PocketBrotector
-
Posts
394 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by PocketBrotector
-
-
4 hours ago, garwel said:
Please share your experience with me. I haven't played with Snacks, so I wonder how it works together with KH.
From the manuals it sounds like they should dovetail nicely. Snacks gives reasons to bring along crew cabins (recycle waste back into Snacks) and establish bases with science labs (convert Ore to Snacks), which will supplement KH's incentives to bring along crew cabins (reduce crowdedness) and cupolas (restore lost health).
One caveat is that Snacks gives an option to make kerbals pass out if they miss a meal, which might not play nicely with KH's consequence management.
The more I think about it, the more I like the HP mechanic. The other life support mods I've seen work on the basis of "here's a bunch of timers - if any of them reach zero, bad stuff happens." Health points, on the other hand, could unify everything so it can be managed together (if hooks into other life support mods provided HP penalties for states like Starvation, Dehydration, and Suffocation). A healthy veteran should be able to survive temporary disaster ("Do you really want to go outside without your helmet, Dave?") but an inexperienced recruit that's suffering from the combination of psychological isolation, microgravity-induced bone-density loss, and a random case of the Eeloonian Plague would be only one missed snack away from total collapse.
-
6 hours ago, Stone Blue said:
So make sure to use the Mega link instead, as that is for 1.5.3
This is correct. Get 1.5.3 from Mega, then get Deimos' patches from GitHub. If you run into problems during gameplay, check the last couple of pages of discussion for known issues.
The download links in the OP are a cluster.
-
2 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:
So now Squad is responsible for the kind of wild, baseless speculation which inundates everything on the internet?
For what it's worth, I originally brought up the idea of scaling with the more or less explicit caveat that it was speculation.
This week people returned to it because of the line about "PQS manipulation." Anyone who hears that phrase and immediately understands what it implies must be a lot smarter than me - to my ears it sounds like it could mean just about anything.
-
Just discovered this mod, and I'm looking forward to trying it out (as soon as I have a working computer again.) At first glance it looks like using this in conjunction with Snacks will provide a modular alternative to all-in-one life-support mods like USI-LS or Kerbalism.
-
On 5/3/2017 at 3:29 AM, steedcrugeon said:
You may note the use of 'RegoSeal' a new resource that will be introduced with this Mod unless the presence of MKS or Pathfinder is detected, in which case RegoSeal with be replaced with MaterialKits, a more common resource used by KSP off world building (the Qty will also be changed to balance).
RegoSeal is used by the part to create (when mixed with regolith procured, sifted and processed in the drilling process) a very tough and airtight skin, or pressure vessel if you will, in which Kerbals can reside comfortably.
MaterialKits are a CRP resource. So rather than detect the presence of other MaterialKits-using mods, you could bundle CRP as a dependency and just use MaterialKits (or any of the other CRP resources). Saves you the trouble of introducing a new resource and then maintaining two different configurations for the same thing.
-
9 minutes ago, ISE said:
MK1-2 IVA Replacement by ASET seemed to work just fine with this pod as well as the Mk1-2 Pod, I only got a glimpse, but I didn't see anything wrong when I tried it out for this pod. The IVA replacement is available on CKAN as well, I recommend installing it that way if you aren't all that familiar with installing.
Oh... well, yeah, the DIRECT Orion uses the stock Mk1-2 IVA as a placeholder, so anything that replaces the Mk1-2 IVA will affect the Orion.
But the windows will still be in the wrong place & too small, not to mention that the Mk1-2 only has three seats while the Orion has six...
-
1 hour ago, ISE said:
Because I know an IVA mod that seems to work just great for this pod!
Don't be coy
-
17 hours ago, regex said:
You're "recreating" a historical mission in a tiny little solar system, probably using parts that are going to end up way overblown for the task.
Fair enough.
Even if scaling isn't addressed, there's still a chance that Squad will add support for a second launch site, so our Soviet missions are required to deal with a high inclination. Or so we could hope.
-
4 minutes ago, regex said:
If the Saturn V-alike is to be 5m then it will take some tremendous thrust to get its tank off the pad with payload. If it is intended to be used with comparable mass items in KSP (2m lander can, Mk1-2 pod) then that 5m stage will end up being incredibly squat if the intended target is the Mun. That means it will put quite a payload into orbit if it is scaled to be "realistic".
