Jump to content

tater

Members
  • Posts

    27,506
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tater

  1. The first US RTG flew into space 7 weeks and 6 days after the first Mercury flight. (as a reality check). The tech tree is ridiculous.
  2. Awesome! It's in my son's room someplace (the complete tin tin I bought in San Francisco a couple years ago, but I couldn't fine this book when I looked (now he's asleep)). The lighter (new) version is easier to control. One issue, the last ladder intersects the RCS, I moved it down a hair. Right now, upon launch one fin points East… making the "top" (using the mk 1-2 pod as an example) not lined up with anything at all. I put an antenna on that side just so I knew which way to point is I wanted to have it move an expected direction for final landing. If it were in 1:1 kerbal scale the thickest part of the tank would be what, 5m? More? Awesome job, really.
  3. I don't see the RCS in the comic. Some cool images I found, though: This shows it with a NERVA: Command pod area:
  4. Why does it list "upgraded to steam," as I am unsure how that "upgrades" KSP?
  5. Cool. I use KJR, so I removed the struts entirely and it works fine. I also hid the fuel lines underneath a little--- would they work with cross feed, or is it a basic problem with fuel flow and "wing" parts that require the fuel lines?
  6. I actually sort of disagree (but I sort of agree, too ). I'd rather see fewer commercial contracts cluttering up the Mission Planning Center (it is NOT mission control, that needs to be renamed, dunno what squad was thinking there, the tracking center is really "mission control," but I digress). I want more Explore Missions, and in fact I want most of the pure science "contracts" and most of the base/station contracts folded into Explore type contracts. Some of these would get bigger, mind you, I like the idea of large "missions." Really these are "projects" of your program… like Mercury or Gemini. The reason to split some out are that I think some should not appear until you complete the mission the precedes it. Progression might be: Achieve Spaceflight: The various early milestones would all fit into a single Program as you suggest, along with the altitude records, etc. Do atmospheric science (get temp or crew report from some altitude ranges). Manned flight and recovery (get to some altitude and land safely). Reach space. Reenter safely. (unlocks BOF) Basic Orbital Flight: Achieve Orbit. Science from orbit. Reenter successfully. (unlocks AOF, Cismunar, Cisminmar Flight) Advanced Orbital Flight: Achieve a specific LKO. (shown on map) Change orbital plane (some amount shown on map like a sat contract). Rendezvous with another part (get within physics range of a part after having left physics range (so it could be part of your own craft, but you have to separate from it, first), then get within 100m or something). Dock with another spacecraft (might give you a docking port as you would get in a parts testing contract). EVA. EVA with separation of some distance and return (2km?). (unlocks CF and MF1, MF2?, Orbital Science, plus Extra-Kerbin Flight) Orbital Science: Various science from orbit stuff goes here. Stay in orbit XX orbits. ? (unlocks Build Space Station) Cismunar Flight: Achieve some high apoapsis above Kerbin. Convert flight to suborbital at apoapsis, and successfully reenter (testing higher velocity reentry, sort of like the recent Orion capsule mission). Science from high orbit. (unlocks MF1, MF2?, and EKF) Cisminmar Flight: Achieve apoapsis above Mun, below Minmus. Convert flight to suborbital at apoapsis, and successfully reenter (testing higher velocity reentry, sort of like the recent Orion capsule mission). Munar Flight (Explore the Mün, part 1): Achieve munar SoI. Science from near the Mun. Achieve munar orbit. Science from LMO. Achieve escape velocity from munar orbit (likely to Kerbin SoI for reentry). Impact the Mun (landing counts as well) (Unlocks MF2 and Minmus missions) Advanced Munar Flight (Explore the Mün, part 2): Land on the Mun. Science from munar surface Sample from Mun. Return sample to Kerbin. (unlocks EKF, and Minmus missions) Explore Minmus part 1: Like the Mun. Explore Minmus part 2: Like the Mun Extra-Kerbin Flight: Achieve Kerbin escape velocity. Achieve Solar orbit. Transmit data from solar orbit (need a part to do this as the thermometer won't). Achieve maneuver with an interaction with a non-Kerbin SoI. (unlocks all other first exploration missions (First Exploration of Duna, etc)) The unlocks listed above are tweak able so that there can be different paths taken. Some steps require one before, others might be skipped (though at a loss of funds, etc).
