Jump to content

s_gamer101

Members
  • Posts

    293
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by s_gamer101

  1. The difference from "heat shield is enabled" to "heat shield is disabled" would be: Visual heat shield plates appear on the part (the texture changes) The mass is slightly increased to simulate their weight The heat tolerance is greatly increased. I suggest to give it the heat tolerance of a 10 meter heat shield Yes, basically. But the mass should increase with it. And the texture should change as well
  2. You didn't get my point there. My point is: The heat shield should be non-ablative and therefore not even have ablator at all. But if it does have ablator, yes, then a slider would be nice.
  3. Yes, but my point there was that the toggleable heat shields shouldn't be ablative heat shields. That you shouldn't be able to refill ablative heat shields in my opinion mid-flight was an entirely different point
  4. Now this doesn't have anything to do with the maneuvering UI. KSP 1 didn't tell you when to launch either. What you are looking for is something like this. (it's for KSP 1 but should work for 2 as well) More tips below the spoiler tag: But so much about "the new features make the game more accesible for new players"
  5. Mac support is planned as far as I know, but not in the near future. The performance will almost certainly improve a lot. The performance of the current early acces version is really awful, and I say that as someone who runs the game on an expensive gaming PC and has built ships in KSP 1 that litteraly have thousands of parts. Building ships like some of the bigger ones I've built in KSP 1 is currently pretty much impossible in KSP 2 due to the bad performance, no matter what hardware is used. And the hardware requirements are indeed very high for many people. But I'm pretty sure the devs are aware of that and will make it better, they want to sell the game to as much people as possible after all and not just to some people who borrowed a spare supercomputer from NASA. So at some point, you will probably be able to run KSP 2 on your machine.
  6. I think non-ablative heat shields like the one used on the space shuttle would certainly be more realistic and well-fitting for that purpose. In fact, ablative heat shields are really unfitting for anything that is reusable, because in real life, you cannot just refill ablative heat shields as far as I know, because the "ablator" is more or less the heat shield itself. But I agree with the rest that you said. I strongly disagree. Wikipedia says the following about ablative heat shields: Obviously it would be necessary to add a new layer of plastic resin to the entire heat shield. How an engineer is supposed to do that on an EVA using nothing but some tools available on a spacecraft is already questionable. And also, to add the plastic resin, you'd have to bring plastic resin in the first palce. And to restore a completely depleted heat shield, you'd have to bring almost the entire heat shield's mass worth of plastic resin. And then you could just as well bring another heat shield.
  7. The idea of having some command pods that have IVA and some that don't sounds like something that doesn't fit into the game. Features like IVA need to be constistent. And also, looking at how much effort the devs put into making the game look beautiful, it seems like a step backwards to add something procedurally-generatet that "may not always look great" in my opinion.
  8. I'm not sure if this even makes sense, I'll have to think about it. But do I understand that correctly that you want to place it in a place where there are 2 wind currents exactly above each other that constantly blow with the same speed but in the exact opposite directions? Wind systems aren't constant. And why would such a wind system even exist on a gas giant. And also, are there even any plans to add weather to this game? Because if wind won't be properly simulated, I think it would be a bit weird if they'd add wind turbines anyway. That would make the base a hard-to-reach place. And I don't think you need to go that deep to make a working balloon That, on the other hand, is truly un-kerbal and sounds just boring in my opinion. Why is everyone always looking for a reason why stuff would be usefull in some sort of career mode? Isn't "it is cool" more than reason enough to build something in KSP?
