Jump to content

tater

Members
  • Posts

    27,501
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tater

  1. The game doesn't do any constant acceleration engines right now, so they'd be absurd (as are ion engines as they are now).
  2. It's funny, I've been using FAR for a while (started playing in august, so maybe a couple months with FAR) and I was assuming that it must only be noticeable for aircraft (which I don't do at all in KSP). I've honestly not noticed much difference at all between FAR and stock (and that's with KIDS as well). What I have seen a few time is with DRE, really. SRBs used for sounding rockets for contracts… I'll burn off the chutes on ascent, lol. I ended up loading them with science gear to slow them down (they were even burning up inside a fairing (PF).
  3. I play with FAR/DRE/KIDS/etc, too. Didn't think it was even possible to kill them in stock as long as I have a chute on the pod. I understand the frustration of having something mess with control, but it is possible to imagine a system where you honestly would not know it was happening I think. Right now you place a node, for example. You know it happens in 5 minutes, 37 seconds, say. You have a 4 second burn, so you do it at T -2s. If the game delayed your burn by some small fraction of a second, you'd never notice. If the game told you 5 min 37s til the burn, but it was in fact 5' 27" you'd be off by 10 seconds, but never know. (you'd click, and the game would tell you the time wrong, but form the maneuver based on where the node actually was). RCS burns could have an error cone. Tiny, but enough that you'd do a few corrections here and there. I bet it would be possible to make it pretty hard to tell (though I prefer the AI idea).
  4. One, I'm against changing the physics of parts, period, we are in total agreement there. Piloting is none the less a skill. It entirely depends on how you wish to play the game. You could make the same argument about an "experienced role-player" not wanting to "grind" a new character after his guy gets killed in a long standing game, but if that is not a risk, then the game is not role-playing, it's munchkinism. I'm fine with varied skill pilots, even if they by themselves crash, or make some maneuvers a bit of a pain. If what you say is true, then every player reading this should be as good at flying in Kerbal as Scott Manley, and should have been from the moment they started playing KSP. Since we know they are not, then different pilots WILL use different amounts of fuel/RCS to do a rendezvous/docking, or precision landing based upon skill. They will also be better/worse at executing a transfer burn at a node. On the first 2 examples I'd imagine the differences are profound. For a long node burn, not so much % wise. I am not saying to alter the parts, I think that player steering/timing would need to be messed with if you must consider the player as roleplaying the world's stupidest astronaut, or they have AI pilots and have the AI screw up their steering/timing based upon skill. The UPPER limit would be perfect, no "buffs." It's not at all bad, it's just different. Add AI pilots, and new players can chose to manually fly to learn (AI pilots would have no penalties when the player flies), and they could let the AI do it if they were not confident in their own ability for that particular function. If they fly themselves in the case of AI pilots, there is in fact zero change. The use of AI would likely be more experienced players not wanting to do repetitive launches, etc, anyway. Win-win. The change of failure due to bad piloting by AI is a gameplay PLUS, as it creates novel situations for the player to deal with (rescue operations, repair missions, etc). I'm entirely against buffs, as I have said. The best possible pilot manages to use his rocket (identical in every way to all other rockets of the same design) with maximal efficiency. He docks with 10 RCS puffs instead of 50. He uses the most efficient rendezvous instead of iteratively zeroing relative velocity, then heading directly at the target, etc. Same rocket, different fuel use. I beg to differ. The devs clearly want skill to be a thing (or we would not have seen the physics-breaking buff idea in the first place. They have also made the overall space program a substantial focus. Having pilots able to act autonomously would not only not diminish core gameplay, it would enhance it---to the extent far-flung, concurrent operations are a thing. One, I'm a pretty new player, and I only ever managed to kill any via things like tome-compression mistakes, or in a notable case when I failed to realize that I could not reenter 2 craft at more or less the same time. Both were on good paths for reentry and would have needed nothing more than an AI pilot to pop the chute. AI pilots would have saved my largest loss of kerbal life so far (a full mk1-2). I'm somewhat experienced, and I feel exactly the opposite. BTW, with some sort of actual piloting skill in game (either AI, or making player inputs less accurate for low-skill pilots) then control systems become a thing in the tech tree. You could have stuff controlled from the ground or flight computer and have pilot skill mitigated/removed, but at additional cost. So a cheap, and "very kerbal" program might have "full manual" pods, while another might aim for advanced flight controls. I'm entirely against the physics buff stuff, we are in agreement. Having the pilots be less skilled in operating the craft is completely different. A mechanism that is used in some FPS games is having aim wobble if you have a sight picture for any length of time, or even to have rounds have a small cone of error instead of hitting the X perfectly every time. The goal is to simulate outcomes. All the ballistics can be perfect, but if a guy with a mouse, with no fear can put all his rounds in the same hole, realistic outcomes become impossible. I'd think the goal would be realistic results with varied pilots. This is somehow more realistic than AI pilots, or altering actual piloting based on skill? "Sorry, your astronaut can't launch as he needs another 30 seconds in orbit to be qualified for this rocket that is 1% higher thrust than his last one." This idea I like. Also OK. Affecting rocket parts (other than maybe repair) is indeed universally bad. Affecting how they fly is another story entirely.