... yes, that's exactly what we're discussing. Given what we know about kerbal rocket stats, the size of the kerbal system, and the previewed size of the kerbal Saturn stack, we're speculating about how-and-whether it will make sense to use a Saturn V to launch an Apollo mission. There are a number of possibilities as discussed above, including a larger solar system.
Also, the reason I kept the word "realism" in quotes is because it's an incredibly vague term. When people talk about "realism" in KSP they could mean pretty much anything, depending on context. (At this point it's a cliche, like when Skyrim modders discuss "immersion".) So in that sense, "realism" is both a factor and a non-factor no matter what's being discussed.
-
17 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:
- Saturn-inspired engines (like the F-1 or J-2) might be less efficient than contemporary engines of similar power. Or, the F-1 engines are just really efficient at sea level, and have a really large dropoff of Isp by the time they reach the upper stratosphere; and the J-2-styled engines are just the opposite, really inefficient at sea level, but really good at those upper atmospheric altitudes. This might drive the need to stage from S-IC to S-II mid-ascent.
Surely there are no rocket engines that are actually less effective in vacuum than atmosphere? Only those that are optimized for atmospheric performance over vacuum performance, and therefore don't benefit as much from lower air pressures.
17 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:- Saturn-inspired tanks may have a higher dry mass and/or less fuel capacity due to some reason like "thicker walls to be stronger".
I suppose that the DLC parts could be arbitrarily worse than stock parts in order to shoehorn the need for a large stack into the existing tiny solar system. If they go that route, I hope the bad stats are specific to the Making History scenario/mission/thing, or else all of the shiny new parts are going to be completely useless in normal gameplay.
17 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:- Engines modeled after the F-1 and J-2 engines may have a lower tolerance or service life. This is a stretch, but if Squad is working on part failures, maybe if you run a set of five F-1 engines at full throttle for an entire ascent to LKO they'll have a higher chance of failing. Therefore you'll need to switch to the next stage, meaning you'll be carrying the additional mass of five more engines during the stage 1 ascent, further impacting your performance.
It'll be interesting to see what direction they take with the part-failure mechanic. I suspect it'll be less along the lines of DangIt and more along the lines of Apollo 13 and Skylab recreations (i.e. scripted and specific).
9 minutes ago, regex said:Put together an SLS Block 1 look-alike from the available parts. Measure tonnage to LKO. Multiply by 2 and you'll get about what a Saturn-V-alike will put into LKO. What you do with that is entirely up to you, whether it is properly scaled for perfect "replicas" doesn't really matter since the two systems are comparable only on an art level.
I find this hand-wringing about proper scaling hilarious in light of earlier rants against "realism".
You do realize that there are different people "ranting" about realism than there are "hand-wringing" about scaling, right? More to the point, scaling and realism don't have all that much to do with one another. The whole DLC is explicitly themed around replicating historical missions, so it's not unreasonable to anticipate that Squad is taking some measures to ensure that those mission replicas actually make some sense... regardless of whether the vehicles or setting are "realistic."
-
1 hour ago, cfds said:
Will the expansion add some kind of "real solar system"? For the stock system, a Saturn-5 is _slightly_ overpowered (unless you do want to visit Mun, Minmus, Bop, Pol and Vall in one go...) and a F-1 engine seems quite pointless as a consequence.
This is what I'm most curious about in the DLC. The stock Kerbin-Mun system is so lightweight that we can do a direct-ascent "Kerpollo" mission on a three-stage 2.5m stack.
From the previews, we've seen that the Making History Saturn-Apollo stack will be 5m wide, and if it follows real-world mission architecture it'll have ~six stages (plus lunar orbit rendezvous) - even with kerbalized engine and tank stats, surely that'll be vastly more delta-v than required for the kerbal system. If we're not getting a scaled-up system (perhaps one that resembles the real solar system), we'll probably be leaving every stage 3/4 full when we decouple.
