JoeSchmuckatelli

Comprehensive! Thanks! I've not noticed this - will have to go look at it! That is something I wasn't aware of. Makes a lot of sense. That's the piece. So I could break up my booster stage and put in a sustainer - but given the inefficiencies and realities of the Sim (much smaller planet, etc) - I'd effectively be doing it for role-play purposes rather than because there is a more efficient way to do it than what I'm already doing.

I turned off the game and when I came back later I - don't remember if I recreated the node or if PE was present when I loaded in - but it worked. But the why's and whererfor's of it? Shrug

Hi! Mortoc's Dev Diary 18 was very interesting. Any chance we can get a second installment where he goes into more detail about the CBT system and what it's like to port the existing work over to that? Also, "...new earth-shaking architectures are possible" - does this mean we can get the towering mountains near KSC in KSP back? They were fun to fly around!" We'd love to see some updates on the HDRP portion as well! Dev Diary 10 and Developer Insights # 2 showcased the promise of unique explosions and interesting destruction graphics for our glorious failures... but the UI choice of the very large and opaque Flight Report immediately pops up and blocks the screen. It doesn't let us watch our ships explode and scatter. Any chance we can tame that thing? Tone it down or leave it off until the player presses ESC or something? Unique explosions based on the parts we've added and the physics involved is very Kerbal. The Immediate Flight Report Pop-Up is not. Version 0.1.0.0 looked very different from the ESA event videos I've seen - however version 0.1.1.0 (the patch) has many elements in common with the videos we saw, notably the Maneuver Nodes and some bugs like the endlessly scrolling notification (yellow barred text) bug. Was the EA release version a different branch from what we saw in the ESA videos (and is the current version mostly similar to what the ESA attendees got to play)? If so - can you lift the veil on what's going on behind the scenes and why the EA Release looked so different from the ESA? Will HOTAS support for spaceplane flight be introduced during any part of the EA?

Interesting. I'm running a 3070 pushing 4k. My GPU is getting between 50 c and 75c depending on what I'm doing, and I keep the game up and running for quite a while. Air cooled, but a well-ventilated box. Just sitting in an ambient air room, no special AC setup (probably 68 degrees). OTOH I am getting 100% GPU during low altitude stuff. But these GPUs should be fine at those temperatures. Not uncommon for these 3000 series cards to get above 80 - and I don't think they even start throttling until 85 or so. ... I'm mostly recommending people to not play if they just want to play. If they enjoy the Alpha/Beta experience and want to help identify bugs... I'd still probably recommend waiting for the next patch - although this one changed the game considerably.

I keep getting this up to space (differing payloads). I basically just build whatever I want, slap a Mammoth onto the bottom and a couple of big SRBs to the sides and then powerglide to an 80-100 KM orbit. I've been having about this much DV left over after adjusting inclination to match the Mun's. Second stage has a Poodle as my main interplanetary. Whole craft still has 6k DV remaining, only 300 of which are left to feed the Mammoth. From what I remember of my early days looking at the KSP tutorials, there's supposed to be some efficiency in dropping big heavy boosters. On the one hand - why mess with success... but on the other? Shouldn't I break up that lower stage and drop the Mammoth about the time I lose the SRBs? Maybe with a Mainsail or a Vector? Aside from just doing it for gameplay purposes - anyone mind breaking this down Barney-style for me? What are some of the good to better practices for building stages with different engines for the launch to orbit?

Laughing - b/c I never thought about it. So, is there a chance it will turn into more coal? Or is the chemical properties of all of our plastics such that it would merely revert to oil? (Basing the question on vague memories of reading that there was a plant-mass cycle from bog/peat to coal to oil based on time and pressure. Don't know if those are indeed required steps or not... just something I remember reading)

Not only does the Instant Flight Report Popup happen - blocking a player's ability to see the crash... once it pops up, you can't do anything. In both of these crashes - Bob and at least one probe core survived. I should, therefore, be able to switch to the remaining parts of the ship that are live. But no. You can't. The switch ship keys are dead. This unnecessarily INSTANT report defeats probably half the fun of KSP - Failing gloriously. The opaque and way too big and WAY TOO INSTANT report is not Kerbal. Also - far from being friendly or encouraging; that little "You can always do better!" guy just looks like the annoying know it all everyone can't stand to be around. C'Mon, team... we can do better than this!