  7. Actually, another easy way to make time matter within the current mechanics. Make science useful. One, rebalance the science gained in general, generally speaking, significantly downwards. Two, make contract appearance dependent upon completing other contracts. Want to land on Duna? Knock yourself out. Want to get offered "Land on Duna" or other lucrative Duna contracts? Then you need to first complete the "Explore Duna" contract which is no longer the current contract, but instead one that examines the atmosphere, maps it ("science from orbit" (maybe set up like a satellite contract with a low, polar orbit required)), etc. Have the "Land on Duna" contract like a station construction contract where the craft has to be built AFTER accepting the mission. Now, you need to send a mission to not land, and study Duna first. The same would be true of the Mun, etc. Jool? That means you need to send a probe first (manned or not), that roughly places first manned landing on a Joolian moon at some point after year 7 at best, assuming you send a Jool probe as soon as the first low dv window pops up. Duna is not bad until day 200, so early game gets your probe to Duna by the end of the year at some point if you get right on a Duna mission. That means you get the data to open the landing missions and the next good Duna window is mid year 3 to late year 3 (arrival at Duna early -mid year 4). This at least spreads the career out to several years. Combined with LS, this would really spread stuff out.
  8. To drag the thread on-topic, there are 3 different answers each person should come up with: 1. What is Sandbox trying to be? 2. What is Science Mode trying to be? 3. What is Career trying to be? The implicit question to all three is does it succeed, and/or what would it need to do to succeed with different visions of what those modes should be.
  9. Hubble, as it does real science.
  10. I guess this makes sense as many players apparently kill off kerbals with alacrity. That, and like Mars One, kerbals aren't actually real.
  11. INstead of the RCS near the bottom, would it be possible to have a symmetry X4 version more towards the CM? Perhaps divide the tank such that the middle section is RCS/SAS, and main tanks sections (top and bottom). So the CM, then decoupler, then Main tank top, then SAS/RCS (quad), then main tank half bottom (includes what is now the RCS area in volume), then engine?
  12. I'm playing a RSS 6.4X kerbol system career with LS, etc. My career is now year 18 I think, and I finished the tech tree (including 1000 science parts added by PF, KAS, etc) and have not sent manned missions past Minmus yet. I have sent probe orbiters and landers to Jool, Duna, Dres, Eve (and moons), but not manned stuff yet. Lost 2 kerbals to a tragic time-warp accident so far, maybe I should consider the odd quick save... Previously I did career with 3.2X kerbol system and unlocked everything in what would have been a few weeks in stock, except I was running KCT, so it took years. Regarding OP's way of adding meaningful time via Life Support, it clearly works to a point. Another way to do this is one I suggested in another thread. 1. Make a distinction between commercial Contracts (most all parts testing, most all satellite launches, and a FEW of the "science/survey" contracts would be "commercial") and Kerbal Space Center (your program) Missions. The latter are ALL Explore type missions (more would be added), most all the science/survey missions, most of the base/station missions, and a small number (early on, largely) of the satellite contracts and parts testing. Commercial contracts pay out as they do now roughly (though amounts might change). 2. All the Missions are funded entirely up front (including some of the "contract" based science), but the payment is not upon accepting the Mission, but it is dealt out every ~50 days over the duration (budget period) of that mission. So say there is a new "Explore" type mission with a bunch of steps. We'll call it "Orbital spaceflight." This appears after suborbital missions/achievements. First milestone is achieving orbit at all (manned or unmanned), next might be manned orbital flight and reentry. Another might be a plane change, creating elliptical orbits, etc (shown on map like sat contracts). Say this Mission has a time frame of 10 50 day months (50 days is one Minmus month (minmonth? minth?)). So the total reward might be 200,000 funds, but you'd only see it 20,000 every 50 days. Yes, you'd need to warp sometimes for funds. Still beats doing stupid parts testing. Those 2 steps make the program make sense for once (private entities tuning planetary science for no reason in stock is bizarre), and make time instantly matter, particularly combined with LS at some level.
  13. This. Have some threshold of kerbals landed, ISRU capability, and maybe a new part that is "cargo" (just a substantial mass of "cargo) where you'd need to land XXX tons of it, then you can construct and in-situ facility (The structures covered with regolith, likely, so not externally complex, sue to quonset hut-like things with soil over them, and an exposed airlock.
  14. I'm in the same boat as krakenfour, I'm playing 64x. I guess the exploit issue is not a problem for me as I'd have LS failure kill them. Let me have another crack at this… so the supply canisters contain supplies in 15 day increments? Guys get low, and they reach T -0, then grab 15 more days (each). Then the timer resets? So if a container has 100 supplies, that's 100*15 kerbal-day supplies (so a crew of 4 would have 390 days duration (including the 15 days they get "free" at the start)? New pods don't reset the timer, though, correct? For example if you rescued a kerbal with a mk1 pod, and the verbal was almost dead, would his timer reset? If so, would moving kerbals from a command pod to a HH give them 15 more days? What about EVA from one pod to another?
  15. A totally moddable career system. That or a career system that isn't terrible. Actually, one other thing that would be enormously helpful: the way we can toggle flags, or load/unload fuel in the VAB? COuld Squad please have 2 IVAs for habitat parts like the hitchhiker and the science lab that we can toggle between---one vertical, one horizontal?
