Levelord
-
Posts
976 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by Levelord
-
-
You could try a ring that attached to the top of a space plane which makes things easier. This was mine in 0.9. The idea should still work, minus the VTOL capabilities.
-
I use both.
-
Currently we only have heat shields that come in 3 sizes for the 3 main fuel tank sizes. However it's not possible to make any larger (or smaller) heat shields like the ones you see in the movie Sunshine with the ship Icarus.
The current heat shield sizes also assumes that the ship attached behind it is in a linear configuration and doesn't leave a lot of design options to make the ship more controllable by moving components in a flat configuration and thus shifting the CoM.
Thus I propose having procedural heat shields added to the game. I have several points on why this is a good thing:
1. Stock procedural fairings are a positive proof of concept where you can procedurally cover portions of a craft to protect it from heat and aero forces. The same can be applied to heat shields.
2. Having procedural heat shields allow for more diverse ship designs and to allow for landers to have encompassing heat shields. Small probes will have heat shields that match their size too.
3. Procedural heat shields reduce the part count. There will be no need to spam heat shielding on the bottom of crafts to cover every protruding part. You could have, only a single large heat shield to cover it all. (This of course increases the weight the larger the shield is).
4. It is aesthetically pleasing on craft, even when not used for heat shielding, they can be regarded as meteor shields. It's nice to look at
What does the community think of this? Yay or nay for procedural heat shields?
-
As much as I am one of SQUAD's greatest critic when it comes to updates, I am willing to pay for (this supposedly free) DLC to support them. I never agreed with the community bullying SQUAD into providing free DLCs those years ago when it was a hot topic.
Sadly there isn't an option to donate?
-
I think that after going into the full version of the game, ie 1.0, save breaking and changing how craft perform in and out of atmosphere shouldn't be taking place. I'd be okay with this if this was KSP 0.91.4, but it's frustrating having to relearn how crafts work every other update. At this point I'm wondering if there's any point to even playing, since 1.05 may break them again..
Please Squad just pick an aerodynamic and heating model and stick with it, constant changes to it are off putting.
I've been saying this for the better part of this year, but unfortunately the KSP fanbase thinks that asking for SQUAD to make a decision and commit to it instead of being inconsistent and changing the core physics of the game on a whim, as an irrational request. So I'm just sitting on my ass at the moment watching what changes, because as far as I'm concerned I'm simply wasting my time playing this game when my progress is always being reset to zero and my knowledge accumulated from the fan-touted 'more realistic' physics rendered obsolete because the fabric of reality keeps changing.
I'm not even asking SQUAD to not change the game or improve it. I just want them to be consistent and have a clear goal and commit to it instead of having a see saw of increasing drag/lowering drag/increasing lift/lowering lift like a clueless schizophrenic.
I'll quote an older post I made in another thread which sums up my position:
13th June 2015, 10:24
I was prepared for the expected changes from 0.9 to 1.0 which introduced a myriad of things such as re-entry heating in addition to the aerodynamics. As expected I had my entire 0.9 fleet obsolete and had to re-design them (they weren't air hogging or aerodynamically draggy) due to the changes to engine ISP, engine weight changes, reduce wing count, and to account for the fact that tubular tanks now contribute to lift. I also changed my ascent profile accordingly to a steep one to avoid overheating.Come 1.01, 1.02, SQUAD changed the aerodynamics again with new drag values and re-entry heat. My ships had to go through another round of re-designs from scratch (to remove further wings) and my ascent profile had to change to a radically different one with a shallower climb. While you may regard as the aero changes as small, they do impart very large changes to ship design and ascent profiles. I'm mainly a SSTO builder so these changes are very noticeable in crafts that operate within very narrow margins.
Knowing that the aerodynamics is still incomplete and not in it's final form, I have heard that 1.03 may have yet another aero tweak again. If not in 1.03 it's a definite certainty that the aero will still change somewhere down the line later, and that always means that I will have to put my career mode on hold halfway to fiddle around in sandbox mode trying to get things to work from the drawing board again.
I know it's not addressed to me, but I think you might underestimate how much time some players like myself spend trying to master the new aerodynamics only to realize that this becomes pointless in an aero model that is still subject to changes every few months.
