SpaceMouse
-
Posts
710 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by SpaceMouse
-
-
On 1/3/2019 at 4:15 AM, FreeThinker said:
Yes it's intentional. One of the main limitations of the Dusty Plasma reactor is, its magnetic fields are only able to redirect about 50% of it charged particles in one direction. Fortunately, the remaining 50% can be utilized for other purposes, so what you could do is use 50% for plasma/charged particle nozzle propulsion while the other 50% can power charge particle power generator or MHD generator to power electric engines. Alternatively, connect it both to a thermal power generator and direct power generator to utilize all power
I actually tried this before. Sticking VASIMR's next to it even at highest ISP kinda negates the ultra high ISP of the FFR. XD
-
1 hour ago, p1t1o said:
Are you sure...I dont think so...both are still in active development.
If you mean the starting core engine code, maybe, but what matters is "does it do what you are looking for?"
What is it that you are looking for? Just smoother framerates? Higher detail?
I think less "niche" than we are "demanding"
I might be wrong on DCS. I suspect XP's code hasn't significantly changed since XP 8 or 9. Well over 10 years ago. I think it might be time for them to move to a modern engine.
A little of all actually. I feel like in 2018 a Flight sim should look at least as good as NMS or perhaps Space Engine.
42 minutes ago, YNM said:You're competing with the commercial and enterprise market, really. For example SCS Software has geared some of the development on their truck driving simulator engines for actual truck driving license lessons and tests.
ETS and ATS are really good too. There's a version of X-Plane that's actually FAA certified. I think part of the issue is simmers seem to love their ortho photo scenery. Ortho photo scenery is generally pretty terrible everywhere. Unless maybe everything is 50k res.....
-
4 hours ago, p1t1o said:
You know about DCS?
Appears to be a good deal older than XP11 and even Flightgear.
3 hours ago, KerbolExplorer said:theres one that will reléase on EA son...
https://store.steampowered.com/app/771800/Deadstick__Bush_Flight_Simulator/
It looks good but its only going to be Bush flying and on a limited map
This looks promising, i prefer GA so I'll have to follow this.
-
Thought I would drop this thought here. I'm a big fan of flight sims. I've been playing X-Plane for the last decade or so, of many various versions but, I can't help but feel even XP11 is quite.... dated. It's awfully hard to get a consistently good framerate, especially in VR. Other programs easily simulate more now at significantly higher framerates. I kinda get the feeling except for some tweaks the graphics engine hasn't been updated in a good decade or so. I'm curious if anyone might be aware of a more up to date one, that might have slipped through the cracks of my searching. Seems Simmers are a awfully niche market.
Maybe Cloud Imperium (Star Citizen) will release a ultra-lightweight version of there engine in 70 years or so?
-
12 hours ago, eskimo22 said:
Stock crew cabins have such high crash resistance, why should TE's BFS be any different? Racecar drivers have been known to survive crashes faster than 100mph, and Kerbals are more durable than people.
Because it's his mod. Further, if a race-car hit a wall facefirst at 100MPH the driver would die. Most of those crashes are indirect crashes that they survive because the car bounces off of things until it runs out of momentum. You can do the same thing in Kerbal if you hit things at a angle.
-
Thanks!
-
8 hours ago, Janus92 said:
Yes, and I realized later, one also needs the SAS to point down for it to work.
Reorienting a part and giving it command ability wouldn't be terribly hard.
-
On 10/13/2018 at 4:24 PM, Dutchbook said:
You brother-in-law is heavily underestimating the power of the human eye. The human eye has tens of millions of stems, while a 1080p screen has only a bit more than 2 million pixels. I've yet to see the first screen that seems like a window, instead of a projected image. There are still a lot of gains to be made.
I have some family that are incredibly stubborn. They put me to shame. The human eye dosen't quite work the same as a monitor does though. We don't really see in a fixed resolution.
I've been quite fond of 4k displays, although they still seem a bit 2D.
Kinda wish 3D TV's had caught on more. Would have pushed innovation.
