XLjedi
-
Posts
1,356 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by XLjedi
-
-
Not only do I hope for submarine bases... I want an underwater base underneath a sheet of ice!
Can you imagine a colony anchored upside down to a layer of ice?
-
Now... I have never played Eve online... but I have played Homeworld.
Is that not the "Mothership" from Homeworld there at the head of the pack?
Is the Eve universe tied to Homeworld? I did not know that.
-
I might argue, you can do most of that now in KSP1; so why not in KSP2?
Now something like a floaty Bespin Cloud City on Jool would definitely be a departure from the norm!
-
The track record for how Squad managed updates over time was not very conducive to detailed manuals. For instance, many would've liked a detailed manual for how rotors and propellers were supposed to work. But given the fact that Squad changed the mechanics of the things 3 different times in 1.7, 1.8, and most recently once again in 1.9... There's not a lot of incentive for anyone to write down how something is going to work when it's constantly evolving. Perhaps things will be a bit different under new management in KSP2?
-
I tend to look for minor adjustments to elevator AOI when at speed. Then there's a tradeoff for how much and when you want the flight to be leveled. Some would choose to level out at max speed, others might go for a middle-of-the road assignment and just let the SPS smooth out the difference. So depends purely on your own preferences. You can also create your own trim tabs in the form of a slight deployment setting for an elevator or aileron. I've managed it all any number of ways in the past.
-
You inspired me to update my video! I've been wanting to do this for awhile. Now I can point people to this instead:
SpoilerNow if you see anything in this one that appears inefficient or missing, then let me know because that would mean I could learn something valuable myself that I might be missing!
-
This design decision simply boggles the mind.
I might prefer they scrap the idea of multiple build areas (or any associated size restrictions) in KSP2 and just go to a unified blueprint style design interface for SPH and VAB type craft. I know we will have to be allowed to build bases free floating on site because the terrain has to be accounted for. Maybe the craft building will follow suit in some way?
-
@dave1904 I couldn't figure out how to display a frame rate, but here's a demo video of the station, and framerate doesn't seem to be too much of an issue.
Spoiler -
@archiebald I'm just not as sharp as you...
-
Well... it's a start. My first official Pro-Stock craft isn't quite as impressive as any of those. But HEY, all we have to work with is the first tech tree starter node, so we're not exactly talking SpaceX here at day one.
I now present... the long awaited... highly advanced... "Alpha 1 Nub"
I was particularly proud of the genius design concept of limiting the thruster to 1/3 power to avoid killing any kerbals on the very first launch. Not to mention the intentional (OK, accidental, but it worked!) placement of the parachute in the first stage to limit the flight distance to about 50ft or so and have it land back on the launchpad for 100% recovery! Woohoo!
Shortly following the amazing success of the Nub... the next entry in the program was the "Alpha2 Sci-Nub-Nub"
Now... if there was actually a third Pro-Stock craft in the "Alpha Nub" program, I may have had to give a little thought to separating the craft into launch vehicle and subassemblies. However, we managed to advance pretty quickly from here, skipping over a Beta or Gamma class and moving straight into the Delta Rockets!
-
1 hour ago, Kim Hanson said:
Scott Manley has videos on this too. He uses a slightly different procedure that is possibly more efficient. In the end both work fine.
I really do need to update that video... After another couple hundred intercepts I now realize I didn't really use or describe how to use the Navball Target tools very efficiently.
-
What's a Minmus maneuver?
You mean changing inclination to match the Minmus orbit?
...or waiting for Minmus to arrive at it's target ascending or descending node so you can travel straight to the moon from Kerbin equatorial orbit?
In either case... I don't think it matters which side you choose.
The only Minmus maneuver that I'm aware of involves waiting a few days for that moon to reach one of those two transfer windows so I don't have to waste time/fuel matching its inclined orbit.
-
24 minutes ago, dave1904 said:
Please do. Would be cool to know the fps because I do not think SLI would make much difference. I wish we had a community benchmark craft and maybe even mod folder to compare the current hardware. If you use kerbal engineer it will tell you exactly how many parts you are using.
Oh, I know the exact part counts... and probably far more than most would ever care to look into. LOL
It was this space plane:
https://kerbalx.com/XLjedi/SC-33-Crescent-Eagle
The tech report at the bottom of that page has it listed at 117 parts when completely empty. As loaded with the stuff I included on KerbalX, it's 184; but I had it reconfigured to carry other stuffs into orbit that day, so was a bit of guesstimate on my part. The other Mk-3 craft I had attached was my orbital nuke-powered light carrier, but I never posted that one so haven't done a blueprint. Fewer parts though maybe 50-80 ish?
-
@dave1904 Yeah, it's 390-400 parts... not to mention the two Mk3 spaceplanes I had docked to it. Which tacked on, I'm guessing, another 250 parts or so. I know the one space plane is like 180 parts.
I just rebuilt the PC in January, so I have the stats unusually handy. I thought the mobo died, but turns out it was the PSU that failed. So I might have extra parts now for a machine to stow under my desk at the office.
