comham

This is why the End Flight button, no matter how many confirmation windows pop up, is a bad idea. Human beings do not read confirmation windows, and no, that doesn't make them stupid. This adds nothing to the game. Remove the button and have the tracking station the only way to end flights.

That's pretty cool. Fills the gap till proper sample return is implemented and gets you modding experience.

Yeah, the game does actually weigh the fuel in the tanks, it's not arbitrarily done for each part by setting dry/full mass. The various fuels all have densities defined in the game.

Downthemall is a pretty handy add-on for firefox that lets you download all links on a page, with various filters so you can just download certain extensions.

Yes, probably the most famous use of duct tape. If one of the KSP DLCs was very detailed planet surfaces I'd buy it instantly. Right now they're a bit flat and dull; shadows on the moon are too bright, etc.

The combine didn't drain the sea in any way, unless I'm very much mistaken.

It's something to do besides fly missions. Something to do on a planets surface besides plant a flag and explore aimlessly.

I think that's a bit of a shame. Lots of specialised parts means lots of launches are required. In-game reasons to do stuff, more interesting than "Cool, I've sent the handy dandy omni processor up, now I have everything". But it's not that big a deal, and I'm sure someone could mod in specialised parts. I'm hoping mining involves moving physics objects around, like blocks of ore, and dumping them into processing funnels, moving them along conveyor belts etc. Probably not though.

Or you could stage and decouple an active engine trapped in a strut cage. But, yeah. I don't expect this will work, since acceleration due to a rocket engine is handled differently to gravity on planets in the KSP engine. Maybe KSP2 will have a custom engine, no unity worries or figuring out workarounds, and that will support this.

Well, there's the G-meter dial in the cockpit. If that's not hardcoded, maybe it would be possible to make the piston behave like a G-meter, and that would look vaguely like it was responding to launch forces.

That's the prettiest strut I've ever seen.

It's a matter of the details that engage you in the game world.

"minecraft style development" I take to mean purchasing at a reduced price, long before release, for the chance to play the in-progress versions. Minecraft and KSP communities are both based around sharing in-game creations and media. A negative point that might be made is how each of them embrace (or might embrace) the broken-ness of the unfinished game and hinder further interesting development. Minecraft development stalled, feature wise, a long time ago in favour of useless creative stuff like music blocks and arsebiscuits. It's potential as an intersting complicated game of systems was squandered. Nothing like this has happened in KSP yet, but you do see some people on the forums decrying anything that would break their saves, their "year long missions", anything that would add new and interesting constraints on designing vehicles like life support or proper aerodynamics, worrying career mode will limit their freedom, that sort of thing.

Yeah, if 3.0 is 2.5x the size of the previous release it must have a ton of content, and so far all I've seen is the SABRE and the landing lights. Can we have a screenshot of a new part or something to tide us over?

I'd say it's all down to people over-playing the alpha, falling in love with the unfinished state of the game and consequently being averse to change, Let's Players, and a general lack of understanding of how games are made and how games work. Also it seems that KSP is, for a lot of people, their first experience of a game community.

I thought rigid body dynamics was basically how crafts work in KSP. Undeformable parts with collision meshes, and they either bounce of each other or explode. Attached at a point with a certain amount of flex and a breaking point.

I would hope that squad doesn't gimp the final game just for the sake of some people who have been playing the alpha to death and have got used to the weird idiosyncrasies of an unfinished game. Scale doesn't matter, only detail and graphics does. If Kerbin had more detail viewable from orbit (more terrain types, more detailed lighting, clouds, etc) it would be just as impressive. Think about it, all that matters is how close you are to a sphere, not how big it is.

I just think this particular example is a bad way to design your textures, because as you said, you can't effectively use a resolution high enough to show the detail and you end up with an ugly blurry mess. It would be better, like in the Mk.2 Lander Can IVA, just to have a visually clean blank dashboard. Just some constructive feedback.

Or just arbitrarily make the window work as a hatch till the stock game supports crew transfer. Both are nice and simple and don't require changing how it looks.

Question; when you make the IVA textures, the initial drawing, they're higher resolution than that, right? At what point do they become really pixellated and blurry?

I know they're a lot more work, but it'd be cool to see an IVA for the station can. With your texturing skills it could be the best looking mod space station internals, even if it was just cupboards and a sleeping bag. Alternatively, maybe togglable window lights.

Herp, sorry, posted in the wrong thread. Meant to post it here

wrong thread lol

It's a nice, clean bit of detail. You have better technical skills than most KSP modders.

That's really good! Your texturing works well.