Edit: my theory on DLC Apollo stack sizes:
- First two stages: 5m (confirmed)
- Third stage: 3.75m (unconfirmed, but reasonably inferred from the shape of the real Saturn V)
- CSM: 2.5m (confirmed for command module)
- LEM: 1.875m (confirmed for the pod itself, though the descent stage could be e.g. 1.25m)
- Lunar ascent engine: probably 0.625m (based on the previewed LEM nodes)
- Docking ports: the top of the LEM has a 0.625m node, and the top of the command module has a 1.25m node. Either the command module is getting a 1.25m-to-0.625m parachute adapter module thing, or there's going to be some kind of new 1.25m-to-0.625m docking port.
-
16 minutes ago, passinglurker said:
I got publicly blown off and edited out in the cleanup because despite subjecting my arguments to peer review they still thought I was rude pointing out that you don't put bolts on a fuel tank pressure vessel. I tried to mellow it further but it was to late they weren't listening, or even if they were this is the post-1.2 dev team they don't communicate, and they don't acknowledge.
I was there, I witnessed the discussion, and that's not what I saw. You made your points and you weren't "blown off" - you encountered some people who agreed with you, some people who disagreed with you, and some people who said they didn't really care one way or the other. This is extremely normal.
It's nice when developers respond to users, and it's nice when they give us answers that we like. That doesn't mean that any of us are entitled to a response, and it doesn't mean that we're entitled to a situation that's exactly how we'd like it to be.
When someone responds to you by saying "this stuff doesn't matter," [this has happened multiple times in different threads and is not specific to any one user] they're not inviting you to bite back by saying "if it doesn't matter, then you shouldn't care if I criticize it!" [which has also happened multiple times in different threads.] They're obliquely telling you that your insistence on these details is out of proportion to the rest of the discussion.
I would take it one step further and say that you should be polite, make your points clearly and concisely, and move on with your day. Your habit of responding to every single comment in a discussion is a form of sealioning, and it's insensitive to others in the community who are trying to have a conversation.
-
23 minutes ago, passinglurker said:
So what's your excuse for modeling after inefficient placeholders that have long been slated for replacement since you are so "aware"
You've made it abundantly clear that you're very frustrated with the various imperfections in KSP's development history. I doubt you're going to accomplish anything more by single-handedly trying to dominate the discussion every single time even a single part is previewed. In particular I don't think it's productive to harangue RoverDude, who is one of the most responsive, communicative, and tolerant devs at Squad.
-
@passinglurker I'm still lost as to what you're talking about, but I'm going to take a step back and shut up for a while so that we don't dominate the early discussion here.
-
8 minutes ago, passinglurker said:
Oh and the naked mode doesn't exactly look rotation gizmo friendly like in porkjets design reference so much for placement freedom.
This is a mystery to me. The "naked" mode is even more minimal than the "compact" mode from the old design sheet. Does the lack of a circle circumscribed around the plumbing somehow make it more difficult to rotate the engine? It seems to work just fine in mods like CryoEngines.
-
Good to see that KSP is continuing to move into the "tankbutt-optional" paradigm as seen in mods and the old Rocket Engine Overhaul design sheet. Looks like the previewed parts are modeled after the F-1 engine (and therefore resemble the single "Boar" from Porkjet's illustrations). From that I think we can infer that the 5m Saturn engine skirt previously previewed will have a cluster of five 1.875m nodes on the bottom.
Personally I think that might be one of the nicest pieces of art I've ever seen come out of Squad-produced KSP... (I'm sure there are a row of critics lining up to disagree)
-
39 minutes ago, Capt. Hunt said:
I'm having low delta-v issues with the Tiny.
My craft currently consists of a Taurus pod with a tweakscaled stock size 2 ASAS (haven't unlocked the Taurus size 3 one yet), the taurus lab module, taurus short fuel tank (switched to LH2), a couple of solar arrays and mono tanks, a few RCS quads and the Tiny. With the main engine on, MJ says it has just shy of 300 m/s, with just the aux engines on it reads as zero.
LH2 is not very dense. It sounds like you have lots of engine and payload and very little fuel.
-
5 minutes ago, Bit Fiddler said:
the other problem is the small indicator lines on the temp bar do not seem to move even if I change my shutdown temp. the line stays at 1300 or what ever the default was. is this intentional? are these lines not indicating a shutdown temp and a normal temp state?