Got two Kerbals on a ship in orbit of Duna. Idea was to leave one in the return craft and send one down in a lander. Several iterations of trying to get the two craft undocked while retaining control of both ships have convinced me that there is some kind of bug going on that won't allow me to have both ships in control. Depending on how things go, I will inevitably have control of one ship, but not the other - the "Observer Can't Leave Active Vessel" bug prevents this. I've even tried this with EVA'd Kerbals (trying to force control of the two ships by having EVA Kerbals board the ships and reassert control) - but the problem persists; I cannot control the other Kerbal clinging to the ship - only the 'active' Kerbal is the one being observed. This has persisted across reloads and restarts - indicating the entire save 'tree' is not working. Time to start a new career. Edit - in the time it took to type this, my ship crashed leaving a lone Kerbal standing on the surface of Duna. This with a PE of 83,000m and an AP of 86,000m. I have no idea how this happened, but Pretentious Kerman assured me 'that could have gone better'. So... yeah. Oh - and the Kerbal isn't controllable. He's 'Debris'

Thank you for including the forums!

I had two Kerbals on EVA and had them enter the two different pods... but now they're in the same one. Not the result desired. How do I get one to go to the other?

Likely; Mercs tend to pick up good gear, and then use it. Might be awkward as FrenchTuTus to ride a horse at speed with a crossbow bouncing around, but if it was a prestige piece or just looked cool to the guy - you can be dadgummed sure he'd want a kill with it. From what I have seen, there was a lot more trade back and forth between Europe and Asia than most people credit; the likely routes all go where the Kuman's could have picked one up or bought it off someone or traded for it. So it could have been either Asian or European - but not something the Kuman manufactured themselves.

I want to watch the crash! The instant pop up defeats this. Also - there are times when my ship just seems to vanish - this is especially true for spaceplanes during reentry. Just *POOF* with the unnecessary & immediate Flight Report blocking 1/2 the screen. I'd really like to see what happened to the ship... not a poof - and when it does go BOOM - not Pretentious Kerman's Unnecessary Flight Report.

There's been a lot of weird in the VAB this build. Also this - which seems VAB related

In KSP I could see lines showing the Kerbnet from the Tracking Station (going off of old memories). Pretty sure there was a toggle on/off. Can't find it in 2. Am I missing something - or is the visualization just not there?

Please SPOILER spoilers.

Is there something funky going on with 'reactions'? Snark got me hooked on the 'Thumbs up' way back when I first joined and he sent me a PM about 'Welcome, and here's how we conduct ourselves'. I've never 'run out' until now. What is the limit, where do I find 'reactions used/left' and is this common or just a funky 'forums are being worked on' behavior?

We certainly have reason to believe we may have won the Galactic Lottery with this wet rock. I've gotten into this with people before - but I do think our having a moon is significant for plate tectonics, which drives vulcanism and atmospheric cycling. Similarly, if the moon keeps things churning, this could add to the strength of our magnetic field. Venus, not having a moon, still has evidence of vulcanism but from what I read the processes are different. More like Hawaii or Yellowstone than Ring of Fire. Being more stable - lacking regular tidal stresses - might tamp down on magnetic field generation. Of course - Endor might be more common. Ganymede has its own magnetic field, driven by convection and tidal forces. It's possible a gas giant in the goldilocks zone could have a wet-rock moon.

Agree - they had a very dynamic culture and economy - but it wasn't equal in distribution. What I think, however, is that because crossbows required skilled labor, the only person who could acquire and outfit his men in enough numbers to be significant was the regional king/warlord. They were like prestige weapons; only the best, most trusted and loyal got them. Petty warlords and weak kings could not command enough resources to outfit their warriors to quite the extent that rich and powerful leaders could. That alone mitigates in favor of relatively small numbers being fielded.

I'd be leery of that. 2x might be from someone with a barely capable machine that was trying to build high-part-count craft. The only real FPS improvement I'm seeing with my machine is flying around the KSC in particular; which they mentioned doing something for that one chunk of Kerbin. That's one of the reasons I did my tests with the stock craft... and with that I saw no real improvement. Thus - my interpretation is that they might have tamed some resource utilization issues (via fuel flow calculations or part interactions, that kind of thing) that were impacting some machines in certain scenarios but the baseline FPS performance in graphically demanding situations will have to wait for the PQS overhaul. I think a lot of people just see FPS = Performance, without thinking about the why.

