Jump to content

Temeter

Members
  • Posts

    2,625
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Temeter

  1. Neat! Was already switching up ai stuff back to Wiplash', the high t/w and limited control seems to be easier on the AI.
  2. Tried it, but it's more like they completely ignore their current situation. E.g. flying 50m/s, panther engines, and trying to pull upwards. Which ofc results in falling like a stone.
  3. Having a blast getting back to BDA and blowing stuff up, especially with those new lightning style cockpits! Thanks for continuing to deliver superfun stuff (without even asking for money), Baha. Can't wait to put those turrets onto my Carriers... On a sidenote, is there some incompatability with the current BDA Mod and KSP 1.5? Basic functionality works just finde, but the AI pilots are currently kinda weird for me. They constantly stall their plane and just seem to ignore their current velocity and vector while trying the most crazy maneuvers. All using no affecting mods (aside adjustable wheels), basically stock planes that work fine otherwise (one even copied from your MK22 preview!).
  4. Here you'll find those wonderful works of art: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/126333-105-bdynamics-mk22-cockpits-v10/
  5. [quote name='*Aqua*']All games with PhysX with enabled GPU acceleration calculate their physics using the GPU. The first game which allows that is Mirror's Edge. KSP uses PhysX too but GPU acceleration for it isn't enabled. The current Tomb Raider allows hair 'physics' to be calculated on AMD GPUs.[/QUOTE] Afaik games like mirrors edge only calculate some extra effects on the graphics card, everything else goes over the CPU. Which is little more than a PR move.
  6. [quote name='Kobymaru']I did a Moho trip WAAYYY back in the day, in 0.23. Don't remember it to be that hard, and my ship looks kinda tiny compared to what you folks have built :/ [url]http://imgur.com/a/kpg92[/url] And that with a single Nuke. What a pain in the ass the burns were... Was I cheating? I truly don't know anymore. Though I'd have to add that there was no overheating of the Nukes if you attached them to the right parts. And for the return, Kerbins atmosphere was soft and soupy and cool, so you just dipped as low as you had to to stop the craft.[/QUOTE] Mine was similar, just a few more nukes and tanks in asparagus staging. One FT(?)800 tanks and 6 more around it. Worked perfectly at my first try, and that was without correct transfer or mechjeb/KER. Not sure what's so hard about Moho^^'
  7. [quote name='Majorjim']It will! The plugin they used has physics akin to a driving sim. It's going to be so much fun! I just hope it does not effect bearings.[/QUOTE] Yeah, just basic functionality can be incredibly versatile in a game like KSP if well implemente, just look at the silly things people do with the new water upgrade! Can't wait for the wheels, who knows, maybe my aircraft carriers gonna go amphibian...
  8. [quote name='parameciumkid']Uhhh, guys? Did we all forget about the LV-N? I mean sure the aerospike is much improved, but it's still got nothing on that 800 vacuum Isp. Low TWR hardly matters when the efficiency is that high, unless we're specifically talking about landers. I guess you could say "best 1.25m lifter engine" or "...chemical engine" maybe, but in general the LV-N is still way ahead of the pack.[/QUOTE] True, didn't even think about the good old nuke. To me that thing is a category of its own.^^
  9. [quote name='JebKerboom']The new structural hardpoints work quite like engine pylons.[/QUOTE] Good point. I kinda like the 1.0.4 better by itself*, but I guess the new hardpoints** really do the same job. *i mean, what else are you even gonna use the part for, its a fueled inline intake without the intake model? **which are distilled awesomeness (especially cause toggle)
  10. [quote name='EladDv']Do we really need a PSA thread for every minor thing? "PSA don't crash into the ground at 457 m/s" "PSA put fuel in you rockets" "PSA right click opens a ui element" come on.[/QUOTE] PSA I like PSA's.
  11. [quote name='NuclearNut']The only thing that changed was the model and the fact that it can now be used with fairings. It is a good chemical engine, but weighs a ton and does not vect- uh.. gimbal.[/QUOTE] Nah, it's actually the lightest 1.25m engine in terms of thrust-to-weight if my calculations aren't completely off. That's the one thing that surprised me.
  12. Yeah, it's really a horrible experience playing a game that gets constantly improved and expanded. Couldn't they have stopped updating at 0.18 or so?
