Twreed87
-
Posts
208 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Twreed87
-
-
You know, I think you might have asked that before. Are you familiar with Einstein's quote about doing the same thing over and over again? ;-0
The answer is, "Squad aren't telling, testers signed a non-disclosure agreement so can't tell, the rest of us don't know".
Actually... they basically said that there'll just be Tier 2 and Tier 3 (current) in 0.90, with Teir 1 being the only thing pushed back. So the answer is "Yes."
-
It should be "keta" instead of "beta", because kerbals like to name things with K XD
No, they don't. There's not a single thing in the game that is a regular word with the first letter replaced with K.
-
- Automatic stage recovery, if it has enough parachutes and enters at less then X m/s.
I think the best way to handle this would allow any part with a parachute to be exempt from being deleted past a certain distance. So, you drop your SRBs, if they have a parachute they wont disappear when they're 2.5km away.
-
Can I still play Science mode without research but with contracts?
I think it's funny that everyone wants a different game type with different featured turned off and on. Science/no contracts, Contracts/no science, science and contracts/no xp, no contracts, science or xp, but keep reputation!
They should probably just get rid of Science mode, and add it as a toggle for Career when choosing difficulty.
-
Awesome! I like the idea of this pilot thing!
EDIT: Oh, and what do you mean by "old SAS?" Does this mean the Kerbals can perform the function of the pre-.21 SAS or will SAS require Kerbals now?
I think what it means is that by default, they have the ability of current SAS. That is, they can keep the ship heading in the direction it currently is. Then you unlock new features, like the ability to stay pointed prograde, or towards the target, etc. A probe core and a lvl 0 Kerbal pilot would behave exactly as they currently do.
-
Love the new pilot skills concept. Honestly, it's pretty amazing. You guys posted your original idea, it wasn't well received, you took the criticism and came back with something really awesome.
-
I think the only time we'll have a use for them is when aerodynamics are fixed, and asparagus staging is just no longer viable (if that'll even happen, I don't use FAR, maybe asparagus still works).
-
Why do people think KSP is Mortal Kombat? Nothing in this game has ever had the letter k randomly thrown onto the beginning, and yet people always suggest it. "Let's have the new planets be called Kars! And Kupiter! Katurn!!!" ugh...
-
If .90 comes out, and it has Mk3 parts, but no Mk3 cargo bays, I'm still gonna build Mk3 spaceplanes and fly them around and crash them. I'd hate for them to delay the entire Mk3 set just because some people think their only use is to lift cargo. Don't deny me my ability to build passenger airliners because you lack imagination.
-
I honestly don't even know why, but I hate clipping. It's weird, I have this unexplainable aversion to it. When I'm messing around, I'll sometimes turn on infinite fuel, or I'll mess with parts and give them crazy stats, but I pretty much never, ever part clip. Maybe it's because I don't like the way it looks?
Or maybe it's because I feel the real challenge in this game is in building and designing, and working with the restrictions you have. It's like playing with Lego's, you can put all sorts of pieces together, but you have to make them fit, and you can't put some Lego's inside of other Lego's!
In conclusion, part clipping is an abomination and you're all heathens who shall be burned at the stake!
-
Perhaps an odd question, but what's the most efficient way to make a ship just blow up, without crashing it into something else?
For example, lets say I wanna build a fairly standard looking launch vehicle, but I want it to blow into a million pieces on the launch pad. Or perhaps I want to put a ship into orbit, then blow it up there. Essentially, I'm looking for a self-destruct button I can tie to an action key.
I should mention that I'm referring to stock, and would definitely like an answer to that, but I'm also curious if there's a mod that adds something like that. A bomb that just blows up when triggered. That'd be pretty cool.
-
And that's kinda where the crux of the argument is here. People who are okay with the idea of the Kerbals being the ones piloting don't really seem to mind the fact that they get better at steering and overall become more efficient pilots. People who see themselves as the pilot don't like the idea of getting extra bonuses when they are already performing at what they consider to be peak capacity.
See, I don't really get this. However you choose to roleplay it, functionally what's happening is that you are controlling the ship. You can phrase it as "you control Jeb, who controls the ship" or "Jeb sits and watches while you control the ship" but either way it's your input alone that determines what it does.
I just really, really don't think experience should play a role in anything relating to engine efficiency. Basically, if deltaV calculations are involved, I don't want pilots affecting it. Let them influence science and reputation, or perhaps give the player more precise control by taking over from the SAS or something.
-
You have just enough fuel to fly back to 71km with the pilot you have because, god bless him, as hard as they try, they just can't steer well enough to burn efficiently. But if you put Jeb in the seat, he can keep on a straight line better and can now stretch that fuel farther.
Uggghhhhh..... but he IS steering well enough! I'm the one steering!!! I'm already on a perfectly straight line, and I can tell because my Navball says so. You have to either be talking about the game taking over and doing things I'm not doing, or the results not matching up with what's shown on screen. As in, my ship is wobbling all over the place, but I get the deltaV as if it wasn't.
-
What I find silly here is the idea that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have kerbals to perform more or less efficiently without it violating physics.
Here's why it violates physics:
Imagine you're on a return trip from the Mun, and you realize you aren't quite sure you have enough fuel to get home. You do your calculations, and you realize the best you can possibly do is lower your Kerbin periapsis to 71km. That's it, you're stuck. There simply isn't enough fuel in your tank, and your engines aren't efficient enough to change your velocity in a way that will allow you to intersect Kerbin's atmosphere. Now, tell me, how would a better pilot change that?
Or better yet, imagine you're in a stable, circular orbit around Kerbin, and you want to escape with as much velocity as possible. That's it. Point prograde, fire engines at max, reach the highest speed you can. Well, the rocket equation is pretty fixed. Your max speed is a direct result of the amount of fuel you have, the weight of your craft, and the ISP of your engines. There's no room for a pilot to change anything. Physics violated.
