Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by APlayer

  1. I am still unsure about how the science works... Could anyone take the time to explain me, please? Sensors (Thermometer, Barometer, (why not Geiger Counter?)) I have totally no idea how you collect this data over time, or how does it work at all? Samples (You have to return them home, and that's it?) What about the normal experiments, like the Geiger Counter is now? You just transmit it?
  2. It has one single benefit, that, for me, beats everything else: You can get your science out of the big experiments and do a sample return mission. You just have this part and you can definitely say where your science is. I am not sure if that is possible the way it is right now (this is a question). 1) I do not like this one. It allows you to either a) basically stow your antenna anywhere and still be able to use it or b) have the old issue if you set this flag back to true. 2) Makes more sense to me. 3) This has a drawback, you can't keep your antennae retracted during aerobraking or reentry. 4) Would only help if there is a relay nearby, or if you're still at Kerbin. Low gain antennae would not work else. So, IMO, 2 it is. I'd have more complex suggestions, but, as the name implies, they are more complex. 2 seems "cheap and cheerful".
  3. I am not sure if I should ask here or in the kOS thread, but I must choose one, so... I am fairly certain people can access KER readouts in kOS - how do they do it? EDIT: I did google, but I found nothing. kOS is not documented well, unfortunately.
  4. component failures You'd totally need a large ship for having a "normal" rate of failures. There should be no flight longer than to Minmus which works out perfectly. It's just not right. And then comes high quality manufacturing! You need no redundancy, just slap on a high quality component and be sure you can go to Plock in OPM and everything will be fine. So yes, I'd prefer more frequent failures. However, even more, I'd prefer a setting for it, something like MTBFMasterMultiplier which just scales the game overall. Also, increasing quality has too little a penalty. I'd like to see a slider, rather than a true/false option, for quality. Or at least more mid-range options than zero. (Low quality, normal quality, high quality, for example). Increasing the MTBF by 500% should also cost more than, how much is it, like 20% or so? I think it would be more balanced to double, not more, the MTBF, and increase both cost and mass, to 200% and 125% respectively - makes sense, IMO: Small modifications would add some mass, but not very much, but the high quality requires definitely a lot of extra work and double checking, better materials, ... so the cost drastically increases. ECLSS modules in pods definitely fun to configure them and plan on whichever you'd need. extended antennas Why removing an option one can configure in favor of a fixed setting? I see no point... Haven't tried ISRU yet Not in the list: As mentioned earlier, antenna retracting and loosing signal... I think a confirmation would be the cleanest way, but if that is hard to implement indeed, then I would say always enable extending antennae. My other "cheat less" solution would be to have a timer of say 30 seconds in which you can change your mind and extend the antenna again, but I guess that is hard to implement. Or even as you said, lock it down alltogether, if it is the last. I fail to see how one would want to retract their last antenna. AntennaSleep integration would be nice, in this case. I'd like to see more failure possibilities (Yeah, I'm totally into the failure stuff ) Tanks failures, as in DangIt (I am opening a whole new topic here, I know, but wouldn't that be a thing in the long run?) Long term wish to have repairs cost something (Could start with Ore and EC, although something like SpareParts from DangIt would be better) Critical moments and changing conditions should decrease MTBF - too hot, too cold, rapidly changing environment (Pressure, Temperature, Acceleration), for engines: during burns, for solar panels: failure to deploy, ... Parachute failures And so on and so forth... Science data storage is unlimited. Having a hard drive or so would make more sense, so you can't go randomly biome hunting, but have to plan for it. Having Kerbals go insane after maximally 24 years doesn't sound good too. Certain missions become impossible even under perfect conditions. That' it, I guess. Hopefully I didn't go too far from the balance thing into the suggestion things. No pressure, just a list of things I would love to see. Thanks a lot for all the work and effort you put into this! Disagree - maybe the EC consumption is somewhat high, but making a return vessel can't be more profitable. What I'd suggest is having an option to automatically "burst mode": It waits for a moment where little EC is needed overall and transmits a few MB of data. Then it waits for EC to replenish, and so on. Totally, this! Although, having your hard drives fail would suck. The thing is, you can't make redundancy here. If it fails while holding your data, you may aswell delete the probe and launch another. Backups would be an option, but... Well, I don't think it would be fun to have the one component fail which holds your mission's essence, with no real way to work around it or account for it. EDIT: Woah, that post turned out longer than expected. Apologies. I do not like writing essays, please don't get a wrong opinion of me!
  5. Today, I accidentally clicked a button and it retracted my antenna, so I lost connection. I couldn't extend it again, and thus my probe was lost to essentially a wrong click. Now what I suggest, would it be possible to warn the user and ask for confirmation to retract an antenna if it would lead to complete loss of control (Last antenna, no crew)? I think it would prevent quite a few failed missions.
  6. I agree with As a person who has, according to last counting, 50+ mods, and all of which update asynchronously, I have constantly opened the SpaceDock last updated tab and check for updates there. Anything not on SpaceDock easily evades me, and it is hard to keep track of all those mods and keeping them up to date. So yes, I agree it would make life easier, however, by using these mods, I use work of people who did it for nothing but some thanks and perhaps 5$ total of donations, I can't complain. I shall be content with the fact that said mods even exist at all. Conclusion drawn: Would be nice to have everything in one place, but the modders' preferences are of higher priority.
  7. I am not sure whether that is intended, a bug or just a product of my stupidity, but when I updated Kopernicus yesterday, I forgot to update ModularFlightIntegrator and opening up KSP showed me the menu background... but not the menu itself! I just saw Kerbin, the Mun and that's all... Eventually I tracked it down to Kopernicus and reinstalled, doing this I noticed the ModularFlightIntegrator was still the old one, and updating it fixed all. However, is it really supposed, or even allowed, to fully destroy KSP? It feels wrong somehow.
