokingly introduced all his wild ideas, like a good nerd. This time I think, it went a bit overboard. He just secured a major portion of his dev funding for BFR and he did not act like it. If I were in his shoes, I'd have felt embarrassed.

    So yeah, it seems that all the excrements he keeps piling around him recently ("pedo guy" affair, Tesla privatisation (or not), Tesla production / delivery hell, Boring company, hyperloop, ...), slowly but surely gets to him. He'd better be careful not not kill himself with this unhealthy lifestyle.

    However, all these facts do not diminuish his accomplishments. Looking forward to more BFR developments...

    [WIP]Duna Direct -1.10.x

    in KSP1 Mod Development

    Posted

    6 hours ago, bcink said:

    Alright so I'm on day 4 of trying to make the wheels. Pretty sure I said I would never do landing legs again, but this is the same thing. Whoops. Anyways, I can't get it working yet because wheels are complete garbage. Need some existing Unity project or something to rip all the transforms and rotations from.

    Duh, I almost feel bad for suggesting this. I wish I could help you... But I never touched a 3D modeling program in my life, besides Sketchup once...

×
×
  • Create New...