Jump to content

Superluminaut

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    343

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Superluminaut

  1. Superluminaut
    As artistic license, wobble seems very cartoonish, like Wile E. Coyote taking a running start. It's not real physics. I actually think kerbals are that gauge of intensity you're looking for. Kerbals shake, vibrate, and have panic attacks. As a player you mirror their emotions and get a feel for the crazy excrements your vehicle is going through. Also kerbals are happy-go-lucky and have different personalities, so you want to save them, you're emotionally invested in the success of your missions. In orbiter if you get stuck on the moon you just try again. In KSP you launch the rescue mission, 10x more powerful than the original mun lander mission. There have been a lot of rocket sims, but KSP is the one that really connects with people, and I think the differences is the kerbals. Both KSP1 and KSP2 could do a much better job making use of the power of kerbals, in my opinion. KSP1 also added camera shake. --- Basically, if you can see the rocket flex, it's already over and you should be mashing that abort button to save your kerbals. As a "kerbal failure mode" I would be fine with it. However flex must be the start of a total failure, a rocket that noodles itself to space is just too ridiculous. I would also like to see the introduction of more realistic failure modes. As far as I know the closest thing to wobble that rockets ever produced was called pogo, and has been solved. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/50-years-ago-solving-the-pogo-effect However pogo oscillations are in the direction of the length of the rocket, not laterally. They also didn't compress and rebound the structure, they lurched the entire vehicle forward, to a larger magnitude than what one might experience as vibration. Almost all vibrations in a rocket come from combustion in the engines. They are not the result of flex in the structure. Rocket's don't sway like tall buildings. Some rockets do vibrate more than others. Multiple engines typically cancel out a lot of vibration. SRBs are a pretty rough ride. Hot staging is smoother than regular staging.
  2. Superluminaut
    You can look in the craft file. Edit: Just saw your edit lol When I select black it says "r": 1.99998E-05, "g": 1.99996E-05, "b": 1.99996E-05, "a": 1.0 multiply by 255 and you get Which rounds to #000000 For comparison, this is white. "r": 0.99998, "g": 0.999969959, "b": 0.999969959, "a": 1.0
  3. Superluminaut
    I found an interview with Nate Simpson explaining how this works. https://youtu.be/d6db1-dILgM?si=Q_GthA6T536iIJ5h The "workspace file name" is the name of the file on your computer. The "vehicle name" is the name of your rocket in game. Original post --- Each workspace has a name. Each vehicle has a name. A workspace can only contain one vehicle. When you load a file it gives you the workspace name. When you save a file it gives you the vehicle name to overwrite. When you merge files, you merge workspaces. My first impression was, a workspace allows you to build variations of a vehicle. Like a rocket family. However you can only have one vehicle in a workspace. Is the intent that you're suppose to merge payload workspaces into a vehicles workspace and then combine them? Why then can you swap assembly anchor? It feels like "assembly anchor" should be called "vehicle", and you should be able give each one a unique name. A workspace now contains multiple vehicles. You then merge other vehicles from other workspaces into your active workspace to add to the list of vehicles. For example. "Apollo workspace" (contains vehicles) Saturn V Command/service module LEM Apollo–Soyuz Merge skylab from "space station workspace" into "apollo workspace". But this is not possible. I'm not sure what the intent here is... Does anyone know?
  4. Superluminaut
    The bug report forum is a subsection of the suggestions forum. You've posted a suggestion thread in a suggestion forum.
  5. Superluminaut
    I think this is a bug. I've seen mentions of people placing/modifying nodes in pause.
  6. Superluminaut
    He's right white - black top left - bottom left
  7. Superluminaut
    An example collapse of a pressure supported rocket. No noodling, folds over, then rips open.
  8. Superluminaut
    I thought about this a bit and then realized you don't have to run physics. As far as I know only the active craft --or crafts within x radius of active craft-- runs physics. Everything else is on rails. It would not be very intensive to record position, attitude, velocity vector, and part states (throttle, solar deployed, etc) for the crafts under physics. When you hit rewind you would simply step back through the recording until you hit play and then physics reloads.
  9. Superluminaut
    The pause button is very cool. It got me thinking... Rewind?
  10. Superluminaut
    I played around with this. There seems to be no quick and dirty way to do it. It looks like each part's nodes can only reference a connected node via a variable. So you can't reference multiple connecting nodes unless somehow you can assign a list to that variable using the craft file. The nodes in the craft file must be referencing some definition in a part file somewhere, because you cannot define more nodes in the craft file. eg. top0, top1, top2 Surface attachment nodes appear to be identical, only they do not require a reference node on the root part, due to the lack of there being a corresponding node on the root part. This means you cannot add a surface attachment node to a part because, like a normal node, it is probably a reference to a definition somewhere.
