Buzz313th

Kudos to you and the creative team.

Interesting. I often work with VFX Supervisors on live production for compositing. A few were either in house or freelancers working for Halon. Do you know when the song selection was finalized? That trailer was one of the best, if not the best game cinematic I have ever seen, both technically and creatively. Was the animation work done by Halon in the states and do you know who directed it?

I hope so. Waiting patiently for the first patch. I went back to KSP1 to make further progress in my career save while the Dev team works away. Did I mention what a great job Halon did with this trailer. Cheers Bz

This is a great idea, one of the top five in this forum so far. This wind tunnel could be a facility we unlock at KSC in a career mode, or always available in sandbox.

Genius

How comparable is the atmospheric drag with those Hydrogen tanks versus a smooth tank?

Thanks Rayne. I truly believe in the Devs and the future of this title.

I love your post and felt and feel the same way. Cheers Bz

Because we no longer have the old fixed KSP1 wings of which two of them held fuel.

Positive thinking and projection. Fingers are crossed. Lets face it, they own the game and inherited those rights from Squad. KSP is a phenomenal concept. Potential and longevity are just inherent with this title. I think we will see great things from it in the future. Cheers Bz

Valid point.

One of the best cinematics I have ever seen. I firmly believe this is a message to us from the Dev's considering the release timing of it... Here's my post of the subject...

On launch day, the devs released this "Launch Cinematic". It depicts Valentina and the other Kerbals struggling time and time again, to finally succeed in the end. The song in the cinematic is titled, "Things Can Only Get Better" from Howard Jones. The license for that song was not cheap. The lyrics are here... https://genius.com/Howard-jones-things-can-only-get-better-lyrics The Cinematic, which was remarkably well done, was produced by this company... https://halon.com/ which is one of the top five CG companies in the world. It was an expensive product. What's my point? Well the devs knew that the game was not ready. They probably released it too soon because of pressure or timelines from the investors and or the publisher. This Launch Day Cinematic was well thought out and purposely made to send a specific message to the players. You don't sink this kind of money in to a marketing product if there is any chance that you might can the project. I think the message of the Cinematic is the truth. Cheers.. Bz

I would bet that the devs have intended on doing this from the start.

Copy and pasted from another Procedural Parts request thread.... With KSP being a loose simulation of a space program, the method they have now with a selection of parts and procedural wings is much closer to real life. The engineers at NASA, contractors and other space programs design parts to be used on complete space vehicles. Believe it or not, most of the vehicles are not one offs and the same parts are used on many different vehicles to reduce manufacturing time and costs. Some of the engine designs currently used have been around since the 60's. The fuel tanks and SRB's from many old and newer vehicles are purposely used in current and future designs. This same principal in KSP presents a nice engineering challenge to the player. Making these parts procedural would dilute the experience for me as each vehicle would be a complete and custom one off. I tried Juno, where almost everything is procedural and I lost interest.

If you disable the reaction wheels, then it should be fine. I do this in KSP1 and never had an issue. Maybe your experiencing a bug?

I'm sure they intended to do this and will add this functionality further down the line.

With KSP being a loose simulation of a space program, the method they have now with a selection of parts and procedural wings is much closer to real life. The engineers at NASA, contractors and other space programs design parts to be used on complete space vehicles. Believe it or not, most of the vehicles are not one offs and the same parts are used on many different vehicles to reduce manufacturing time and costs. Some of the engine designs currently used have been around since the 60's. The fuel tanks and SRB's from many old and newer vehicles are used to design a new vehicle. This same principal in KSP presents a nice engineering challenge to the player. Making these parts procedural would dilute the experience for me. I tried Juno, where almost everything is procedural and I lost interest.

I like this idea.

Not sure a Mach number would work versus IAS. I’ll have to research it, but I don’t believe Mach percentage increases relatively with IAS. Plus, having this metric on the speed tape would be more intuitive that having a window open while your flying.

I agree, that it shouldn’t be over complicated. Although, considering that the devs seem to be taking the aerodynamic flight model to new level, it would be nice to see an aerodynamic performance metric while in flight. Any such number would also have to be corrected for gravity as well, since as you increase gravity, wing loading increases in the vertical lift vector.

Indicated airspeed or to be overly specific, calibrated airspeed informs the pilot of the current aerodynamic performance regardless of surface speed. Example.. If you have defined your stall speed at sea level at 50mps for a given aircraft state, then when at altitude and air density is a fraction of what it is at sea level, ground speed, or surface speed would be much higher, like 500mps, but indicated airspeed might show you are at stall speed. But I digress, and I believe IAS would be confusing since it’s relative to only flight on Kerbin since kerbin is the only planet that would have an atmospheric pressure of one bar at sea level. A more robust way, might simply be to indicate static atmospheric pressure in Bar. Although the player would have to multiply pressure to current surface speed multiplied by gravity to get a usable Indicated airspeed in reference to aerodynamic performance at kerbin sea level. That was a mouthful. Maybe a “Arrodynamic factor” that multiplies pressure by gravity would give us one number. Or maybe go back to a value called “Standard IAS” which is always displaying in reference to Kerbin at Sea Level.

Because at some point when we get analog control of the flight inputs we are going to want to map trim to a flight stick hat switch and, you should be able to hold a flight input while at the same time set trim. By the current method of having a modifier key to the flight control mapping, as soon as you press the modifier you end up releasing any control input you are holding.

1. I had a quick look and the regardless of wing sweep or wing angle, the position of the wing root sets the position of the COP. It did not change for me atleast. 2. The control surfaces that control roll should be lined up with the COM. These surfaces are called ailerons. 3. Barney style.. sure. Each set of control surfaces should only be allowed to control one control axis. The control axis are Pitch, Roll and Yaw. In the parts manager under "Advanced something" for a given control surface you can filter which control axis it reacts to. 4. Trim is set by using ALT and the control keys WASD. ALT X resets to neutral trim. 5. KMH? LOL, I would prefer knots. Nice polite troll. Cheers.

I corrected my statement, you were right if we were talking about true airspeed. But I meant Calibrated airspeed and notated that in both of my posts here. Sorry, I wasn't specific enough.