6 hours ago, Ruedii said:If your refresh rate is 40hz or higher, absolutely not.
If your refresh rate is around 30hz or 20hz (like on some low-end mobile displays) then higher frame rates have an advantage due to physics being synced to frame rate.I've seen some crappy displays, and i don't think i've ever seen one that was only 30hz. Unless your talking ancient CRT TV's.
-
Don't forget @RoverDude
-
19 hours ago, ianyikos said:
Something about the aerodynamics isn't allowing the planes to bank left or right. The aerodynamic force should make it turn according to this article.
I've never had any issues with a banking turn. It's a little ackward on a keyboard since A & D are mapped to yaw, not roll.
-
2 hours ago, Aeroboi said:
It's a niche thing.
And yes you can see the difference. However, after playing for a while you start to forget. It will depend on whom your asking which forms the debate imo.
I have a 120 hz monitor on which I play games up to 120 Fps and it's mostly noticeable when I switch from a 120 fps game to a 60 fps game.
Then its like "whoa" I can spot the difference. You can actually experience that difference. 120hz is really like it's made within actual reality, as if every frame is glued onto the next one while 60hz still feels its fabricated.
Playing on 120hz for some time will get you to notice when you play a 60fps game. My experience is that your eyes acclimatize to the fluidity of what is perceived. In normal gameplay it hardly doesn't matter. When you actually start playing you are immersed into the game and the perception of fluidity is ignored.
When I played on the older consoles starting with 15-30 fps I thought that was all we should expect and I wasn't bothered. To imagine 60 or even 120fps was a ludicrous unnecessary thing not to ever be expected.For me personally it's that slight advantage in games where it can be beneficial like competitive shooters. In shooters it's sometimes milliseconds per each confrontation to having a high kill streak at the end of a match or a low one.
In racing games and in flightsims it's just beautiful immersion. I like to be on edge in such kind of games so the combination of my own skill, the monitor refresh rate, game, keyboard, mouse settings and of course the people I play with all contribute to having that edge. If there aren't clear niche, competitive or luxury reasons imo then having 120 hz refresh rate ability is a waste of money.
The discussion about how many fps the human eye can see also seems dependable. While there may be a actual limit biologically some people make their basis based on actively comparing video clips with one another to see where this limit lies. These grou of people try to look harder and tend to find and thus "see" more difference. Other people make their basis upon the perception of this during immersed gameplay.
These groups of people are expectedly the ones making their assumption based on immersed gameplay and are more likely to not ever recognize the visual evidence between the lower and higher framerates. Both groups debate to one another in endless discussion on the internet and scientifically nobody is the wiser. I think it's hard to draw a actual number because there's individual difference and the way to measure it has to many dynamics to have a universal answer.
Then there is assumably genetic difference or trained optical differences. Remember, some people are more nocturnal then others while some have a much better far sight. Ultimately the human eyes weren't made to see fast paced slideshows of different framerates which video is, rather to visualize actual reality which isn't made out of frames but perceived as continuous visual fluidity.Although this topic is interesting otherwise I wouldn't comment the way I do I think the best thing people should do is go to a tech mall, compare the different games and monitors or behind any of your friends rigs and personally decide if you want the same eye candy. As with everything, the more you scale things up the lower the end sum is, like with rockets for instance
Less is more!
I would definitely have overhead like Shadowmage pointed out. Having 70-75 fps at least on a 59 hz monitor should really be your goal when tweaking any game settings.
Oh I'm not going to argue higher hz = pointless. I generally agree. I can certainly detect a difference between 60 and 120 (i think 240 might be pushing it though). I have a friend that plays Quake Live competitively and he big deals boosting frame-rate. I've never cared much about bunny-hopping shooters though. XD
I've had my brother in law tell me 4K is useless since "you can't see higher than 1080". A claim that's debatable for a number of reasons, I don't know if he's looked at many, but i can certainly tell the difference, and most of those have crown considerably from 1080 so the pixel density is probably not much than 50% better. I suspect my eye's are a good deal less-bad than his though.
