Jump to content

tater

Members
  • Posts

    27,609
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tater

  1. Ferram, since mine is pretty reproducible, let me know if there is anything I can do or test for you.
  2. Yeah, this needs fixing. Fixing this, AND adding whatever is needed for better rovers seems like the best bet.
  3. I like this. The current paradigm of "do whatever you like" with "here, take money to do this dumb thing" nature of contracts is not me "steering" the program the way I want… everything gets unlocked so quickly there is no sense of making a choice for a program goal, then working towards it.
  4. No idea. I just noticed a new version of MM (2.5.8) was out, and I used that in the same test above just in case that was an issue… stuck again, and exit to space center, come back… and BOOM.
  5. Slight tangent, but showing how UI matters, and how you can teach players (the game aspects, and/or physics). They don't want to add dv numbers to the VAB, apparently. Fine. How about Werner in the VAB has a desk or something you can click on. There is a white board, with him gesticulating, and on the white board is a parabola, crudely drawn. At the top is scrawled an altitude. Not perfect, not the best ou could possibly reach if you flew a perfect launch, just a rounded off to the nearest 5-10km height based upon the current stack. If it has roughly enough for orbit, the crude parabola leads into a crude circle. If you can reach another body, the drawing is a crude Kerbin, with an orbit drawn, and a swooping arrow with the name of the body in question at the point (or a list for the same gross dv range). Lets the new players have some idea what they are making.
  6. Let me know if there is anything else i can do for you. Was unsure if persistent or quick save was best (I'm unsure if they are different formats). This was sandbox, and the only vessel as well, I tried to keep is as simple as possible.
  7. Other than being spammed with too many such contracts, I'm not sure I have a problem with be contracted to add to existing stations.
  8. Thanks. Could not see the green text very well, lol. I took my test career game that was becoming unplayable (every Nth craft was having locked docking ports), and yanked KJR, then reloaded by save… works fine. On the plus side, some earlier explosions from this problem created some interesting rescue operations.
  9. As every proponent of having things be as realistic as feasible within a game says in every one of these threads, no one is asking for "true realism." The "you'd have to be NASA," or "you'd have to model bathroom breaks for Jeb," or "you'd have to model the office workers in the admin building standing around waiting to go home" straw men arguments need to just stop. No one is arguing for what anyone characterizing the "realism crowd" says they are. Squad is removing the awful, placeholder atmosphere model, that is a given. their goal is to have it more realistic than it is now, also a given. Many of us want them to do it as well as they can within the limits of having the game run smoothly, that's it. Another straw man. OP is arguing nothing of the sort. One, the thread is about why people have the (entirely unsubstantiated) idea that somehow which algorithm is used to calculate drag---that no one can see---is assumed to "reduce fun" if it is arbitrarily choice A over choice B. Two, OP is right, it's a false dichotomy in general (otherwise a flight sim with no gravity would always be more fun than one with gravity, for example). I'd wager that Squad could drop in FAR (minus the graphs and stuff that lets you know it's there)., tell everyone they opted for "fun" at the expense of doing all they could do… and none of you would even notice. Yes, you'd notice the atmosphere was changed, but I bet you'd have more fun than if they told you they added FAR in.
  10. Claw, I am running the Mac version, but I have had exactly the same issues. I just posted a bug report here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55657-0-90-Kerbal-Joint-Reinforcement-v3-1-1-1-15-15?p=1672059&viewfull=1#post1672059 I have a small group of base mods (DRE/FAR/KJR) that I usually add PF to (and Snacks), but I made a fresh install, then added the mods one by one, when I had all, plus your stock bug fix mod in there, it worked fine… until I added KJR. My thought was that if KJR triggers it reproducibly, that might help you figure out the cause (even if it is slightly different). tater
  11. It would be nice if stock had a system of reusing parts with different stats, then improved parts via tech improvements. So each part gets one new value added, "tech level" (whatever they want to call it). Then you could improve parts over time without cluttering up the VAB. For docking ports, there would be a master cfg that would assign certain stats to each level. lvl 1 allows docking, OK strength. lvl 2 allows electrical connection. lvl 3 adds fuel cross feed, stronger joint. All use the same models as now. The only weird one is the junior, which is sort of absurd. All new ships use the latest version of the part.
  12. I have been having these sticky docking port issues since 0.90 as well. I just updated KJR to 3.1.1 and still have the issue. I made a copy of vanilla 0.90, and added my core default mods one at a time, plus I added hyper edit so I could warp craft to orbit to test the docking issue. (didn't occur to me to test on the ground until just now, but I was having the issue without ever having HE installed before now. Anyway, I have (each space between mods means I tested the craft, then quit, and added the next mod): Hyperedit StockBugFixModules ModuleManager.2.5.6.dll DRE FAR KJR I launched them, then hyper edited them to 100000m. Then quit if I could uncouple the 2 vessels, then added another mod. All worked except the last one, KJR, which will not decouple. To be clear, by the time KJR was installed, all the mods listed were active (HE/SBFM/DRE/FAR/KJR). You can tumble or RCS the lander a little, then hit normal time warp and watch the crafts separate… when you drop to 1:1 time, if they are close they slam back together (though it shows the docking attachment as not actually docked), if they are a little farther than magnet range… there can be a huge explosion as both blow to bits (I had parts given kerbin escape velocity). The test pictured below, they slammed back together after I did time compression. The two vessels are decoupled, but stuck together. persistent (after undocking): http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=69316402618047980936 craft: http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=59833500955925327104 EDIT: I also tested with the new MM version, and I tested minus the StockBugFixModules mod, in case it was somehow a conflict.
