PDCWolf

Prince Of Persia on MS-DOS when I was 2 years old (1995), some time later I rented it for my Sega Genesis. I still haven't fully completed it.

Atmospheric flight simulation is already there. There's "modular spacecraft building" planed too. The fact that KSP is pretty much stalled into simplistic things because of the subpar target audience, dev's lack of experience or just bad choices doesn't mean every game works the same.

The shuttle was a good idea (Idea as in "a reusable vehicle to get people and payloads to orbit" not as the final shuttle design) but they managed to put it in practice by lying about capabilities and making false promises, pretty much like you average indie dev.

Not sure if already posted but double clicking the mouse-wheel will reset the camera offset (not the zoom/orbit) when in flight. KSP doesn't simulate chamber pressure, that means you don't lose efficiency when throttling down so good throttle control can make you save loads of deltaV (This is exploiting/cheating for me but may be just what you need). With correct throttle control and good piloting you can get to Low Kerbin Orbit with only 4200m/s. And no, Mechjeb just lacks the amount of human thinking that's necessary for this to work. You don't need to clip the camera inside tanks to stich-strut them, just move the mouse carefully around their top, you'll see the strut disappearing between the tanks and then click, then just click the tank above and that's it. For replica builders: You don't need to use every tank you add. For realistic results/payload fractions/mechanics you can place tanks but reroute/disable them so that they are dead weight. This is even better now with tweakables, as you can just add empty tanks for height simulation. Always do the orbit insertion burn at the periapsis, because at that exact point you are no longer fighting gravity, you are just moving laterally. The most efficient TWR at lift-off is about 1.57. Launching at that TWR means you won't go past the terminal velocity unless you are ditching a lot of weight by staging causing your TWR to jump up.

There was a mention of NTRs no longer using oxidiser, but that's all I know about, And it was related to both tweakables and resources, although dependent only on the first one.

My bad for explaining myself wrong. The concept I'm trying to do is kind of advanced, I'll modify the op in a second. Should have pointed out that I'm aiming for near/possible tech practices and not for "right now" stuff. Let's say I can harvest individual minerals or proteins or whatever and synthesize them into edible food, would it be possible? I mean, not possible because if the tech exists or is invented then it is possible, but would it be useful and sustainable on the long term? what would be it scale for say 150 people? Would I need a huge processor/extractor/synthesizer for that?

What does GMO-Plankton means? Also, harvest-requiring resources (Algae) and/or greenhouses aren't allowed either. So yeah, I'm pretty much trying to see if it's possible to live from the water or any geological resource (Like the fumaroles I mentioned)

generate food on an underwater base? Some rules to follow: •Technology like synthesizers, extractors, and any other stuff that is "not magic" and that you can explain or imagine how it would work is allowed. (Say, I can't eat rocks, but maybe I can get some basic matter out of it that I can then transform into food). •No consumption of alive organisms (algae, plankton, fish, etc) unless they can be cultivated and end up being sustainable as resource. •No food shipping from the surface. So yeah, only ourselves, technology, water and the seabed. I though underwater fumaroles would create streams of "stuff" coming upwards and that you could capture and purify said smoke stream and then synthesize what you get into edible (Even if not tasty) food. Then I realized no "stuff" comes up with the smoke the fumaroles produce.

You are free to believe or not. Time will tell, for I speak no lies. My view is that for the tracker to be useful everybody should use it. Some people don't even know it exists in the first place. Views are views and again, time will tell. A large amount of the people who start out playing this game mainy does it for fun and the explosions and then later move on to make more serious ships and learning the physics behind it. If we take away this part then these people might not get to the point where they realize that space and the more serious simulator aspect of it is fun as well.

Would you put "ocean lag" in the tracker after squad mentioned it? Maybe you would if they said they fixed it and it is still there. Its pretty much like resources and anything pre-skunky-being-fired. No evidence exists anymore. You'll have to trust me on this one, like with resources and squad saying multiplayer was not coming which everyone but the fanboys can confirm. Everything that remains is nova's/bac9/any other ex-dev's word and user memories.

Nope, squad said it is a bug. Not a feature, not realistic, not intuitive, not a good mechanic, not a challenge, just a bug that must be dealt with.

Since the last demo we got this feature called "ocean lag" implemented. We also got "performance fixes" and "Better scene distribution to avoid reloading everything when you change the scene (like from vab to space center or space center to flight)". I used the quotation marks because you, a 0.23 user can see those "improvements" over a 0.18 user.

Too low TWR, too little torque to bend. By the time the twr is good (for normal rockets) you are not fighting any force. Well, given this is an abstraction it is correct to assume that 5 tanks together form a bigger one (I'm talking about internal tank structure) than just act like 5 different tanks. Wobble is still a problem and a bug, even if avoidable. Procedural everything kills the challenge in creating replicas, at least for me. Thank you for calling me an elitist just for liking a bit more challenge than you. But wobble is still there and it's going to show sooner or later. I get procedural everything, and wobble is still unsolved so the next guy is going to come on the forum and complain about it. Do you plan on telling everybody to use a mod to overcome a bug or is it better to have squad finally fix it? Even if there are workarounds (sacrificing the aesthetics) wobble is still a problem and is going to show up eventually.

My bad then.

