Icky

just throwing ideas out, what about a lift to weight ratio? lets say, provided the rover even has control in the air, whether it be reaction wheels or elevator/rudder, then the amount of total lift created at top speed cant be more than X percentage of the rover weight when its at its lightest during operation (low on fuel). so if it weighs 1000kg, it cant ever make more than 500kg of lift or 300kg or whatever ratio. unfortunately, as far as im aware, youd need a mod to tell you that so thats slightly off-putting, but id say if youre doing an atmospheric elcano, its not a big deal in the grand scheme. basically, it should probably be a ratio that ultimately discourages taking jumps at full speed and yeeting it as far as possible without consequence.

i was hoping to see controller support by now. flying planes with keyboard is not fun.

ayyyy! thats awesome! i like the idea of strutting the wheels to a point separate from the main hinges. i assume thats helping to absorb the larger impacts. and i love that walker

On atmospheric worlds your vehicle design must not provide significant aerodynamic lift. how much lift is too much? im looking at the rules discussions over the last few months since i looked here last and im thinking my kerbin run wouldnt fly (heh) anymore. my rover was prop powered and would sort of glide. just enough to keep the descent from destroying the rover on landing, it was incapable of flying level even if you wanted to. im just curious what direction i should take my build when we inevitably start doing these in ksp2.

i was only able to test the new style wheels (i forget what theyre called) before a weird game crash, but they were still VERY slow. a fairly light rover on the runway took minutes to get up to 32m/s and any kind of incline was a no-go. it seems like they arent making more power and lower speeds like theyre supposed to.

drove a rover around, learned the rover wheels still have almost NO power, then watched the game AND my gpu crash. seriously, my pc switched to using onboard graphics and i had to restart lol. so i think i may hold off til the next patch cus that was kinda scary considering i JUST bought this card....

as far as im concerned, a rapier on a craft with no oxidizer IS just a jet engine. id be curious to see a poll on how many people think a rapier in air mode is somehow in a different category than other jet engines

on the topic of wings, i noticed the weight doesnt change when you adjust the dimensions. im guessing thats not intended. also when i saw the "wings" had the asymmetrical shape with the flat bottom i was hoping they would actually make lift without having to tilt them. i could just slap them on and they would make lift when the craft has a zero angle of attack. but it seems thats not the case.

oddly enough i had NO difference between 1080 and 4k. on a 2080

why does this thread exist? hahaha

seemed like the 4070ti was the best bang/buck upgrade from my 2080. i wont lie and say ksp2 wasnt a large factor in that decision that i made two days ago...... but it was kinda getting time anyway. im a 4k AND vr guy so i kinda have to stay on top of gpu power. gonna stick with the 16gb of ddr4 3100 for the moment unless the general consensus determines 32 will offer a significant benefit

if that were true youd think the new tire physics wouldnt be the same trash we had to put up with in the first game but so far it looks like they just went ahead and recreated the exact same tire model.... from scratch.... again.... for ksp2...

idk where youre coming from. youre saying you wont know what size/shape wing to put on a plane in ksp2, but how did you know in ksp1? there were different sizes and shapes there too. (btw the shape doesnt even matter, its just the total wing area. im betting ksp2 wont be much different) so all thats left is size. and its gonna be the same in 2 as it was in 1, if you dont have enough lift, you need more speed or more wing. and beyond that its still gonna be "put COL behind COD"

even when i was a kid i found speaking this way annoying. its just unnatural sounding. im not saying it has to be the complete opposite end of the spectrum and put me to sleep, just shouldve been dialed back a couple notches to sound like someone talking to you like a human rather than a pet.

mother of god what are those physics when the rover starts rolling out of control. most of the tire clipping through the ground? and it sort of just barrel rolls in place ON the ground?

handling is... interesting. anything more than parking lot speeds, you deactivate wheel steering all together and steer it with aero. using wheel steering is too twitchy. you can increase the tire grip to corner faster but risk rolling. its really meant for long distance high speed cruising. new version accelerates a bit faster

i stuck to the land as much as possible, but the rover was capable of doing the water crossings albeit slowly. the route i used is in the post somewhere. just kidding, the quote in my last post didnt bring the whole thing over. heres the part of the original post with the route i used

its a little unconventional... but it can soak up rough terrain and big jumps and its faster than anything wheel-powered. ive since refined the design to do over 100m/s and take impacts better. ive never shared a craft file so ill figure out kerbalx later if anyone wants to mess with this thing

as a fan of things like 24 hour races like lemans, daytona, etc... i like the idea of endurance racing in ksp. i think the best way to do it would be to make it more of a "challenge" that people can do in their own time. their race time would be judged by the in-game mission timer. obviously doing it all together in multiplayer would be really cool, but you may not find many people that can dedicate that much time all at once to do a head-to-head enduro.

i havent been following the development super close so this is the first ive heard of robotics parts not being in ksp2. that take a LOT of wind out of my sails if im honest. most of what ive done in ksp the last couple of years heavily relies on hinges and electric motors. unless theres some technical reason that just makes it impossible to do, i cant imagine what theyre thinking leaving that stuff out.

ive found myself playing a lot more since learning the release is coming soon. if course i HAD to finish my kerbin rover circumnavigation that i started in 2021 or i would never finish it. since then ive just been messing with different rover designs trying different stuff. i cant wait to do it all again on the new kerbin! i just hope the terrain is a bit smoother. nothing like cruising at 200mph and hitting the transition between two polygons like a BRICK WALL.

saw that weird triple fuselage 8 engine plane in the ksp2 screenshots and had to try and build one.

1:06.7 not sure where track limits are exactly, but heres my run. the hardest part honestly is the steering is too dang sensitive. i tried mapping my wheel/pedals but the game just wouldnt accept the binds.

thats impressive. those wheels (and all rover wheels) were so fragile for me i couldnt do much with them. the smallest jumps and they were failing. what kind of speeds were you cruising at on kerbin? also i LOVE the flipping over for water crossings lol

i suppose this counts for trekker division, depending on your definition of "vehicle that cant fly" posts from elcano threads. not sure exactly where you wanna define the total mission time. i approached the starting flag and took the screenshot at 9 days 56 minutes 11 seconds, so maybe that? i dont have the actual final mission time from the summary when i recovered the vehicle.