Jump to content

EvelynThe Dragon

Members
  • Posts

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by EvelynThe Dragon

  1. It's good that the orbital tracks are getting different colors, like they had in KSP1. Why they were ever changed is baffling. BTW, I complained about this in feedback way back in the first couple of days.
  2. The trip planner is extremely broken and stupid. It makes the return values on a round trip the same as outbound values, and anyone who has played KSP1 for any length of time knows that is nonsense. It doesn't give a lot of information you might need and it has no options for including or excluding landing and ascent for other bodies. Nor does it allow for figuring the minimum energy trajectory or aerobraking. It's a very dumb tool. IMO it's a useless tool. It leads to stupid over design for much more Delta V than is necessary, especially for things like a Mun or Minmus mission.
  3. Why can I not select a waypoint and have it display on my nav-ball? Or am I missing something? And while we are at it... longitude and latitude really need to be something you can get.
  4. How would it look if you redraw it? Ping me if you post a redesign, thx I need to give it some thought, but some things, like engine plates and adapters need to move from the rather ridiculous places they live in with the stock tree, to enable builds that use earlier engines. There are times when the stock engines for a given size are not good enough, and a combination of a cluster of a few smaller ones would be nice. I would also like to see some logical ordering to parts that are specifically airplane, rover, or lander oriented. I downloaded the tech tree editor mod but haven't played around with it yet. I am also seriously disappointed in not having the intermediate size 1.875 Meter parts KSP1 had. The decision to leave those out has really been a bad idea, the size was ideal for certain things.
  5. I've been absent for some time because quite frankly, sandbox mode is BORING. And there were way too many things broken. And the interval between patches was (and I am sure still is) way too long. Hot fixes should be the rule. Frequent updates when something is fixed, don't wait to get a laundry list together. This release is what we should have had on day 1 of early access. I will not come off of that stance, 10 months after release, we finally get a relatively functional game. That still has major issues. Having stuff to do is great. But. It's way too rigid. There should be multiple secondary mission choices, and in the main path, forcing visits to the anomalies is not the way to go here. Secondary missions should be much more plentiful, and there should be branches on the main mission path. All of this also ties into further issues. The trip planner is still very broken. Please fix it, a roundtrip is not double the delta V of a one-way trip. It ignores the escape velocities of each unique body. As an experienced KSP1 player, I do not rely on it, but new players are going to be overbuilding their ships. And WHY is there no funding resource? Part of the fun in KSP1 career mode for me was working hard to earn funds and building optimized rockets that did what I needed. There's no incentive in exploration mode to do anything but use the most capable parts as soon as you unlock them. But that brings me to the awful tech tree. Why are engine plates and other adapters so hard to get to? You have to use a lot of science points to get to some of the things that make for better rocket designs. The tech tree is a mess. It should have more logic to it. And it too, should allow different branches to get to the various levels, the choke points are a pain. It's better than it was. But there is still room for a LOT of improvement in game play. I will play long enough to see how the missions unfold, but some of it is already bordering on tedious.
  6. I haven't played since June. I really hope that everything is improved and all the annoying bugs that made me stop are fixed. I had such high hopes. But apparently, game play wasn't an original priority.
  7. That is utterly unintuitive, and where is this documented? Do you know?
  8. Make hot fixes Standard Operating Procedure. Waiting months for bug extermination is killing this game.
  9. More hot fixes please, as you fix stuff. Don't make us wait months for stuff that is fixed and tested while you work on something else. Get these out there.
  10. That was one of the things that didn't make it into this patch. It's quite disappointing.
  11. I just ran into that on a second mission with the same craft, first time worked as expected. Ripped my chute off the capsule and it crashed.
  12. As critical as I have been about the pacing of patches (and I am sure I will continue with that), I will give some appropriate credit here. I built a rocket capable of going to and orbiting both Minmus and Mun in a single trip then returning to orbit, then de-orbit to Kerbin. Something in KSP1 I can do in my sleep now but until this patch was always a question despite the displayed Delta V. I just played around with a new build using the Trumpet engine and I have to say, this engine is awesome. Very nice work there, we still need engines to fill a lot of the gaps, but this is a good start. VAB works A LOT smoother, and framerate there on my far below optimal GPU is much better (I do 1080p resolution...) Looks like the stage Delta V values are working correctly now. Thanks for that, it was maddening to design a rocket that didn't report correctly. Fairings seem to be