These parts are new:
- Mobo: ASUS ROG Strix X570-E Gaming ATX
- AMD Ryzen 7 3800x 3.9 GHz Socket AM4 (4.5 GHz max boost, but I don't overclock it)
- G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 32 GB (2x16GB) 288-Pin DDR4 3600 (I have 2 open slots, but 32 has been fine for my workload thus far)
The DDR4 was a requirement of the new Mobo (else I would've just continued using the 32 GB of DDR3 4x8 that I already had) and I continue to go with the dual PCI slots to run nVidia cards in SLI mode. I continue to use the dual GTX 970's running in SLI. I'm quite sure those are my bottleneck as well, but they seem to be doing fine for now.
I haven't actually displayed the framerate, but can check it later tonight.
I had bought my daughters' a couple new iphones for Christmas; so I got to apply a $125 credit at BestBuy to pickup the Ryzen 7 for almost half-off! The DDR4 ram is a pretty good deal right now too. Aside from the mobo being SLI-ready and I have used ASUS for years... I really wanted the built-in wireless capability.
-
2 minutes ago, rettter3 said:
Coulda been Bowie's Ziggy Stardust... who knows?
-
24 minutes ago, DJWyre said:
But you got the joke, right?
No... not sure anyone would. I more had the pudgy little cartoon character in mind.
But the actual nickname arose from my design designation of ZGB for "Zero-G Bot" and I took to calling them "Zig-B's" for awhile. Ziggy just seemed more endearing for this one I s'pose.
-
-
I built a very large station (400 parts) kinda in the shape of a box... All assembled in orbit via 20 spaceplane missions.
To solve the inherent part "floppiness" there was a central part that I declared to be the "Root". For this type of design, using autostruts on each corner and a few selective crossbeam sections (maybe 8 autostruts total?) each targeting the central "Root" part. It worked quite well in terms of rigidity. It is a large framework though (docks 3 Mk3 spaceplanes) and has no reaction wheels of its own.
No mods, no welding... I do wish the robotics parts were a tad less noodle-like though.
-
It's not a short answer, you may need to watch a video or two...
-
42 minutes ago, Zeiss Ikon said:
One reason you might never have noticed "same craft interaction" before is that it was just added in version 1.7 or 1.8 (it surely does not exist in 1.6.1, and does in 1.8.1, but I haven't installed 1.7.3).
I think it came about with the intro of Robotics and the BG expansion... self-docking and so forth. But it's also been HUGE for me in terms of creating vehicles and stations that can load/unload supplies. It makes collision detection work when applied to cargo bays and so forth! That was a big improvement over anything we had pre-BG.
-
@AHHans Thanks for the thorough testing!
Makes me feel better now; I think my station is safe.
I do wish they would fix that action group bug! It would make my custom doors/ramps work so much nicer.
-
1 minute ago, AHHans said:
Well, my guess is that with 19 open ports (and a few hundred parts in total) you can measure a difference between having the ports open or not. If you actually notice the difference in normal gameplay is another question. Although now that I re-read your message, 19 senior-sized ports plus a comparable number of normal and junior-sized ports is at least at the edge of what I consider "reasonable". The biggest station that I built has 8 normal docking ports, 4 junior-sized ports, and 5 senior-sized ports open and 13 more senior-sized ports that are attached to something. (And it is already pretty laggy, but it is also the biggest - in size, weight, and part count - object I built.)
As you can see from my test, 288 open docking ports is clearly on the absurd side of the scale.
I optimized it a bit, I'm now at:
17 large open ports (it's my primary storage and transfer hub)
All of the mid-size ports have been capped using the shielded part instead.
6 of the small ports.
So, I'm at 23 open ports right now before bringing in a large craft or two with additional open ports.
I guess as supplies are offloaded some of the ports could be capped if the supplies are designed to be terminating instead of stackable.
Oh and it's like 395 parts with a TON of senior ports that are capped in the process of constructing. I'm planning 20 missions to get it fully operational.
-
55 minutes ago, AHHans said:
That's also the impression that I have from my tests. Yes, there is an effect. But if you only have a reasonable number of docking ports then this effect isn't so serious.
And from a programmers point of view: I can well imagine that in an older version of the game each docking port tested every part within physics range, but that at some point a dedicated list of docking ports was introduced so that now only that list needs to be searched.
I guess depends on what point the number becomes absurd? In the design of my OASys Station I plan to have at least 19 large open ports. I have fewer of the mid-size ports and guess I can convert all those (except for a couple of the really small ones) to the closeable variety.
-
Just now, Fraktal said:
@Padishar posted this back in 2016:
Each additional port in physics range increases the number of checks per physics update exponentially.
Wonder if any of that was negated with time due to station Primary Active Port designation logic being added?
Airships, cruise ships, and submarine colonies?
in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion
Posted · Edited by XLjedi
And In KSP2, for multi-player compatibility...
I'm guessing you'll be using none.
What if ice sheets were nothing more than objects placed on the surface near a wall of ice. No different really than a KSP runway object made to look like an iceberg.
It most certainly can be done! ...it's just an interesting easter-egg type location to be found. Like an arch on a moon. I could probably build one right now for KSP1 and just add it to Kerbin with Kerbal Konstructs.