  5. That could well be an issue, lol. I thought it was also to correct for the wrong math of Isp in KSP in general, though. Will axe it for now.
  6. I always use FAR I was just unsure of the best settings for 6.4X vs stock vs RSS. I can see the point about the contracts, and up to a point I like actually having to think about what I am building… balance for scaled up might be as simple as a slight tech tree variation so that you can get bigger stuff sooner for that orbital flight. That or start out with enough cash to build a bunch of rockets.
  7. A few observations/questions: This is presumably outside the basic scope, but while I have been using sandbox, it would complete the "stock writ large" experience for the career to work at some point. Balance is kinda screwy because it's certainly harder to get to orbit with the skinny little rockets of the first X launches, particularly with SRBs accelerating me to the point of burning off my chute if I'm not careful . I realize perhaps I could serially stage pairs of boosters, but that seems less like real rockets to me, so I don't, lol. Nathan, what engine stuff should I use with RF for this, or should I go stock, and just use larger, well, everything? I reflexively added KIDS, too, but I realize that I might not have it set up right for 6.4X.
  8. That's what pilot skill means. It doesn't need to be much to mess with efficiency. You slightly over burn, chase the marker, and burn a correction. It could be off by just a fraction of a degree, and a tenth of a second here and there. Or the burn could be executed perfectly, but the marker is placed off by a couple seconds (small change over a burn of any length). Obviously, I prefer the idea of having AI kerbals, but my suggestion is exactly what it would mean to have some accounting of Kerbal skill in piloting. The physics buff offered was entirely positive, and made no sense. A pilot with 100% stupidity should be as dumb as is allowed to still be an astronaut .
  9. For what you have as gameplay 5, I've suggested that they could keep "trial and error" while still letting the player know when a good time to go is by using a launch window planner to pitch contracts. Say 60 days before a window opens, you get a contract to explore Duna, Dres, whatever. The mission description would state when the low DV window is to launch.
  10. The devs thought of altering the parts/physics as a way to try and represent pilot skill. It's pretty clear that they meant for it to represent less efficient use of the rocket, not physically changing the rocket, but they physically changed the rocket, and most people were not pleased. They could do the same thing, by having the stats alter the pilot. How, when the player is in fact the pilot? They could randomize control inputs, and even time warp without telling the player. So the most skilled pilot would be indistinguishable from what we have now. As their skill is below this value, when you exercise any control input, the game could alter time compression (lightly changing physics warp from 0.XX to 1.XX time compression to screw up burn times), how your craft is pointing (lag control inputs), and even lagging throttle commands. Note none of these would be constant, they'd constantly change so you could not get used to it. The changes would be tweaked so they are small, but a kerbal with 50% stupidity might average X% less efficient in making course changes, etc. There, player as pilot, AND kerbal skill at the same time, no physics broken. You are telling him what to do, and he's doing it as well as he can (which might be pretty sketchy).
  11. Memory management. I watch my memory use climbs towards 3GB (out of 12 available) because I know it will blow up at 3. That's with ATM running, lol.
  12. Liking this a lot so far. In addition to the nice work of the different primary modders, I like the simplicity of the install. Ideally the scenarios and stock craft would be replaced by versions that would allow people to test out various aspects of the new scale. I'm thinking about luring new players from stock.
  13. Yeah, you'll want to lose the progress and start over anyway. This game would be a bargain at twice the price, buy it. (you can always play your demo copy if you feel nostalgia for it).
  14. I guess the "add DSN in" is the operative bit. I don't want to have to make some contraption to fly an antenna someplace (is there some other way?) when it should already be there. I agree with the bitrate issue, too, obviously---I used to spend some time at the VLA back in the day (it was better when people had to come out to NM to do runs, we had better colloquia with all the visiting profs ). I was always more of an optical guy, though. Anyway, they'd often have a telescope or two helping out with probe commo (or VLBI).