  13. This would be so utterly amazing to have squad pls implement k thx bai edit: As for a bit of input, I'd like to able to klick on the nodes name ('node 1' in mockup) to instantly focus on it. Less scrolling around on the map screen would be nice.
  14. Strange, I've reguarly seen the thing. Maybe your game just doesn't crash often enough.
  15. Probably because it just doesn't make much sense; KSP got countless crashs because of memory or mods. Sorting auto-reports would be a huge amount of work and mostly a waste of time. That would be utterly annoying. Not only crashes the game quite easily (if not always by squads fault), but now you have to klick away some silly message? I'm already bothered by the 'this is for 1.0.x' mod messages.
  16. It's impossible to avoid complaint-threads, isn't it? Water and aircraft engines are done now because they were delayed for a very long time, the blue cement/explodium mixture was some of the oldest code in the game. And it was delayed because this is a game about space in the first place. Duh.
  17. Do you have the new update? I know there was some kind of issue with the contextual contract and vessel identification. Might be unrelated, tho.
  18. Just about point 1, don't most Airliner need to be able to do a full flight with half their engines? I know some only use 4 engines because of security regulations, while two would be perfectly fine (while others use 2 when 1 is enough to lift-off). That said, I don't think the current translation very realistic, but it's a lot more interesting and I'd personally to prefer it to stay that way. Reverse thrust is really good at slowing down and turning big boats!
  19. MK3 tanks produce insane amounts of lift (or buoyancy?). 4 large ones (with 8 adapter rounding off edges) managed to keep my 800 ton aircraft carrier afloat and stable enough for 80m/s at 4x time acceleration.
  20. You're right, just checked the config, guess I totally missed the impact of the changes. It is still weaker than the reliant/swivel, that's true. On the other hand, a small capsule, FLT-800 and aerospike already counts as SSTO!
  21. Well, it is definitly superior to the reliant, which doesn't have gimbal either. Also very low profile, especially with the new model. Interestingly, the engine collision model was fixed and it can't stand on it's tip anymore, tho. I'd say getting an SAS system and aerospike will be superior to the swivel in most cases, due to it's vastly superior lifting capabilities: Swivel is 133kn per engine ton, spike is 180kn (not counting ISP). Sorry, but it's really just a hook to tell people about something I noticed, it's not more official than any other silly thread.^^' No, it ment the model looks still fine when you angle the engine. No vectoring, which is the only downside of the engine atm. 4 ton heavy, so useless for 1.25m craft?
  22. Old aerospike was heavier, afair 1.5t. It's thrust got buffend to 180kn around 1.0, too. Still a somewhat weak 1.25m engine, vector or mainsail will provide better performance for their weight.
  23. Was quite suprised when I just looked at the spikes stats, especially since nobody seems to talk about it: Weight was reduced to 1 ton, so the Aerospike now gets a better T/W ratio then the reliant while having quite a bit more efficiency than a swivel. Also, you can freely place it. Which I think is supremely awesome and everyone should know.
  24. It's not 'free thrust'. Every bit of weight lowers D/V, which is everything. Hence it's stupid to go for a Vector when a skipper suffices. Latter has better VAC ISP btw. As for corrective thrust, that's already something the mainsail can do. If that kind of vectoring isn't enough, then you're in huge trouble. Seriously, I can't every imagine when a vector would have save me. Aside from a shuttle maybe. Made a small test vehicle, 2.5m capsule, locked 9t tank, orange fuel tank below: 2290 vs 2254 delta-v. Not that much. Increase fuel to 5000 d/v, and we'll get 80 d/v advantage. Again, the skipper has even better vacuum ISP.
  25. Yep, the issue is the 1.25m engines being to weak. It makes sense in regards to the tech tree, but it's kinda weird in a sandbox/endgame situation. I don't like that idea. Would make the shuttle engine to a super-niche thing you'd hardly ever use. At this point, it's maybe 5% better than the Mainsail in generic use. Which I think is ok in sandbox, and it's actually kinda UP considering the price in career.
×
×
  • Create New...