  9. Ideed they are, since no mountains stand in their way to even slightly slow them down. Storms on gas giants can easily grow to a size where their winds go around the entire planet and reach speeds of hundreds or maybe even thousands of meters per seconds. So in real life, it might not be advisable to put balloons in there unless you don't care if they regularly circumnavigate the planet on a unpredictable trajectory at an incredible speed (and neglecting the dangers of lightning strikes) How is a big city built on a hot air ballon floating in Jools atmosphere whith a spaceplane runway on top of it not kerbal in your opinion? That sounds really unnecessary. What would be the purpose of a planet with a solid surface that cannot be reached with a spacecraft or anythin else in a game about space exploration. A place that is unreachable isn't fun.
  10. With all the good stuff added to the current procedural wings that you guys are suggesting, I think I'd really like them and not even miss the old KSP 1 wings anymore
  11. Okay, this is pure speculation now, but maybe it's because in move mode, the CoM is constantly being updated because the game expects you to move the ship which also moves the CoM while in build mode, it just calculates it once and then stops updating it because someone forgot that CoM can change in build mode too. Which would mean it is rather a bug than the absence of a feature.
  12. If you want to do a Tylo or Laythe flyby, watch out for stuff like Vall moving in the way and compromising the entire flyby route. The trajectory on the map screen isn't perfectly precise when it comes to SOI changes (which is by the way not something the game can be blamed for, because it is mathematically impossible to exactly solve the Kepler equation and I'm pretty sure this is essential for the way KSP predicts SOI changes) so you always have to watch out for unwanted flybys in the Jool system. If you have trajectorys installed and you have faith in the heath resistance of your ship, you could attempt aerobraking at Jool, but I do not even remember if I have ever tried that myself to be honest and I don't know if it is safe.
  13. It is indeed the Lt. Duckweed we're talking to Of course, how did I not figure that out - sometimes I'm really lost
  14. Stuff like this is exactly why, in my opinion, the devs should immediately remove such "features" that do not allow you to plan a maneuver node when the game thinks you don't have enough fuel. (There are many other reasons too, but there's already a separate treat about this)
  15. Okay, I will implement the changes you suggested and do more testing tomorrow
  16. Wait, where did I post it? I wanted to post it in KSP 1 gameplay questions in the first place
  17. This makes sense, but doesn't that overheat in closed-cycle mode?
  18. This is my spaceplane. It is supposed to be able to take of from Eve and gain some altitude using its propeller engines that are inside those 3 service bays. (Before anyone is going to say anything about Eve SSTO's, this isn't supposed to be an SSTO, it only has to reach a suborbital trajectory over Eve) Problems: When I teleport it to Eve for testing, most of the times the landing gear gets overstressed pretty soon and just explodes before I even accelerate. How do I make my landing gear more reliable? For the reason mentioned above, I haven't done a proper test flight so far and therefore I have no idea if those propellers have even nearly enough trust. The current propeller setup is as follows: 6 medium-sized breaking ground rotors, each of them has 8 ducted-fan blades attached to it. The deploy angle will be manually adjusted for optimal trust during the flight Also if you see other stuff that you think is wrong with my design, feel free to tell me
  19. I mistakedly thought that thing that was radially attached was a shielded docking port, sorry
  20. I can immediatly see on your screenshot that you have not fullfilled all the requirements: "Build a new station that has an antenna [...]" is not fullfilled. I can see that your station has a docking port and an antenna and I assume it can generate power too, but it is essential for those contract to build the station in the VAB after accepting the contract. Using a previously build craft will not work.
  21. Also the reason I didn't put a "no" option in the poll was that I didn't realize that there'd also be negative aspects to adding new parts (I was like "When nothing is removed, why should anyone be against it?") so I didn't expect anyone to be strictly against it, which was a mistake, as I realized now.
  22. I can't edit the poll after people have already voted (which makes sense of course) Now after reading your suggestions I must admit, with those UI imprevements the procedural wings might indeed become a suitable replacement for the old wings and I haven't thought of that before.
  23. Do you go back to mission control immediately or do you wait for a few seconds
  24. Why don't you just upload screenshots? I have other stuff to do than downloading your crafts and launch KSP just to look at them
  25. That slounds like a design problem And expect Eve and probably Tylo
×
×
  • Create New...