  13. Just stop with the "remove warp" or forcing Jeb to use the bathroom as examples of realism. We are entirely limited to discussing outcomes of narrow space flight scenarios. That's it.
  14. The problem is that almost all KSP tech occurred nearly simultaneously in RL. This is largely due to the fact that technology was/is invented to fill needs, not because we've learned something new. You want an Apollo style mun mission? You'd put out specs for that, and that;s what you'd get.
  15. After testing a new version, I play with life support. That puts time limits on missions, or I need to resupply them. At that point leaving people in orbit is more difficult. Still, leaving a probe in orbit is not a problem. Weather satellites provide benefit to humans nearly every day, all over the world, including "science."
  16. Simulation, like everything else, is not binary. It's not a choice between "complete realism" (whatever the heck that is supposed to be) and "doesn't matter, do whatever." KSP is absolutely a simulation. It imitates the appearance or character of spaceflight (that's the definition of simulation in italics). Is it Orbiter? No, but neither is Orbiter KSP. Orbiter doesn't simulate the design of spacecraft at all, for example. What is simulated, and the quality of that simulation is the trick to balance. The KSP treatment of the business/operations end doesn't even imitate the appearance of same, IMO. If it meets any standard of simulation, it's a very poor simulation there compared to the orbital element of the game. So we can all be on the same page that KSP is a simulation game, though we might disagree on the quality. The metric for judging that quality would be how close our real world expectations of actions (the physics) are to the results in game. Now to the game bit. The metric of a game, is gameplay. Gameplay is certainly impacted by the simulation, but choices in simulation do NOT have simple effects on it. The current career/tech system is a very poor simulation, and is also… very poor gameplay. Making the career more realistic, contrary to people chucking straw men around, would not consist if Squad forcing the players to make spreadsheets, endure boring meetings, and all the work-a-day stuff that happens in any real administrative office. No, realism in simulation would be if the type of missions presented, budgets allowed, etc "made sense" in the verbal world. The outcome is what matters, not the black box. The orbital mechanics, launch, landing, even craft design remain fundamentally unchanged, regardless of the aero model. Some new parts to play with (heat shields, and fairings), and likely some changes in design choices… that's it. Even FAR changes nearly nothing aside from that, as I have said, I don't even notice it's there, and I only tested a couple rockets (intentionally breaking them) after FAR install to realize how kooky I'd have to fly to have any problems (no comments on aircraft, I have yet to build any, I have no interest). If atmospheric realism made getting to orbit profoundly difficult, then yeah, that would be a gameplay effect. The simple fact is it doesn't. Once again to use FAR as an example, I've barely glanced at the metrics shown in FAR (in the VAB, flight, or otherwise). If I was pushing the edge of what should not fly, maybe I'd have to, I dunno. I have yet to need them, though I'm curious enough about what is going on that I sometimes watch them in flight.
  17. The exploration and all the basic science "contracts" should be renamed as "missions" and reflagged as coming from your own space program. You are like NASA, and the pure science stuff are internal ideas floated around the conference table (with budgets, etc), while the external contracts exist to offset costs.
  18. Are you guys really at odds? Perhaps he means that launching a monster in 1 piece is "less to do" than having to rendezvous in orbit and assemble it since you'd have to send it up in rockets that look like rockets first.
  19. New players expect that DRE is already there. It takes an intermediate player to realize that no matter how impressive flames you see, they never harm the craft. What Jouni said. I carefully plotted reentry until I realized that the flames were just for looks. I read the lander can descriptions and assumed that reentry mattered. It's odd, people will say that explosions are very kerbal, that it's funny you can blow up the VAB, etc. They'll do it on purpose. That darn Jeb. Meanwhile, it's "scary" and "hard" if hitting the atmosphere at 10km/s is actually made a bad thing? Huh?
  20. I think realism and fun are mostly not connected. In the case of KSP, having some aspects behave as one would expect in the real universe is easier, regardless of the care it might take to build or fly any particular rocket. As a noob (I started in August) I expected reentry to be meaningful, for example. There are nosecone parts, so I added them, etc. It stood to reason that they should matter. I had to learn that in KSP they did not (a lesson I never actually took to heart, I wasted the mass anyway). I then added FAR, KIS, DRE. I honestly have not even noticed any of them aside from intentionally doing some destructive testing once I installed them to see how they worked. I've lost exactly 1 capsule to DRE, and that was toast anyway (I deorbited it failing to realize I had put neither a heat shield, nor parachute on the craft (it was an orbital tug with a Mk1-2). The type of trope you trot out, "If you want complete realism you must not use time compression" or "realism would mean you shoot yourself in a FPS game if you get shot" is just silly. It's a straw man, and I'm sure you know that. No one is, or has suggested anything remotely close to that. What we want are somewhat realistic outcomes, and a realistic feel. Watching a pancake held together with struts blow through the sound barrier at 2000m alt doesn't feel realistic, it feels silly.
  21. The notion that realism and fun are somehow diametrically opposed is absurd, I'd argue that they are not even related. Good game design is good game design, what that math looks like under the hood in terms of equations of motion has little impact, and honestly if things behave grossly differently than reality, it is confusing.
  22. There is another part, or tweak. Maybe the clamp-o-tron sr. should be VERY strong. Face it, it's a part to make stations, large ships, etc, not routine docking. Make it virtually weld the 2 parts together.
  23. I'd go the othe way, mechanical, then crew + electrical, then fuel. Fuel is the most difficult, and should be last.
  24. Yep. Having fuel transfer for the first docking ports makes no sense.
  25. Building a new craft should not be required, it's a rationale to have stations, or craft that can continuously change orbits. I do agree that the various survey missions should be more sensible, and have the surface elements tied to the orbital better (image surface, then land).
×
×
  • Create New...