Bullet physics wouldn't quite work for KSP, it would be great for calculations about penetrating stuff though. Hating anything? not really. I want to get the best possible outcome, even if I agreed to the post 0.18 EULA. I may sound aggressive though, sometimes deliberately, most of the time is just because I don't know a better way of wording something. This. The only limits are unity limits (Floating point calculations, Max physic-able space, etc). And following the game I've seen a lot of "unity limitations" being circumvented or simply proved fake thanks to the modding community and sometimes even the devs themselves. I also prefer a full improvement over a patch, but I doubt squad would put the work needed into that at this point. About mods, that's personal taste. I prefer strutting over mod-fixing because I like to share my designs (not on the forums, but directly to my friends) and they play mostly stock, so using mods would put a barrier on that. I also work hard to keep them away from mechjeb, at least until they can do everything in the game without it. Like our community manager said "It would stunt growth or something". My opinion on mechjeb (hate aside) would require a totally different thread and those always end on a flame-war and I'm always late.

But there are vissible effects in space, the most beautiful being exhaust over-expansion. That combined with heat disturbance would be great, also, don't forget the emmisives. Srb trails are ok, but they create ground effect (the dispersion as if smoke was colliding with the ground) even when in flight. I also know FX are not a priority. You don't need to kill the cartoonyness nor do you need a supercomputer to run volumetric effects. There's a difference between being patient when you know stuff is coming (Space engine for example) that being patient for 3 months for half-youknow features and poorly implemented "fixes"

I would do so if i were asking for stupid stuff like aliens and weapons but I'm asking for a reasonable thing that already should be in the game and was also promised.

Very well polished at the expense of really long update times that include little to no content. A lot of people agree the last good update was 0.18. And yes, it is an alpha, that's why they should be fixing such predominant bugs and focusing on new content instead of trying to keep save compatibility and getting polished "nothing" out. The engine FX don't -need- a revamp because "they work" but they are far from being good. They are pretty much abusing the particle system into creating convincing effects instead of creating proper systems like sprites and volumetric fx, that's why we get silly stuff like srb "ground effect" in mid-air or why we have such a crappy smoke system instead of a much better looking volumetric alternative. This also includes the non-existent in-vacuum effects. There's no atmospheric dynamics for the effects (they remain constant), there's no supersonic propellant effects like shock diamonds, there's no heat disturbance or anything for that matter, just ugly particles coming out of an exhaust.

Because they said so at least 2 years from now, I think it's reasonable to complain about a bug that has been there since the beginnings of the game, like people asking for new engine FX.

Squad said wobble is a bug, and also said the descriptions and the junkyard pieces thing is a placeholder. The fact that they are not holding to that because it generates more sales from people who want a disaster simulator that makes them feel right for not being able to reach orbit is totally different. Their attitude against the game changed from a "Orbiter introductory simulator" to a "Glorified disaster simulation". There's a difference between user mistake (making bad rockets) and crap physics (Wobble, aerodynamics). Wobble is not a challenge at all, strutting rocket isn't either, they both should disappear, at least for sane structures. Everything being strong and working as expected would be far better than a user designing a rocket and finding out it works like a spaghetti. You are just exagerating things a lot on that particular paragraph, nobody talked about things being super strong, just tanks and stack elements having stronger joints to avoid wobble. You somehow think making connections stronger will allow everything to reach orbit, when you forget you need some practice and/or on-screen information and a minimal idea of how orbital mechanics work. I like how you assume everyone complaining about wobble does everything wrong when the ones complaining make some of the best designs available, at least when relating to reality and or simply looking and working like a rocket. Believe me when I say you are totally wrong on this one, you are not the only one that designs good rockets. People complaining here are the authors of some beautiful machines and they know how to pilot them too. Again, pure assumptions. There's a break point from designing something that looks and works appropriately and when you take it to the pad and it turns out it spaghettifies because of a bug. Hell, you guys don't even have an argument for wobble, all you do is say "your design is bad" which has been proven wrong multiple times or you point to "It's part of the game" which even squad said it isn't. Going beyond that is just blind fanatism and clinging to a game-breaking bug because some people told you it was a feature.

And I can come and say the defenders that come here fall into two categories: A: People that defend wobble using "kerbals are orks" concept and SO KERBAL XD jokes B: People that think they are superior because they overcame the challenge of strutting (Wow, such a challenge, putting things between tanks and radially) And that there's no sympathy for any of those 2 groups from me because both hurt the game. I also love how building rockets that look like rockets is wrong and rockets that don't look like them is also wrong. What is the correct design to avoid wobble? smashing your stuff on the ground?

Main difference is that his plane was a bad design. Wobble is a bug that appears on even the most sane of designs.

I like how you guys change the argument to point to "bad designs" when even the most reasonable of them would wobble without struts. Look at that one. It's even a replica of a real rocket (tronador 2). The 2.5m tanks would wobble like crazy and the same goes for the top stack joined by the adapter. My Dnepr-1, which is also a replica, needs strutting between all it's tanks. and the ASAS. Now tell me how are those designs insane or unrealistic or whatever the hell you want.

The only difference between how docking ports connect and how parts connect is that the docking ports overcome the really badly planned tree hierarchy and their connections are created dynamically, something that wouldn't be too difficult to translate into the editor scene with tanks attached via multiple nodes. Or you can just use a stronger single joint like KJR does. As per internal structure, one assumes tanks and whatever the hell they are connected to are joined by correct procedures like welding, screws, or that multiple tanks just create a bigger one instead of thinking that they are joined by weak spaghetti magic. Wobble is a bug, not a feature. On top of that (And implying it is not a bug) it's a non-intuitive mechanic that you come to realize when it's already too late. Once again iit's-not-a-feature, it's a bug that must be squashed.

More stats, use for those stats and a flight/training/space hours indicator would be good.