-
21 hours ago, infinite_monkey said:
Just attached a bunch of portable containers around the engines - gives me 12000 L of storage
EDIT: I just noticed there's a thight gap between the white fin and the fuselage. You can see it a little in the screenshot. When viewed from the side, you can see right through it.
Hope those are heat-ressistant. XD
-
Awesome! Not sure I'd be brave enough to jump out of a plane. I'd much prefer to just sit in front and be well-buckled.
I think it was probably something larger than a Cessna 172 you jumped from though. The 172 is only about the size of a compact car and only has two doors next to the pilot and co-pilot.
-
"mouse" has been a nickname of mine since high-school. "Spaaaaaaaaace" is a direct reference to the Space Core from Portal 2 who seems to be equally obsessed with space as I. I've used some others in the past, but i use this pretty much everywhere now.
I should probably make a simple mouse in a spacesuit in Blender, for a profile pic. Maybe one day. XD -
On 10/1/2018 at 12:45 PM, KSK said:
No.
If all Kerbals have the same surname then it becomes meaningless as an identifier. So either they have a life cycle where genetic similarity to other Kerbals is a non-issue, or they have some other way of establishing family ties and connections by which they can guard against inbreeding.
Unless you had some other concern in mind of course.
It was a thinly-veiled inbreeding joke. Assuming Kerman has some other purpose though (like caste) still seems illogical since then you'd still see at least two or three. 'Kerman' seems meaningless.
-
A bit dark for a Kerbal fan-story but still good nonetheless.
-
A good-looking ship either way.
-
Hmmm, some good ones here i use and aren't really worth repeating. I'm a big believer in Kerbal's are people and everything must be done to keep them alive.
As far as craft design, no clipping unless the tanks would fit IRL. I've been trying to stay away from Gyro's after learning how inaccurate they are in KSP. Have a few exceptions though, like one is a aircraft I build to fit in a mk3 cargo bay that wouldn't change direction any other way. -
On 10/8/2018 at 5:00 AM, Streetwind said:
@pyro1997 Yes, it is. Most if not all atmospheric jet engines have their CoM artificially shifted forward - including those of stock KSP. This is because the part you can see (and attach) is actually just the nozzle. And the mass of a jet engine is definitely not concentrated in the nozzle.
Squad at one point experimented with adding the actual turbine section to the models, so that players could see their true size and shape. It would clip inside the plane's body when attached. But ultimately, the playerbase was in favor of keeping the jet engines nozzle-only, as the large turbine sections would make VTOLs and other designs in need of compact engine arrangements practically impossible.
I always wondered why the jets were just a tiny portion of a actual jet. Makes sense. not hard to put a empty tank in front of it anyway.
-
I feel like the BFR needs a Planet Express livery XD
-
Excellent mod. I flew and *mostly* landed a BFR correctly with very little preparation. All the cargo space is a added bonus too.
I anxiously await a IVA for the first *real* Sci-fi spaceship. XD
-
3 hours ago, everydayastronaut said:
Hey everyone! Tim Dodd, the Everyday Astronaut here!
Hi Tim! Also a fan of your channel! Apologies though, not too familiar with air brake programming. Welcome to the forum!
-
Slicey.
I do not have the coordination for very sharp things. I'd miss and somehow loose a arm. -
On 10/2/2018 at 6:53 AM, StrandedonEarth said:
As a kid, my brother would sometimes answer the phone with "City Morgue, You Stab'em, We Slab'em." Of course, the one time I answer the phone like that, it's my mom. She was not impressed. This was way back before call display, of course.
This is a old joke. A friend of mine said she did that once and it was the local Police Department calling. They were not amused.
(Thread to complain about stuff)
I have a new job and no access to most of the required systems yet. (New York State likes to take there time.)
I have little to do currently but lurk various forums and, read.
I'm bored.
Less is more!
A simple truss parts pack?
in KSP1 Mods Discussions
Posted
These appear to have no textures or UV mapping and without even the original files you've only posted a picture of, your basically asking someone to remake all these from scratch. Quite the request.
As others have mentioned, there's a number of parts packs that have similar layouts.