  16. I'd only ever set them to die, or I'd not bother with it. Then at least there would be a non-zero chance of killing them.
  17. Isn't that hatch on the side? While within at the exposed portion of the spacecraft, it's not right at the point of maximal heating, right?
  18. Ah, OK, I get it. So as they run out, it checks for supplies, if supplies, then they use them slowly, if no supplies, then the next unlocked/added container is toast. So if at the moment they ran out, they happened to just run out of power for a second (batteries drained, and the sun is 1 second from rising), then they would run out, and when the EC comes up, they would use up all the supplies as in your resupply example, right? How many kerbal-days supplies for the various parts mentioned in the OP? I'm really coming around to this, as it has an added benefit of making LS easy on new players (not an issue within the Kerbin SoI under normal mission conditions), and makes it a little harder for players venturing out from Kerbin.
  19. Yeah, I have to say I am still confused by the way supplies are consumed. Say you have a craft in orbit. It has 3 crew. You have 3 inline LS supply parts. After 15 days, the first guy will use all the LS in the 1st inline part, throwing the rest away, then the 2d guy will use the 2d, throwing the excess away, then the 3d will use the 3d, throwing the rest away and you bought another 15 days? Or do the 3 consume some of the supplies in the 1st one, then mulch the rest? Do the command pods or stock tab modules have the ability at some efficiency to convert mulch (which is air/water/waste, right?) back to supplies? A simpler answer might be how many inline parts (say 2.5m) would be required for 3 kerbals to last 1 year?
  20. The notion that the two are mutually exclusive is absurd. Terms need to be agree upon, or this thread just goes in circles. If "simulation" (and hence "simulator") refers to any attempt to model something in real life at any level, then KSP is certainly simulation. If spaceflight were with "liftwood" through the ether, then no. Some attempt at orbital mechanics? It's a simulation. That said, like everything else, there are levels of simulation. KSP is a very low-order simulation. Take a combat "flight sim," like Il-2. They can plug in some real numbers and get somewhat realistic results. It is a simulation, and even at that a low order one. A good test is does it teach you ANYTHING about the real world? In the case of Warbirds/Il-2/etc, it absolutely does. PLay a while, and you understand something in an internalized way about air combat that you did not before you played the game. I was an avid ww2 air war reader before I played combat flight sims. I can honestly say I had little real understanding before I flew sims. Afterwards, I "get it." The same can be said of KSP. The sometimes counterintuitive nature of orbital maneuvering is absolutely something someone unfamiliar with orbital mechanics can get a feel for in KSP, and that now intuitive understanding is applicable in the real world. Are there elements not in KSP that make this new knowledge imperfect? Certainly, but it's not entirely counter to reality (as a Star Wars "sim" would be, even if it properly simulates bizarro-physics in the SW universe).
  21. Regex is on the mark, though I like the idea of science and career modes, myself, and wish at least one of them was complete, and made sense. It is not a management game, period. If it calls itself that, it fails, utterly. Adding a mislabeled building (mission control is a "contract office" or something, as real "Mission Control" manages flights in progress), and mislabeling things "strategies" doesn't make it a management game. Another way it is not a management game: in a railroad management game, does the player have to stop each train at any given set of points, get out (EVA) and switch the points himself, then continue driving the train? No. In a empire management game does the player have to micromanage each army he moves, literally walking them down the road, and deciding which turn to make? No. Do you have to serially reload each individual musket in Empire: Total War, the level and fire yourself? No. In KSP the player must do EVERY action of spacecraft personally. Without some autonomy of the astronauts flying their craft, doing EVAs, etc, it's not a management game, either. Science mode fails, too, IMO, partially because the tech tree being unlocked by science makes no sense, and the tech is largely concurrent as well, making "later" stuff seem silly to anyone who knows that is should be concurrent. The main reason is that science is not useful for gameplay, other than this flawed tech-unlock mechanic (the only reward system in either science or career mode). There is another current thread regarding better science. So the question OP poses stands, what is KSP trying to be? If we stop with Sandbox, then all the additional buildings, career, contracts, etc are wasted effort. Personally, I don't think Science and/or Career mode should be continued out of a "sunk cost" fallacy, but I think they should be continued/fixed because they are in fact a good idea---but they require really looking at what the goal is, and steering the gameplay in those modes to make them work well, which they just don't right now. Sandbox: Fine as-is. Science: Currently the goal is science points and unlocking the tree (the sole game "reward" system). Science mode should shift entirely with the design goal of Exploration (for science!). Have the Kerbol system randomize each science game start (stock system as an option). Not just locations, but have different planets possible. Have nothing known about the worlds that would not be known from Kerbin surface. Explore, and have science usefully giving the player more information about