Jump to content

tater

Members
  • Posts

    27,609
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tater

  1. Straw man, really. I don't think anyone is claiming that KSP is astronaut training (if they have, you are welcome to quote them, and I'll agree with you). It is none the less a simulation of aspects of spacecraft operations at a coarse level of fidelity, to be sure, just as many "flight simulator" are low order simulations. I'd vote it is a simulation game (or some similar choice). Simcity is a sort of simulation, I suppose, at zeroith order (or less ). Il-2 series is a low order simulation of ww2 air combat, Silent Hunter is a low order simulation of submarine ops in ww2, etc. In the case of "flight sims" of ww2, for example, having played them, I have a much better understanding of ww2 air combat in reading historical accounts of pilots than I did before I played them (starting rather a long time ago, lol). I have no illusions that I am somehow now a fighter pilot, but when I read descriptions of real engagements, I visualize them accurately, whereas I frankly did not before that. I can't say more than "I get it" now. I think many can say the same about orbital mechanics playing KSP, they "get" aspects that would not have been clear to them before (say reading about the Gemini missions trying rendezvous/docking operations for the first time).
  2. I never clip anything. Assuming the new aero is no better than FAR at dealing with clipping (which has to be really complicated, because it is certainly cheating as soon as surface area matters, so I doubt it can be any better), then it's an exploit, IMO.
  3. Both, didn't answer because that is not an option. If any activity in any game mimics real life at any level, it is a simulation. It's just a matter of fidelity. Do a better poll and I'll answer.
  4. The other thing is that since you see the position on the map, you learn the relationship that works. Once you do a munar transfer, guessing even without maneuver nodes is actually pretty easy.
  5. I think in general the contract time constraints need to be massively tightened, though. None the less, you are probably right WRT most play, sans LS. Regarding nodes, the point is simply to let players, particularly new players, know how to eyeball likely times for reasonable dv transfers.
  6. Much wrong physics wise (how were they being overtaken by debris? If it was a crossing orbit, the chances of them seeing it again would have been small). The horsing around… golfballs, singing on the moon… unlikely, but certainly not impossible. The lack of proper, cooling undergarments was glaring, but I was fine with that, I preferred the yoga shorts
  7. They should have vast wings… radiators. The trouble with sic-fi ships is that they have these massively powerful drives, and directed energy weapons using gigawatts, and they have no radiators. Every watt needs to be radiated, or ships like those would be glowing white in no time.
  8. Nice list. I also like the fact that many of these might be repaired by engineers, giving them something useful to do.
  9. Squad has typically said they don't want to give to much data, however. That is why a mission might be a good way. Or Werner or Linus popping up within a few weeks of a good window and mentioning that an efficient time to launch to Duna is coming up. Another might do the same for shortest transit time (vs lowest dv). I think ANY such planner is better than none, even if it only points at the optimum window, it need only say that this is the time when you need the least fuel/dv to get to the target, vs the rest of the year when it is possible, but less efficient. Perhaps the tracking station could have a "mission planner" area where you place an orbit, then get to add nodes to it, and check the dv needed there.
  10. Columbia's anniversary is coming up as well. My wife and I were in bed that morning, awake, and heard a huge "thump." I went to the living room, and checked the large picture window that looks out over the city, expecting to see a large bird print (hawk, vulture, or eagle, the thump was very loud), and a stunned bird on the patio. Nothing. Went outside. Heard a rumbling, no bird. Not long after, we had the radio on and the news said there was a problem with the shuttle reentry. As it turns out, Columbia flew right over Albuquerque, and the thump was a sonic boom. She was already well into the process of breaking up, and they did some searches for wreckage in the mountains just behind my house (never found any). Another sad day.
  11. You seem to be missing the point. You used a tool. So only people who know of the tool, or go here, or google it should get to know? Why would that tool not be available to the player---any player? THAT is the point, that the tools should be included. For new players in career, I think it would be great to let them know when an optimum window is, in fact. They are limited in parts, and it offers the best chance at success since they might have some extra dv to play with.
  12. In a perfect world, career would randomize the Kerbol system, including the size of worlds, atmospheres, etc. Say everything but Kerbin. Replay on career needs "fog of war."
  13. My girlfriend came in and told me the shuttle exploded while I was shaving. I was not amused at her making jokes like that… only to find out it was true. Sad day.
  14. This is a great idea. Basically have "encyclopedia" information on the various worlds unlock as a function of science gained near those worlds. Seriously, good idea. If you get within SoI of a world, you get mass, orbital data. You might unlock biome maps after orbiting, etc.
  15. The contracts (though I hate that word for scientific missions that should in fact be planned by your own space program) could absolutely offer missions that are predicated on good launch windows. Why should a player have to use something outside the game to learn when efficient windows are? How are new players supposed to learn what to look for? (any such information should be inside the stock game, so any "check the internet" answers, including mod downloads are non-starters, IMO) I think letting people know is a great idea. "Send a Probe to Jool" text of mission then says there is a low delta v transfer window opportunity around days XXX-YYY. Great learning tool for people.
  16. Yeah, I proposed a slightly different system. Not capable of activity = - Capable at the most minimal level = 0 Actual skill levels = 1 to 5 Each astronaut would have all 3. Their primary skill would start at at least 1, and would go to 5. They could raise the other two skills to 0. (gameplay goal is to encourage multiple astronauts on some missions). So Jeb is P1, E-, S0
  17. The point is the real rover folded up and was assembled/unfolded in situ. There are things we cannot do in radially conservative ways in KSP, sadly. The fact that docking is wobbly makes that less than desirable as well, and CM is always an issue. What about other landers? Duna? Eve? Laythe? How wide is that 3.75m base fairing, again?
  18. Yeah, I get it. I want failures, but I want them to be not terribly frequent, and then future parts are even less likely to fail assuming you diagnose the problem (perhaps a job for an engineer? Dunno if that is accessible to mods, but that might be interesting).
  19. Well, surface collection should do basically zero transmitted, IMO. Least without a lab.
  20. So now I have to have bizarre design limitations in the other direction (more, rather than less absurd). No, I want Apollo 15-17. A small, 2 man rover, and a 2 man lander. So I have to do some absurd dock with rover maneuver(s) because a slightly larger fairing is not realistic or constraining enough? - - - Updated - - - What is the fairing limit? Do you chose? such that it is .1 m bigger than your own lander/rover design? What are your suggested sizes? Are all landers now going to be one lander can, one tank below, and gear until you get a size 3 base?
  21. It;s been stated in a few threads on skills. Make science skill a multiplier, and massively slash base science awards. Get 10 science if Jeb grabs it, get 60 if Bob (Bill?) does.
  22. Yeah, I don't disagree, as again, it doesn't alter any of my designs all that much. We are limited in a sort of broken way, however, by KSP. Look at rovers. Look at the real LEM. That's not possible in KSP, and you have to design an absurd contraption to land a rover. If you hang it on the side, you better hang 2 for balance. Now you have a lander that might well fit in a fairing for a 2.5m base… but not with 2 entirely assembled rovers hanging off the side. I should not be compelled to launch rovers then have to dock with them in space, that's just nuts. As an example, set a few "standard sizes, then see how that works for actual designs. Might not affect all of us, just playing devil's advocate.
  23. Fairings are entirely different, as they enclose meta-parts entirely designed by the player.
  24. The point is that if you want standard fairings, why shouldn't the player design them?
×
×
  • Create New...