  11. Superluminaut
    How do you do it?
  12. Superluminaut
    If, in the editor, you select your root part and press ctrl+c, you can then paste the craft file code into an editor. I took a look at the code. It may be possible to copy a surface attachment node into a part that doesn't have one, and make that it's attachment method. This would free up the otherwise occupied node, allowing you to attach a "second" part to it. However I haven't had the time to try it, if anyone want's to give it a shot please let us know if it works.
  13. Superluminaut
    In KSP1 pull up the cheats menu in the editor and it'll give you the option. The engine plates? I can't seem to figure them out. Some engines attach to them, some don't. And the symmetry tool has no effect on them for me. Why didn't they just build the engine plate mechanic into fuel tanks.
  14. Superluminaut
    What do you mean? Do you mean the transformation tools? Part clipping is attaching multiple parts to a single node.
  15. Superluminaut
    In KSP2 is there an option for part clipping, or a work around? Probably the old tiny truss gimmick. I know it's very early access, but let's see what's out there. Because someone will ask "why", I just want my rockets to look nice.
  16. Superluminaut
  17. Superluminaut
    This is discouraging. I hope that tech 2 struts have a different appearance, rather than being a beefed up tech 1. If you want to force players to build small, would it not make sense to have parts simply break off. Why keep them bolted on with rubber bands. Larger parts would simply have beefed up breaking strengths, progression solved. The whole rubber band effect screams bug. If a part is already hanging overboard, why bother holding on to it unless it wasn't meant to go yet. However, your post did get me thinking. Maybe the true attachment mechanic is still unplayable, and they rigged up this terrible mess to prop up the game in early alpha. Putting, "real joints" on the road map would be awkward. So maybe it's a placeholder. Is there any evidence in the code to suggest a second attachment mechanic? Or currently unused functions tied into joints?
  18. Superluminaut
    Engineering is all about fixed limitations. If you use a fuel tank, that tank will buckle under x load. Dynamic spring joints don't model even a fraction of possible fail states. They are also a very unrealistic model. If you wanted to use springs, forgo the joints and make the entire fuel tank a spring Spring joints are simply a robust game development technique used to connect objects in physics simulations. They are not a physically sound model of an assembly in their KSP application to any extent.
  19. Superluminaut
    Check the dev interview linked in the op. Unity had some unknown variables set somewhere in the code that limited the spring simulation, spitting out garbage that resulted in what the community has called wobble. Notice that in the video they are playing a fairly developed version of ksp and have only found a fix at that point.
  20. Superluminaut
    Here is a poll on rocket flex.
  21. Superluminaut
    Suggestion thread on topic. Let the devs know what you want.
  22. Superluminaut
    Right, everything is a spring, and maybe ksp could go that route if they modeled tensile and compression strengths in the monocoque structure. Then after some degree of flex --not much because materials are selected for rigidity-- the segment with the weakest compression strength would snap. We want those dried spaghetti rockets please. I suspect much simpler models would produce results that look just as good and require no simulation. Simply monitor angle of attack and drag, mass and gs, etc, and when a limit is met trigger an appropriate failure mode in the weakest element.
  23. Superluminaut
    Spring joints are one of the worst solution for this effect. A limit at which parts crumple would be a much more interesting height restriction. Rockets also don't bend under high drag, the weakest segments simply break free or shatter. See above video of the proton.
  24. Superluminaut
    I'm kind of stunned that an artifact of the original game's game engine limitations were carried over to the sequel. Wobbly rockets were always a bug. The KSP1 devs spent years trying to minimize the problem, even bringing on new members to work on the issue. Most people don't like them, and they introduce an un-intuitive stumbling block for new players or people that want to learn space. eg. Rocket veers off course on launch. Why? The control part wobbles away from the heading, resulting in SAS shenanigans and off COM thrust. Furthermore, everyone gets rid of wobble to the best of their ability by adding struts, resulting in a higher part count. So you have a feature, that only produces greater part counts. Why? To keep the destructive effect, just define stress tolerances for parts at which they explode, disconnect, crumble or shear. Also, real rockets don't wobble. Scott talking to KSP1 devs about the wobbly rocket bug. They go off on tangents but almost the entire rest of the interview is on the topic. KSP1 dev describes his next gen parts physics sim in which wobbliness is not a feature. --- If you're new to KSP, wobble is that wet noodle, jello rocket thing. Please get rid of wobble all together. Thank you. Development on the issue:
  25. Superluminaut
    Yes Other thread of same topic.
×
×
  • Create New...