-
Two completely different companies and platforms. I've never worked with GoG to know how they do it, but I did have the opportunity to release on Steam. The system on steam for patches is autonomous. Once you submit, at any time of day, it is processed and available for download automatically.
GoG might have a system that requires human oversight before a patch is released for download, thus it requires additional time to become available.
If you've ever worked with Apple, for instance, you would know what I'm talking about. Any release goes through their QA, which can take hours, a day, or even a week depending on how bogged down they are.
With GoG's commitment to quality and their new refund policy, I imagine they have at least a little bit of manual QA involved in the process.
and how exactly does GOG supposedly quality test a KSP patch?
-
I use Photoshop...
-
Well its not like we're getting updates every couple of hours you know' date=' and regardless, the only thing thats changed for me through the 1.0 updates are my ascent profiles. Just because the aerodynamics change doesn't mean the rockets do. A well designed rocket will fly in the old aero just as well as in the new aero, and be more efficient at that.
Simple fact of the matter is, no matter what Squad does with the aero (Short of throwing some bizzare new atmosphere at us that breaks everything no matter how well designed it is), all it will ever take to fly a proper rocket is what I laid out in my big post up there. Doesn't matter if we're talking old aero or new or in FAR. Flying that way is just plain efficient and safe.
While I can understand the frustration that come with new aerodynamics, I don't believe that too many people are really putting effort into learning how to fly.[/quote']
I was prepared for the expected changes from 0.9 to 1.0 which introduced a myriad of things such as re-entry heating in addition to the aerodynamics. As expected I had my entire 0.9 fleet obsolete and had to re-design them (they weren't air hogging or aerodynamically draggy) due to the changes to engine ISP, engine weight changes, reduce wing count, and to account for the fact that tubular tanks now contribute to lift. I also changed my ascent profile accordingly to a steep one to avoid overheating.
Come 1.01, 1.02, SQUAD changed the aerodynamics again with new drag values and re-entry heat. My ships had to go through another round of re-designs from scratch (to remove further wings) and my ascent profile had to change to a radically different one with a shallower climb. While you may regard as the aero changes as small, they do impart very large changes to ship design and ascent profiles. I'm mainly a SSTO builder so these changes are very noticeable in crafts that operate within very narrow margins.
Knowing that the aerodynamics is still incomplete and not in it's final form, I have heard that 1.03 may have yet another aero tweak again. If not in 1.03 it's a definite certainty that the aero will still change somewhere down the line later, and that always means that I will have to put my career mode on hold halfway to fiddle around in sandbox mode trying to get things to work from the drawing board again.
I know it's not addressed to me, but I think you might underestimate how much time some players like myself spend trying to master the new aerodynamics only to realize that this becomes pointless in an aero model that is still subject to changes every few months.
-
-snip-
I appreciate the post, but with SQUAD changing the nature of the aerodynamics almost every update, the biggest problem players face (at least for me) is trying to master a certain type of aerodynamics, only to have it invalidated and entire ship designs obsolete next patch. I can deal with realism, but I can't deal with the nature of reality changing on a whim. This is why I've stopped playing for the moment until SQUAD has come to a permanent decision on what it wants it's aerodynamics to be, otherwise I'm just wasting my time learning and trying to master the game.
-
If they are changing the aerodynamics yet again I'm going to be so annoyed and disappointed. :I
-
I had some serious yaw issues with Spaceplanes. They suddenly started to yaw to the right for no obvious reason. Torque?
For that specific problem I've figured out the reason why. It's due to the intakes being placed using symmetry mode. For some odd reason it causes the mirrored part to take in less air than the root part, which in turn also causes unequal drag and engine thrust. I've solved it by changing how I design planed by first for example, placing an intake on the left side, followed by a jet engine. Then later on place an intake on the right side, followed by a jet engine.
-
In b4 elitists start telling everyone that this method is 'unrealistic', overpowered and should be nerfed despite the fact that the space shuttle does this anyway.
-
The only thing that's garbage is the poll itself. Seriously... only 2 options and they are extremes of each other.
-
I hope to improve its efficiency later on by adding precoolers...
-
Well then your in the minority since asparagus staging for the most part is aerodynamically unstable in most configurations and therefore can't turn whatsoever until you reach 35km (above the majority of the atmo) because it wants to flip...
Well... Then maybe you should try harder.
