Twreed87
-
Posts
208 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Twreed87
-
-
5 hours ago, Clockwork13 said:
Environmental Dome
This would be a massive object, and would have to be constructed on the planet. It would not be inflatable, but an actual dome of reinforced glass. It would start with just a new resource called "Glass", and you'd need to send 10,000 tons up to your colony site. It would not only take a lot of time, but be very expensive. One the glass is up there, You'd need to land a special object onto the colony site which would produce glass frames. They'd be pretty large, and a full dome would consist of about 15. You'd need to put them in place with your Kerbals. The dome would consist of an airlock on the side for Kerbals to enter and exit, plus a hatch on the top for space ships to come through. The main purpose of glass domes would be to provide a large habitable environment, which I'll go into later. While setting up a large dome network would be tedious in singleplayer, it would allow for incredible civilizations once multiplayer is officially released. When a dome becomes habitable, then the surface inside it would slowly become green and Kerbals would no longer need a suit to walk around in it.
This seems like an incredibly inefficient way to build a planetary base. I'm sure if anything similar were ever attempted the materials would come from the planet, not shipped from Earth.
I'm all for increasing colonization, but I think this is a bit too far. KSP should stay within the realm of the "mostly currently technically possible" and this seems to be getting too futuristic.
-
3 minutes ago, regex said:
Huh. Smartphones and tablets now? Maybe Harv's original vision of a 2D game?
Imagine if they developed a companion app that let you build ships on your phone that you can use in your game when you get home.
-
I think keyed ports is the way to go. Use tweakables to set the angle snap, magnets rotate it to fit. So simple yet it'd open up so many possibilities.
-
I've been thinking a lot about the difficulty of connecting surface-landed craft. I think a few things could help:
-EVA placement of struts, fuel lines after docking craft together
-Land parts of a base near each other and fulfill base expansion contracts (all controllable parts landed within a range are part of the base)
-Mechanical parts. Joints and extending girders. I want to build a crane. I can technically do it with the Klaw but it would be easier if it had a node instead of the claw.
-
I like career mode a lot, but it could use some work. I think it's showing the right kind of change though. Part upgrades is a really good idea. I also like that contracts build on each other, encouraging you to build bigger bases and stations. Perhaps that could be a bit more structured, guiding you to build logical bases with purposes.
I also have an idea for an endgame. A single extra star system. Basically Proxima Centauri, with maybe 2 or 3 small planets. It would be at a fixed point relative to the Sun, and of a similar distance at Proxima Centauri, but Kerbal scale. Reaching this, in career mode, would either require tech located past the current limit, or just take a lot of timewarping. The advanced tech (EM drive maybe?) would be a hidden node only visible after reaching max reputation and require a ridiculous amount of science, and the part would be crazy expensive too. I think it'd be a cool reward for people who stick with a career for a long time.
-
I wish there was a separate flag for "Decommissioned" ships, so that it kept it's type and icon but can be hidden with debris.
-
This actually makes sense to me. This is likely the next big project, but it's nowhere near ready for all parts, or to be fully implemented. Instead of putting an incomplete feature in the main update, they allow those who are interested to seek it out and play with it early. I think it's a great idea and can't wait for 1.3 (presumably).
-
15 hours ago, Stoney3K said:
Exactly as RIC stated, that's why there are no moving parts in stock.
The Klaw works as a docking port so it can only move a craft relative to another craft. That's also why trying to Klaw your own craft is a bad idea. And all of the other "moving" parts (landing gear, solar arrays, antenae, and so on) are moving, but they are only moving with respect to themselves. They can't have another part attached to their moving bits, for the exact reason mentioned: It would mean a certain part of the craft is moving relative to the rest of it, and this can't be simulated properly in Unity (which expects each craft to be a rigid body with no hinges)
AFAIK, Infernal Robotics uses some kind of hack to make it work, but the most elegant way to implement it would be to have each sub-craft on either side of a moving element act like a "craft" acts now, and make an entire craft consist of a group of these sub-craft. However, that would mean a significant code change.
I thought docking ports merged both vessels into one completely. Wouldn't the Klaw do the same? Ships aren't completely rigid bodies, they bend and flex, and as someone said earlier there are plenty of moving parts already. I guess I'm just suggesting some more general-use construction parts.
-
I'm not sure if the devs have ever made any statements regarding their thoughts on having stock moving parts. I wouldn't want to see any overly complex robotics, but a few basic moving part options would be really great. I'm thinking basic things like joints for trusses and I-beams, as well as telescoping/extending versions of the same. Also, a part that works just like the Klaw, except with an attachment point at the end instead of a claw. I think this could open up a world of building possibilities without too much complexity. What do you think?
-
So, when i'm playing career and I'm sending up a bunch of satellites, my orbital view tends to get pretty cluttered with them. Eventually when a probe has no more life in it i'll just go to Rename Vessel and change it's type to Debris. That works well enough, but it makes it difficult if I ever want to find that probe again.
My suggestion is to add a little checkbox labeled "Decommissioned" under the ship types. Doing this would treat it like debris, but it would retain it's original icon. So you could leave satellites displayed on the map, but only your active ones, and then you could toggle on the decommissioned ones if you want to see them, and it would help you differentiate it from the spent stages and whatnot.
Also please note, I'm sure there's a mod for this somewhere, that's cool, but I'm suggesting this as something for stock. Just had to get that in there before the inevitable "There's a mod for that" first reply.
-
8 hours ago, swjr-swis said:
Is this a clipping thing? The claw's analogy to the wheels 'Gear blocked:yes'?
I don't think so, I've tried it a couple different ways. The first time was a bit complicated, I was trying to recreate a crane I saw online, dropped a fuel tank onto the claw. I could see that causing an issue. But then just to test it I made two very simple rovers, one with a claw. It attached fine, but stayed rigid.