Yeah - in fact I was literally on auto-pilot when I did that while recording and only noticed it upon review (and after the recent conversation above). It was so much like what I remember doing regularly in KSP that 'needing to refine the burn' via feathering the CNTRL/Shift keys was automatic. I think the point to not forget is that we are comparing the 0.1.0.0 KSP2 functionality (which failed to replicate KSP, and did not live up to the promise of adding things/making it easier for duffers & beginners), and 01.1.0 functionality which does replicate KSP and does add something to STOCK functionality. The promise of EA Sandbox was effectively a working rebuild of the basics of KSP. It failed to do that, coming out in an Alpha state, not an EA state. With the patch, a lot of the glaring, practically game breaking bugs have been cleaned up, if not fixed. My limited play time gives me Beta vibes at this point. There are still a lot of bugs, and Spaceplanes are acting weird, plus there's some new weirdness in the VAB - but having the ability to 'follow the instructions' and easily use things like MNs is working; thus Beta. I'm not ready to acknowledge this as an EA title yet. We're still in pay-to-play Alpha/Beta territory. That said, if they do anything nearly as comprehensive with the next patch - I'm likely to declare it a worthy EA title - and meeting the expectations of this stage of the Roadmap. Till then? I'm still advising people to wait, unless they enjoy the Alpha/Beta experience.

There is solid evidence of the use of crossbows in Asia and Europe dating to several hundred years BC. The odd thing, given how effective they can be, is how the popular imagination of ancient times depicts the regular hand-held bow as being so much more common. I suspect this is largely due to the fact that you needed a fairly competent craftsman to make one, plus the use of metals for triggers, etc. meant you needed a sophisticated economic base to produce these in any significant numbers. Comparatively, a simple hand bow is just a good stick that anyone with the knowledge and rudimentary tools can build. To this I suggest that the use of various forms of militia (where people bring their own weapons) is likely to be the cause for this perception. Much easier to call up the local farmers and have them bring whatever they had, and then organizing them accordingly. For many places and times, archery was primarily harassing fire, or used for fixing the enemy rather than as a primary strategic weapon. (Also, of note, the sling and sling-stones were viewed as often more effective than arrows in many places, and there's evidence that they were a significant part of warfare - especially in dry regions). More complex and effective bows, however, like the recurve and Japanese war bow generally took skilled craftsmen, similar to making crossbows, but also took nearly a lifetime of training to be able to employ well. Japanese and English archers were raised from childhood shooting ever stronger bows to be both powerful enough for combat and to have the accuracy and rate of fire to make them effective, rather than merely harassing. Those cultures and others like the Mongols had economies scaled to produce not only quality bows, but also the arrows in quantities that made them relevant. I think this evidence of regular use of crossbows at this time in China is interesting. It was only about a decade ago that I learned that the crossbow's history dates back to ancient times. I'd previously assumed that they were only prevalent in numbers in the middle ages, preceding the introduction of firearms. ... Wasn't aware of any controversy about carrying a sword on the back; that's been roundly debunked in most places. You might sling a swordbelt over your shoulder for a long trek, but if you ever thought you'd have to use it, it was almost always carried on the waist in every culture I've seen. Having actually carried a sword for ceremonial purposes, (and goofed around with trying to draw it from shoulder-slung position) I can confirm that shoulder slung is virtually impossible. OTOH a very long sword can be drawn cross-body from the waist.

Okay... I can't top that. Well played, sir!

MNs and Burn Timer were all over the place the last 3 weeks. I got to the point where I just burned manually then 'fiddled' with adjustments simply using throttle and pro/retrograde - ignoring both the MN plot and BT, because I'd almost inevitably get a very, very wrong solution. (Aside from just getting the general plan via the node, which was a huge PITA prior to this patch) But I spent about half my time playing with them yesterday and found both to be quite accurate. (The other half was spent trying to figure out what was going wrong with Spaceplanes and the VAB) Edit - I just went back and watched my vid above: I still had some fiddling to do, but I always had to do that in KSP - so it did not bother me. The striking change was that it was merely 'fiddling'. During the previous three weeks, I'd almost always have to make gross corrections or simply be so far off I'd need to revert the save or dump the campaign entirely and restart a new game. That's a pretty significant improvement. (Not necessarily over KSP, but over the Alpha state we got the game in.) I mentioned this elsewhere - but I have a strong suspicion that we only just now got a build that is similar to what the ESA preview players got. This because of the way the MNs look (see a Scott Manley or Lowne / others vid) and the repeating yellow alert message has been introduced to us. Both were seen in the preview videos - but I haven't seen either over the 3 weeks. (Endlessly looping notification bug)

I'm seeing both. In fact there are 3 ways to know when to stop. The numeric timer above the bar, the bar and the 4 dots ‐ which now also have audio cues (beeps).

I need to go back and try a water landing. My past experience looked like I lauded in a tropical cyclone!