working much better in VAB, see nit below... Rockets seem a lot less noodley, At least the one I built does. Framerates in launch and orbit with Kerbin in view MUCH better. not stellar, but smoother. (With moderate complexity rocket, nothing crazy) It has a rather ineffable quality to it, but flight in orbit seems smoother, can't really explain why. This is a lot closer to what the initial EA release should have been. (Still missing reentry heating is not a good look). I will play with a plane soon, and add any comments then. I haven't visited rovers since very early on, they deserve a look too. And some nits found in playing with it for an hour-ish... OK, well... I ran into a new (to me) VAB camera bug. I am not certain how I got there, but I can't rotate the view around a rocket I am building, will try to determine cause, had to leave VAB and reenter to recover. If I can figure out how it got there, I will post a bug report. Played with the fairings a bit in VAB... why do the buttons to add or subtract segments lie directly on top of the OK and cancel buttons? It's not unworkable, but it should be cleaner.
  13. I am an engineer and I have deadlines I have to meet. Engineering is a very creative field, if it wasn't, we would have no innovation. But schedules and promises to customers also matter. That relationship with customers is vital to getting further business.
  14. 1/3 of June has gone by. Do we have a release date for this update yet? If you want to be more transparent, then do it. This definitely isn't that, it's clear as mud.
  15. Interesting. I have never approached landings like that. I do make sure that I have more than enough TWR to ensure I can lift off the target body. And I try hard to make sure I bring enough fuel, but have always used Delta V to assess that. At least on KSP1, there are Delta V tree maps for getting to and from each body that are really helpful. I used MechJeb in KSP1 and am using Micro Engineer in KSP2 to give me my horizontal surface velocity and vertical velocity then work at killing those as I near the surface. Sometimes I come in a bit hot, but I have never really needed to see fuel supply in seconds. It's just a different way of looking at it, I have always understood things in terms of change in velocity and acceleration. BTW, Happy Pride Month from a fellow queer and trans woman.
  16. To be honest, I am not sure why you would want that. Delta V is the important thing, all orbital maneuvers are really dependent solely on Delta V. Can you explain to me what value this would have?
  17. The lack of color differentiation makes me crazy. Each conic segment should have a different color as in your example. I still can't figure out the intercept markers.
  18. 13. Procedural Fuel Tanks in all sizes and all fuel types. 14. XL Reaction Wheels 15. Larger ullage motors (sepatrons suck) 16. Procedural Wings with fuel 17. Hot-staging capable stage separators (think Russian open truss with blast deflectos like on N1) 18. Nose cones with solid fuel motors for aiding radial separation to be used with 19. Radial separators incorporating solid fuel rockets to better eject boosters strapped to a core stage 20. Trusses with options to have fuel, RCS, batteries, and internal mounting nodes, etc. inside their structure to make building more compact stations or interplanetary vehicles/probes with fewer parts
  19. But it does show you the CoM for your current condition. Yeah, it sucks that it doesn't update in real time. And it would be very nice if we could get a full fuel and empty fuel state displayed simultaneously. And it would be nice if this was applied to all stages... but there are workarounds for these things. What really annoys me is there is no control of fuel flow priority, there are many times that is super useful with launching top heavy vehicles.
  20. Well, crap, I thought you could do that. It would have its (somewhat rare) uses if you could disable pitch, yaw or roll for them. I am glad that is an option for RCS, but that isn't applicable to your issue.
  21. I don't think that we know that, and I actually hope it isn't.
  22. So using a conventional aircraft layout, here is how you should think of them: Wings are for generating lift. They have ailerons on them for roll control/banking. Stabilizers are mostly a fixed fin with a smaller control surface area that depending on placement allow for pitch (horizontal stabilizer, elevator) or yaw (vertical stabilizer, rudder) adjustments. They help keep a craft flying in the direction you want while also allowing directional control. Control Surface is an all-moving fin that allows for very aggressive directional control. A lot of fighter aircraft in real life have such control surface, usually in place of a horizontal stabilizer or as canards to allow for very fast pitch changes. If you want to use fins on a rocket, use Stabilizers. Don't use Control surfaces or wings. On an airplane, use wings for lift, and stabilizers for your tail surfaces, unless you want to have a very responsive aircraft (that may be quite difficult to fly straight because it is unstable). I hope this helps.
  23. Oh, for sure. I am happy to provide it. I am also willing to be a guinea pig for testing new versions if you need one. I'm not one to actually do the mod code myself, I am an OLD C and FORTRAN programmer. This new stuff I haven't really bothered with since I no longer do code for a living. I'm more at the hardware architecture and systems engineering (requirements definition) level in the real world now.
×
×
  • Create New...