-
So, pretty fresh install, 100% stock, Windows 10 laptop, running 64-bit. I haven't even gotten the AGU in the career game I'm playing, but I loaded up a Sandbox save to mess around, and found that Free Pivot doesn't work on the AGU. When I click "Free Pivot" the button changes to "Lock Pivot" but it still says "Status: Locked" and the pivot doesn't actually work. The joint is completely rigid.
I've tried multiple different ways of testing this. Starting the claw armed or unarmed, switching which vehicle I'm in command of, etc. It just doesn't work. I also completely uninstalled the game (made a copy of my saves!) and installed it fresh, and have the same issue.
So... any ideas? Any help is appreciated, I've got some really fun ideas I need that pivoting joint for!
-
There was talk in dev notes some weeks back that it may be pushed to the next update. Guess that's what happened.
-
Now that I know it requires a highly inclined orbit, i'm fairly okay with it. I mean what's the real practical difference between getting the info right away and time warping through a few orbits?
-
So everyone is talking about how many pieces the fairings split into, but what about the speed at which they fly off? I think the confetti style works with the speed at which they go flying away, but if they went with clamshell, I'd like them to float away quite a bit slower. Also I kinda wish they were fully persistent debris, but that's because I like building up lots of debris.
-
I don't know where this ridiculous trend came from but when you see mind numbing terminology like "kolniya korbits" it makes you loose faith in humanity as your IQ is steadily decreasing.
You know, I actually didn't know until now that Kolniya Orbit wasn't an actual term. I'd seen it in contracts, and assumed that was just what it was called. Didn't know the real term was Molniya, which I just looked up. I'm pretty disappointed, as I was sure there were almost no actual instances in-game of the K-trend.
Anyways, I like ore, and I kinda hope they add other resources at some point. I know it has modding in mind, but the fact that there are built-in buttons for scanning for different types of resources makes me think they might add others. Perhaps "water" as a resource to generate Life Support?
-
I'd keep it ore. It's simple, and doesn't use that obnoxious "everything starts with K" trend that people seem to think SQUAD likes but they never actually use.
Also, it's a real word, like all the other resources in the game. Liquid Fuel, Oxidizer, even Xenon are all real things. We don't have Kydrogen, Koxegyn, or Kenon... Kelectricity...
-
I petition that we change all the units to American units. Convert from feet to miles, pounds to tons, from mile grains to foot pounds
That should be a mod. Just for fun, I think it'd be neat.
-
This is really not a big deal. Games get released all the time from major studios with little funny issues like this. This isn't game breaking, it's not going to corrupt save data or hard lock the system. I work as a tester for a very major game studio with very rigorous testing standards, and every now and then something like this slips by. Either we find it in the last few days of testing and they just say "we'll get it on a post-release patch" so they don't have to move the release date, or it doesn't get found until someone posts a video of it on reddit, and then I get to do the work of actually researching it properly and making sure it's fixed. And you know what, our games still get stellar reviews.
I swear, it's like some people think that if a reviewer happens upon a single quirky little bug in 1.0, SQUAD will get shut down and there'll be no more KSP. Little things get by, and very often releasing on time and doing a patch is a better business decision than changing the date to fix something less than 1 in 100 people will find.
-
OP, your question is bad and you should feel bad. If you are stubborn enough to not use mods to calculate stuff for you, you can as well be stubborn enough to add a x1000 or /1000 into your equation. The reason for not using kg, m, etc. is that it would be dumb to measure a giant rocket in grams, when it weighs 1000t.
also, to the post above me
Energy = force * path, ergo k*k = M, so it's 1MJ, I honestly don't see what's so hard about that, jeez.
Yeah, pretty much this. I mean, what are you asking for exactly? The thrust of an engine to be listed as 250,000 instead of 250? 250 looks nicer on the screen and you can multiply by 1000 yourself, it's really easy.
-
The problem is that the game doesn't know which contract you're going after. So let's say I've got a contract to put a satellite in a 180 degree equatorial orbit, but right now I'm trying to launch a separate probe somewhere else, and I get into a regular orbit. Now I've got some warning saying I'm going the wrong way, when I'm not even trying to do that contract.
-
Before I get to point 3, consider that currently, if I want to know whether I can aerobrake on Eve, or how much dV I need for my descent and then return ascent from Duna, etc, I can look all of this up on a Wiki. But what if certain aspects of astronomical bodies were procedurally generated. What if (within a certain range) the gravity, atmospheric density, and like characteristics varied from game to game (obviously persistent within saves)? There would then be two ways of figuring out answers to the questions I just posed: send a manned mission and cross your fingers, or send an unmanned probe (with the proper scientific instruments) for SCIENCE!
The devs are very much against a procedurally/randomly generated solar system. They want the experience of each player to transfer over to everyone. Launching off of Eve should be the same in every game, etc.
Also, there is already a thread on something very similar: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/114960-Discovery-doing-actual-science
-
What does this have to do with newbies?
For one, it's something you'd notice when you launch your first rocket. You don't need to go anywhere or build anything special to see it, you just need to activate a rocket engine on the launchpad. It's also something most people might expect, seeing how the trench is already there they might expect smoke to flow through it like it does in real life.
-
Ideally I'd hope for more than one cloud though, ya know?
Advanced Colonization
in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
Posted
It's still within the scope of things we can at least technically do. Look at the ambitions of Space X's ITS. Landing on other worlds, doing science, refueling from in situ resources, that's all within the realm of things people are talking about. Building giant glass domes and terraforming are way too far off.
And again, I'm not sure it's really a very sensible plan. Would glass be a good idea? Would we really need giant domes?