  15. My take-away from this is that aside from global changes in the science/tech paradigm, the following things would maximize the use of extra-kermin bases (either orbital, or landed). 1. Resources. We know we are getting fuel/oxidizer at some point (water?) that we can capture/extract. 2. Construction facilities in orbit. Many of us want this, I think, and ideally a different flavor of part than we have on the ground to make it even more novel (I like the cryo tanks in a truss framework look, myself). Engines, etc can be stock (as outlined above). 3. AI kerbals. I play KSP because I like flying. I'm perfectly happy to dock, land, etc. I'd still like AI kerbals to do some stuff, like deliver cargo pods or fuel to a station. This should be added for no other reason than to add "life" to KSP. Some people want more kerbals at the space center… but my goal is to get out of the space center and into SPACE. I'd like to swing in to dock and find that there is another craft docking at the same time, or EVA kerbals moving a pod to the Orbital Construction Facility… it would feel less like it's just me, 1 thing happening at a time.
  16. I only ever watch them if something is mentioned in writing that I want to specifically look at.
  17. Up to a point I do not disagree with generic "parts" being brought up as cargo. I'd say that extant crew pods would have to be intact, though I could imagine a new set of "space only" parts being added that can ONLY be built at an orbital (or airless world) construction facility. In fact I'll outright agree it makes sense. I think you'd need limited categories that would be built via "parts" vs subassemblies. Tanks, structural parts, and certain space-habs could be constructed in-situ, while engines, SAS, batteries, etc would be brought up. I suppose the closed cargo pod makes the most sense from a rendering standpoint. The orbital facility (Orbital Construction Yard (OCY)?) might have something that looks like a mobile processing lab (maybe the next size up?), but perhaps with some robot arms, floodlights, and a large cargo door, etc on it. You'd attach cargo pods to it, with maybe "raw materials" being one (metal stock, etc), the other would be "subassemblies." Note that these pods could be used as cargo pods for any constructed ships as well). In the case of your abstracted idea, the subassemblies parts would contain, say 10 tons of subassembly parts (unnamed parts). When you build with the orbital yard, you'd be given the "space" parts list. Tanks, structure, etc would be different/abbreviated to reflect built from stock material and would deplete stock cargo pods based on dry mass. The subassembly parts would be removed as total units from the subassembly cargo pods. as you go. You might try an LVT30, then decide to instead make a lander with 3xLV909. In the former case your 10 ton supply pod would be incremented down by 1.25t, then changed when you alter the design to 1.5 down. It would only finally remove the stuff after the design was completed. You'd get a warning if you took a part that was beyond your storage of parts. I'm actually fine with that as our design process is not realistic anyway. You could assume that whatever design was planned ahead of time, and the "subassemblies" required were what was in the cargo pod. So you've entirely changed my mind. Sold!
  18. I agree completely regarding RT. I was sort of expecting to to pepper Kermin with powerful ground control stations, with perhaps an LOS here and there (hard given its tiny size). The lack of that made me entirely disinterested in it.
  19. Automation is a computer on board the spacecraft flying the spacecraft. The pilot flying is not the player flying, but it is not "automation." It's not opposed to intended gameplay, either. Tycoon has been a comparison, should the player have to drive every railroad spike by hand? Do you have to do the budget spreadsheets? No. Most elements of the game are in fact abstracted, except spaceflight maneuvers (even those that would never have any control that was not done by a computer). In addition, just last week the devs were going to have kerbals alter the physics of their spacecraft, which shows that they want them to matter as pilots. Having kerbals act as pilots is THE way for having kerbal skill to matter. Anything else is just a silly way to retrofit meaning to them when the only real meaning (kerbals available as AI astronauts) has been taken off the table.
  20. One, an "autopilot" is a either a probe, or a manned craft with the onboard computer flying. Having Jeb fly is having Jeb fly (or Bill, or Joetry, etc), which should be a thing. YOU flying is neither Jeb flying, nor the probe flying, nor the onboard computer flying. There is a place for our astronauts to be AI assigned to a mission that they do themselves. Two, what you suggest, quoted above doesn't need an "autopilot," because it replaces that (or having AI kerbals) with "magic," because that's what "orbital particle collector" means. AI kerbals would be ideal for repetitive tasks. For the sake of safety, perhaps they would only be capable of missions from launch to docking and launch to landing at an established base (make a new part that can be deployed on a surface that has a landing light, battery, and radio beacon. When you deploy it, it uses symmetry to make an X shape (deployed like a flag, basically, and for AI purposes, perhaps only on airless worlds). We'd then have huge base and station utility as you could schedule recurring resupply missions (launch one when onboard fuel or supplies are less than XX%).
  21. Yeah, I think you'd need to bring specific parts up to stock it. They could be disassembled to be shipped, and would be obviously "dry" if they were tanks like that. The goal is orbital construction that is not held together with clamp-o-trons, basically.
  22. This. They should be able to do their job, which is to fly spacecraft.
×
×
  • Create New...