I believe it indicates the max safe core temp, beyond which a reactor will gradually accumulate damage - if I recall correctly, damaged reactors have permanently impaired capabilities. So while you are allowed to tweak reactor temperature settings, under normal operating conditions doing so has significant more downside than upside.
There might be a mechanism by which highly skilled engineers can partly repair a damaged reactor - I think there was something like that in previous versions, but I don't know if it's still around.
-
5 hours ago, Bit Fiddler said:
where can I find a "users manual" for near future electrical's reactor control panel. there are a few bits on it that do not make sense to me.
Not yet created, though there are intentions to create pages for KSPedia and/or an online wiki (with no specific announced timeframe).
The reactor control panel unfortunately uses some semi-cryptic icons instead of text labels (there was an adage in the early days of GUI design that "a word is worth a thousand pictures"). The bits you're referring to are probably auto-shutdown options triggered by specific reactor core temps or time warp levels.
@Nertea / @Streetwind - is there any interest in community-generated documentation for Near Future, etc.? I know that there were successful volunteers doing such work for MKS, and Nert's mods are similar in that they introduce gameplay mechanics that extend/supplement stock (though thankfully with less complexity than some of the MKS stuff). I can't say that I've generated content in the KSPedia format before, but I'd be interested in tackling it as long as I'd be producing something that would be useful/desired.
-
On 3/16/2017 at 6:38 PM, UomoCapra said:
Asteroid Redirect Mod: The official mod will finally be merged to the base game to add that extra facet to contract gameplay without needing an extra download - including the SENTINEL Infrared Telescope.
Please correct this to read "Asteroid Day Mod" by the time 1.3 officially arrives. It may seem like a small detail but it should be frankly embarrassing to Squad that they don't seem to know the difference between two completely different parts of their own game's development history.
The Asteroid Redirect Mission (aka ARM update) was v0.23.5 released in April 2014. It included several parts inspired by the then-planned mission to use SLS to capture an asteroid into lunar orbit. Notably this includes SLS-style launchers (all of the 3.75m parts, plus the Twin-Boar LFB from Block 2 SLS proposals) and the Klaw.
The Asteroid Day mod was from June 2015, inspired by the B612 Foundation's plan to put a telescope into solar orbit to identify asteroids that may threaten Earth. Three of the four parts were incorporated into stock in v1.1 in April 2016.
-
2 hours ago, Snark said:
Well, I certainly thought so. At the time this mod was produced, the most distant body in GPP was Leto, which reaches a maximum distance of 611G meters from Gael, well within the JX2's range.
Really? As I mention above, I thought it was Leto, and it never gets more than 611G meters from Gael. Has GPP released a new, more distant planet recently, or something? Just now checked the GPP wiki, and it still refers to Leto as the outermost, at the same distance it was when I made this thread's OP.
What am I missing, here?
I don't play with GPP myself but it was recently-ish updated to include a new distant planet - I think it's Grannus. It's not on the wiki yet because it was briefly intended to be "secret."
Good point about the combinability - I think with a default combinability factor it would take 3-4 antennas on one ship to double its effective range? Don't know the exact formula offhand.
-
14 hours ago, KerbalManiac said:
1.0.0
You're asking for support of a version that more than two years out of date... I don't think you're going to have much luck with that.
-
57 minutes ago, KerbolExplorer said:
Can this antena cover the last celestial body of the gael sistem?
Last time I checked Galileo's Planet Pack, the most distant planet had a semi-major axis of 2 terameters. The JX2LDA has a range of "only" 1 gigameter, so you might have to go bigger.
-
I discovered that one of the thrust upgrades (Heavy Rocketry node) was not implemented correctly in the Squad distribution of the PartOverhauls pack. I have addressed this issue in a new version of my Part Overhaul Integration.
[1.12.5] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.13.0 "Забытый" 13/Aug/2023)
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
Looking forward to seeing more of that Gemini lander. And while we're on the subject of tiny lunar-surface crew vehicles... I haven't seen discussion around here of the Lunar Escape System or Lunar Flying Vehicle vehicle proposals. Seems like it would be a prime candidate for KIS/KAS assembly... maybe even an alternative to a proper ascent stage, if it's packed into a cargo-variant LEM.