-
Even though I started playing KSP since 0.17/0.18, I have some archived versions of KSP versions 0.21, 0.22, 0.23, 0.24(x64, x32), 0.25(x64, x32), 1.0 and 1.02.
-
I have some ongoing research threads dedicated to optimizing SSTO designs with the help of the KSP community. Recently I have managed to build a SSTM (Single Stage To Mun) capable craft based on the accumulated knowledge. I hope they may be a useful resource for you:
-
This happened to me too, but in a different game...
-
I don't know about you guys, but it's just celery for me. I'm addicted to the taste and have a ton of them in my fridge. Sometimes I go through an entire bundle in a sitting.
-
Part of the problem comes from using a mouse + keyboard compared to using a joystick. The limitations of using a keyboard is that KSP only recognizes binary inputs from it. A key press is either 100% in that direction or 0%, which predictably causes a rocket to over-steer and flip itself. This is partially solved by toggling fine control (caps lock) on and off, though if you'd prefer more immersion you could invest in a joystick.
-
In my tests, a Tail Connector A performed a bit better than a Shock Cone.
Apoapsis: 96 km vs 90 km.
Top speed: 1150 m/s vs 1040 m/s.
http://i.imgur.com/mn5or8o.png
http://i.imgur.com/Ee3kafi.png
Fascinating. Perhaps I didn't let my rockets high enough to see if the tail connector would catch up again.
-
Check out the confidence with which I can approach the cliff edge! Wouldn't have dared this before brakes were invented.
You only seem daring, but it's because you have rockets to bail you out if anything went wrong.
-
Dang what kind of windows 3.1 computer are you viewing the forums on? Your answer was in post #23, that's not even half way down the first page for those of us who have set our forums settings correctly
Glad you figured it out though, now go change your forums settings to show 50 replies per page
*Shrug* I'm using the forum's default settings on the number of posts to show per page...
- - - Updated - - -
...?!?!?!?Ok, I tried the following:
create two rockets
- same weight (science jr. with no drag vs. 4x struts with drag)
as expected, the science jr. rose more swiftly and higher and better and more beatifully... you get the picture.
now i tried hiding the struts ander different more or less aerodynamically shaped parts.
the strange things happened with "Small Hard Point"
i attached four Small Hard Points to each rocket, so the weight and aerodynamic properties should only differ for the four struts on the one.
the struts were going out from under the hard points.
SUCCESS! i thought, when the strutted rocket actually launched faster(!!!) than the one with the science jr. ballast.
but then - within a few hundred meters - the science jr. caught up and overtook the strutted rocket.
... indeed...
anyone any idea???
setup
http://www11.pic-upload.de/28.05.15/lzw2a9nlff32.jpg
struts under the hard point
http://www11.pic-upload.de/28.05.15/wtnrb3ah6pay.jpg
start, RCS on, full throttle
http://www11.pic-upload.de/28.05.15/b1aixow5fpi.jpg
SUCCESS!.... i thought
http://www11.pic-upload.de/28.05.15/xewjvpwbmko.jpg
but then it changed.
http://www11.pic-upload.de/28.05.15/eqql5ryfcxbq.jpg
thoroughly clueless and out of time... if anyone has any idea, enlighten us!
I believe at lower speeds where drag is less of an issue, the lighter craft travels faster.
When you get closer and over the sound barrier, the drag becomes significant enough to overcome the weight advantage and slows you down more than a craft that has less drag. This is why I now optimize my craft for drag, it might change again in 1.0.3 though... *groan*
-
I made a mock up of the Ranger by eyeballing the design (awesome aesthetic design btw), and managed to get it to a 71km apoapsis with almost 500m/s dV. The modifications help, but it may also be ascent profile differences that needs to be taken into consideration too. I did a flat 25 degree pitch the whole way to orbit. (It had a very high TwR)
I've also tried Rune's suggestion of adding shock cones as the spike instead. Had some extra dV, but it might be due to variations in my ascent profile and the fact that it reached an Ap of 75km instead of the usual 70km.
1.02 SSTO Fallacy?
in KSP1 Discussion
Posted
If you are interested I have an old 1.02 SSTM (Single Stage To Mun) vehicle using 2 RAPIERs and a NERVA.
http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/122688-Something-doesn-t-seem-right-here/page2