  8. Also, if you made a way to update Kerbalism without overwriting the settings file, it would make life easier. What about a download for Kerbalism and a separate one for the settings file? Or, even cleaner though requiring more space and bandwidth, a full download with the settings file and a full one without? That way, anyone could just download the correct files for a first install or the ones for an update. Similar to KER, where they do not pack the configs in the download. Or perhaps create the settings file if it does not exist yet, which would definitely be more elegant but prevent the user from specifying settings before the first run. It's not like it's impossible to update while preserving the settings the way it is now, but it is just somewhat annoying, and if you forget about it, then your settings are lost.
  9. Ah, both makes sense, sorry for the stupidity. On the MM patch, sure, I was planning to make a big set of patches for compatibility with various other mods and miscellaneous goodies, once you release a version, and would include this. Thanks, Kerbalism and KBPS are probably the most mod- and user friendly mods around here! I totally love how you made your mod so that you can change just about anything with a MM patch!
  10. It would be nice to have these two things: 1) A multiplier for MTBF rates, to adjust difficulty, and 2) An entry in the stock difficulty settings menu (The per save one, I mean). Thanks a lot, no bugs so far.
  11. Sir, you made me worry how much I can be excited for KSP. Thanks a lot for the release! Give me half an hour for school stuff and I'll be busy testing, and kraken help the one who dares to disturb me during that highly-focused process!
  12. Not quite what I meant... Not features to add. That is mid-term for me. I mean the general idea and purpose of the mod, what is it supposed to be, generally?
  13. @ShotgunNinja, if I may ask, what's your general plans for Kerbalism in the distant future? A complete stock overhaul for realism, something midrange between RO and stock? Or more like just a few mechanics you like to use (I presume) which is how it is now? Or something else entirely?
  14. Ah, sorry, then it must be me. I am not a native speaker and may miss minor but important details.
  15. I am sorry, then, I must have misunderstood. Humm, let me elaborate on what I mean. Kerbalism has default compatibility, you just have to use it correctly. As an analogy, when you're installing a program, there are some suggested settings, but to have anything useful you need to configure it to your preferences. The same goes about Kerbalism. It has some suggested settings, but for a proper experience you should configure it for yourself. I am not sure I got that right. Do you mean that I didn't read the thread? I indeed didn't read the whole, but I am following for quite some time now. If so, I must have misunderstood something.
  16. Well, this has some charme, doesn't it? But seriously, most decent mods work well together, there was a lot of effort put into that, and what @ShotgunNinja said is not a ' "simple" profile change' but rather a configuration in a file designed specifically for this, configurations. Kerbalism is really customisable, which is one of the reasons why it is my favorite mod. If you're looking for help on how to configure it, I'd be glad to help, too.
  17. @nightstalker101s, @Yemo of course you guys can use my "Realism without Life Support" profile, not to self-advertise.
  18. I did not, but neither it is an inflated baloon. Look at the BEAM, it does not inflate like "inflate" and it does not have the same properties a baloon has. It is not moving, but making a similar thing rotate wouldn't be too big a deal, I guess...
  19. This has been asked many times, mentioned in the OP and literally discussed over the last at least three pages, probably many more... No, there is not, but @ShotgunNinja said that it is almost done.
  20. I am not sure whether it is a good feature to add, but certainly shouldn't be hard, if I understand the signal system correctly. As soon as you have a vector for the signal path, it is a matter of simple mathematical equations to determine the point at which it passes closest to the sun and determine how much the signal is disorted from that. Well, I guess it would be toggleable, as about anything in Kerbalism... That ^ is only if this feature is even worth considering. I don't think it would be hard, I just think it would make no gameplay difference (Add a few seconds of processing delay? Seriously, who cares?).
  21. Well, what to expect of someone with a name as yours... If you're taking suggestions, here are some general ideas I have right now, plain brainstormed: Goo Container Observe Microorganisms (Done on the ISS) matlab () Observe Crystal Growth (Done on the ISS?) Observe Dust Interactions (Not sure if it has been done, could imagine it) Big Lab Plant/Algae Growth (Done on the ISS, possibly more) Confirm Relativistic Effects (We will never stop doing that ) Tissue Growth (I am fairly certain they did that on the ISS) Pod Crew Medical Examination (Done many times) Crew Psychological Evaluation (Done many times) Observe Crew Sleep (Not sure if it has been done, could imagine it) Probe Cores Telemetry (Done many times) Radiation Effects (Not sure if it has been done, could imagine it) I can think of no more. Particularly the specifications "Goo" and "Representative of real experiments" sounds like a hard task. If you'd like me to do so, I can give it a try and write a description to any of those. I envision the descriptions to be more Kerbal than the names (Those sound not silly at all, I think), to account for the game factor, and to encourage reading them (does anyone even do that?).
  22. @ShotgunNinja, this post is awesome, this mod is awesome and you are awesome! My impatience to play with Kerbalism is intensifying! If I may ask, how much is there you plan to do, compared to what you've done? Is there anything I could help with? (Since there is actually next to nothing, I list the things that I can do: Any 2D graphics editing, MM patches, simple configs, testing and ideas, more if documented.) Huge thanks for creating all of this, I can't wait to try it!
  23. I am quite sure they have shifting weights installed, like pumping water between compartments. At least it would be be a viable solution. Also, reaction wheels help with it.
  24. This is a joke, of course. My opinion is that decoupling a part would be a huge effort for, well, for basically nothing.
  25. I must admit, I didn't read that. Sorry. Edit: By "that" I mean not your last post, but the last few posts, including the quoted one.
  • Create New...