-
Kerbals not listening to command inputs from the player amounts to random failures, lets be honest.
Exactly, which makes this exp idea random successes, which is just as bad.
-
Yes, but "Jeb leveled up so your RCS container suddenly holds 50 more units" is silly. However, Jeb leveled up and is now more experienced at piloting and wastes less RCS is not. Perhaps it is the same functionally. Which is why I say it depends how they implement it. If they implement it in a "your kerbal now can pilot better" sense, I have no problem with it because it's something that, to me anyway, is entirely sensible.
But here's the thing, the amount of RCS that is used is entirely dependent on the player. Jeb does exactly what you tell him to do. He thrusts exactly as long as you tell him to thrust at the exact same time. When you play the game, you ARE Jeb, and your keyboard is the flight controller. If Jeb is doing something differently than what I tell him, that needs to be shown in the game. I need to see that Jeb didn't accidentally rotate when he meant to translate like I did, or that he didn't overshoot the rendezvous event though I left the throttle up too long.
Besides, what if you pilot it perfectly? What if you use MechJeb. If the rendezvous went perfectly, how could Jeb have made it better?
-
I certainly did not read it as "you suddenly have more RCS" unless you mean using RCS more efficiently is suddenly physically more RCS fuel.
How exactly would it use RCS more effieciently? If the player is inputting the same controls to release the same amount of RCS in the same direction, the end result should be the exact same. How would a good pilot get more thrust out of the same amount of mass ejected at the same velocity?
-
This comparison to Skyrim that keeps popping up is sorta nonsense. Skyrim has you press a single button to attack, and the characters stats affect whether it hits or misses, and how much damage it does. That's not like KSP. In KSP, you control everything! If you use too much fuel on descent, it's because you kept the throttle up too high, or plotted a bad trajectory. These are things that you actually, phsyically did. It makes zero sense for the game to undo those mistakes because of the pilot you chose. In Skyrim, if your character misses, it isn't because you swung too early or aimed too high.
-
I find it really hard to believe that they're actually considering something like "Jeb leveled up, all ships he's on will now gain a 5% ISP boost." That just makes no sense, and the reaction to it shows that it's not something people want.
Look at the new administration building, for example. Every strategy there has some sort of explanation for why it does what it does. You don't just magically transform money into science, there's an explanation for why that happens. The same needs to happen with Kerbal experience. There needs to be some at least semi-plausible explanation for why that Kerbal is able to achieve something. A better scientist can get more Science out of an experiment, okay that makes sense. Perhaps an electrician can optimize use of electricity and make that last longer, that's not too far out there. But how would a Kerbal increase the thrust of an engine from the cockpit? That just doesn't work for me.
Plus, as people have mentioned, you want crafts to work universally. A lot of ships are designed very deliberately, with precise calculations in thrust and ISP. Having those be thrown off by having a different pilot would just muck everything up.
-
I'm hoping these updates to the VAB mean that I can move parts by small degrees using keys instead of the mouse, so that I can place something in just the right spot without worrying about the mouse slipping a tiny bit and placing it a fraction of a hair off (or sometimes way, way off). Especially when it comes to things like structural panels, and if you place it in just the right spot, it'll put the two panels side-by-side, lined up, but if you move it just the tiniest bit, it rotates some crazy angle and clips through the other. I've rage-quit so many designs because of stuff like that.
-
Which of those five points are you reading as "you can get banned for criticizing the development team"? There's a difference between reasonable debate and constructive criticism, and outright trolling. I see plenty of criticism on these boards that hasn't gone anywhere. Sorry you can't make posts that are just stupid meme images of Michael Jackson eating popcorn or whatever.
-
--Jet Engine Fuselages hold the interior components for each type of Jet Engine. This means different fuselages for the RAPIER, the Basic Jet Engine, and the TurboJet Engine.
--What previously functioned as the engine itself is now a nozzle. Each nozzle has different functions. Basic Jet Nozzle has minimal thrust vectoring, and an afterburner. Vectored Jet Nozzle has no afterburner, but more thrust vectoring capabilities, as well as higher efficiency in the upper atmosphere. The RAPIER Quad-Nozzle can function as a cruddy rocket engine on it's own, but when added to the RAPIER fuselage it functions as a dual-purpose engine.
-All liquid-fueled engines have been redesigned to remove "tankbutts." (The mounting points which include the end of the fuel tanks)
.
Not sure I understand the point of these. Otherwise some decent ideas that seem like far too big of an overhaul and almost certainly wont happen. Here's hoping for KSP 2!
-
Updating the editor is by far the thing I'm most excited about. Can't tell you how many times I've wanted to pull my hair out because a part wouldn't fit just the way I wanted to. Being able to turn off surface attachment alleviated one teeny tiny source of rage, but there's still so much to be done. Like when you're trying to place a part, and it keeps putting the part way off in the background. There's no way to move the part 3-dimensionally. Sounds like that's what you mean by adding translation, and I'm super excited. I also love the idea of being able to switch from radial to mirror symmetry on the fly. It's gonna make building something like the Dream Chaser much easier (build the plane with mirror symmetry, flip it, build the rocket below with radial).
-
I really want cargo trunks for regular rockets. They don't even need any sort of opening doors, I just want hollow cylinders to put stuff in, instead of sticking batteries and mystery goo to the side.
Squadcast Summary (Updated 2014-12-13 - the 0.90 features video edition!)
in KSP1 Discussion
Posted
This is incorrect. The parts in the VAB known as "SAS" will still exist, and they'll exist exactly the same. All those parts have done since the past few updates is provide torque. They're reaction wheels. SAS is a misnomer for those parts.