the worlds therein. Fog of war is not just good gameplay, it makes it exciting. Career: Currently rudderless, IMO. Set a goal. If it is "management," then the player is a manager who can also electively fly missions. If I cannot groom astronauts to actually do their work, it's not management, period. No AI kerbals, no "management as the focus." With the player as the sole pilot, management is not the goal of career, but career exists (IMHO) to present the player with novel problems to solve since things have a context they lack in Sandbox. As such, career needs meaningful time progression so that time-critical tasks are a thing. Life support at a bare bones level would help, as would redoing the whole "contract" paradigm. More random busywork (Fine Print) is not the solution. FP has some great ideas within the system, but it is predicated on the status quo, and has issues because of that. Have budgets. Have a purpose (space race? colonization?). Novel career idea: Space race… not against another country, but against TIME. Code in a new planet, comet, or huge asteroid/planetoid. It is on a collision course with Kerbin in 50-100 years (number could be a difficulty setting). A world-killer. The race is to colonize other worlds before this happens, or possibly to deflect it if it is in a size range where this is plausible. Time MUST matter for this, have the player get budgets. Change "Funds" to "Resources," as this is a save the world event, and the limit is what you can make while still feeding the planet, etc. Add some larger parts, as well as some threshold at a world where you can start to build in-situ facilities. Set up X amount of ISRU, and within X km of that base land X many kerbals, and so many tons of "cargo" (add cargo parts that have some large mass of "cargo" for this), then you get a nascent in-situ facility you place on the surface. You then upgrade it via ISRU extraction and cargo delivery and colonists. - - - Updated - - - Agreed. I think for this thread we might be able to agree that in the sense we use "simulation" it means that any level of modeling reality, even a zeroith order one, is simulation, not some extreme requirement that it model every heartbeat of the pilot, or that it be capable of replacing JPL's code to plan missions. KSP is a very low-level simulation of spaceflight, no one using the word implies more than that.
  22. Just saw your thread in the other thread. Excellent points. You might want to take a look at Roverdude's WIP, as the notion of having to add LS to stock short-duration fits nicely. BTW, where are you in CO?
  23. Excellent points. (I'd have commented had I seen it, actually ). Making time matter in general helps the game immeasurably. Your ideas around stock LS mimic elements of Roverdude's new LS mod in development, actually. He has a 15 day (kerbal day, I assume) grace period for LS for all pods, then consumables are required (plus charge). Having advanced LS appear at some point in the tree, and not all at once, is a way to scale difficulty better, as well, since a fundamental issue with KSP from a game standpoint is that it is hardest at the beginning of the game.
  24. Squad said they really wanted to revamp science as it was in early, and not what they wanted (perhaps past 1.0?). Sumghai has some good ideas above, as does the thread linked by ilo, and also the Cameras and Telescopes thread. From a gameplay standpoint, "doing actual science" is most important if doing so gives the player some sort of useful data. Squad tends to not like to give the player much information ("kerbals, explosions, yay!" (not at all my style of play)). That said, perhaps doing actual science could UNLOCK information they don't give out in addition to other ideas (improving result ion of map mode (easily done via limiting zoom)). Examples: Orbital mapping (insert vehicle into a polar orbit and make XX orbits to map the surface---includes radar mapping). The game is presumably adding more functionality in the game for the late tech tree via resource scanning. Use it FOR SCIENCE! (and gameplay) by having scans free up map zoom down to seeing small hazards with enough data). Flyby mapping (generates less science broadly, but the amount varies based upon approach distance). With scansat-like stuff in stock, this can merely be a subset of the mapping. Impact probes combined with other instruments. (place seismometer, then impact the surface at some velocity, or impact at some high velocity and observe with an instrument in orbit (or at Kerbin, but with LOS)). This data can provide "biome" info (really something other than biome for all but kerbin) as a map marker. Sample return. This could mark geological markers on the map from the location taken ("biomes"). Atmospheric data (currently a thing, but nothing useful comes of it). Have this unlock suggestions about aerobraking? Or it might unlock trajectory paths through the atmosphere for accurate reentries (what that one mod does). Science from orbit (manned). This would be related to life support if that was a thing, ever (do this kind of science enough and all habitable parts have improvements in LS by some amount). Parts testing. Certain (better designed from, well, ANY in the current game) parts testing missions might unlock dv information? Are there any other game aids that "science" could reasonably unlock? I'm trying to stick within the current format as much as possible in terms of career, because sadly it's not going to change.
  25. Yeah, and it is the most broken part… the actual "game" aspect, vs the "simulation" aspect (any attempt to model something real at any level is "simulation," I'm not saying KSP is even "orbiter" under the hood by any possible stretch of the imagination, it's a simulation, just a very low-order simulation ).
×
×
  • Create New...