GluttonyReaper

She's alive!

I haven't really got a horse in this race, so to speak... but I feel you might be underestimating the number of people who fall into this catergory. There's also a lot of people who simply just don't care about mods - not because they're young or anything, but just because it's not something they do. We take it for granted on the forums how easy it is to install mods for KSP... I'd tried with other games in the past, and it'd always taken a lot of time and energy and fiddling to get everything working, usually with sub-par results that occasionally broke for reasons I wasn't smart enough to understand. Hence why it tends to be a niche, minority thing for most games. Until you try modding KSP, you'd have no reason to think it was any different, so I think a lot of people just never get to that point. There's also many people who just don't have the time to mess with mods, the kind of people who boot up KSP once a fortnight when they have a few hours free. When you haven't got much time to play the game, it often doesn't matter how easy mods are to install, the benefits are largely outweighed by the time spent installing and keeping said mods up to date. Some people would rather just have more time to play the game. This forum more than likely isn't representative of KSP users as a whole, with most 'casual' players never making it to the forums. It seems more likely that the majority of players are running pure stock at least. ...and of course, there's console players, but that's a whole other issue entirely

Yup, this a problem for the largest wheels only - unlike the others, they use 'tank' steering, meaning they use differential throttle to turn, rather than physically steering. The 'bug' (if there is one, not sure if it's intended behaviour or not) is that the throttle the steering can use doesn't scale with how fast you're moving or traction control or anything, like normal driving does, instead just going all the way up to 100 at all times. As such, if you mash left and right repeatedly, you can effectively run the motor at 100% at all times

In simple terms, they let you turn your rockets around while they're in space. The more reaction wheels you have, the faster you can turn

I'm not sure why it isn't moving normally (too much weight, maybe?), but I can explain why it moves why you use A and D. Those particular wheels use 'tank' steering - rather than turning physically, they increase the throttle on one side of the vehichle to create a turning motion. This throttle increase doesn't seem to obey the usual rules - throttle usually tapers off as speed increases, but this is not the case when steering, allowing you to run your wheels constantly at full speed. Hence, if you just tap A and D repeatedly, you'll actually accelate forwards, much faster than you could normally. Not a solution, just an observation.

Now that looks very nice Shame neither have ben updated in 2 years...

Plaster-of-paris... now that's an interesting option. Yup, even a quick google search brings up some pretty useful stuff. Now that's very, very shiny. Hopefully I'll be able to match that level of detail down the road, we shall see That's... a surprisingly good option. It may attract some unwanted guests, though...

That's something I definitely haven't considered... it might actually have the properties I'm looking for. Definitely warrants some testing Yup, it's a valid option. I think I might end up using it as a 'frame' for small buildings, then perhaps 'draping' something less resilient over it to give the effect I'm looking for. I haven't tried using it on it's own yet, though, so that's something I should probably give a go Ah, that's a nice scale reference. Makes it easier to see what other people are doing in this department. Yeah, the stop-motion stuff is kinda secondary... I'm more just looking to make a static model for now, I'll probably scale up if I end up going down that route again. The destruction is more for artistic reasons (something something nothing lasts forever), really. Looking up different kinds of clay is certainly worth doing, though, it's something I'm quite comfortable with using, and if I can get it to work, that'd definitely be ideal Thanks for the input, guys, this really helps. Sometimes I just need a little bit of external input to see things in a bit of different light - it's pretty easy to keep going around in circles when you're just thinking about yourself

So, first off, this could be considered more of an art-y question than a science-y question... but I've opted to drop it into this sub-forum because I'm mostly asking about materials and structures and all that. Not sure if it's quite the right place. Okay, so over the last couple of years, I've been messing around with Blu-Tack, something that has proven to be a pretty nice modelling material. As such, I've gotten pretty good at making these little guys: They're about 2 centimetres tall, and semi-capable of supporting their own weight. And, of course, very easy to pose. Little tough to animate, but compromises are compromises But now, I'm looking to expand on it all a little. Essentially, I want to start creating structures and buildings to the same scale (which I believe is... 1/85? So a small skyscraper would be about 60cm), complete with inner furnishings and the such. But the important bit is that I want them to have the same impermanent properties as the figures that'll be inhabiting them, i.e. I want them to be destructible, in a way that's at least reminiscent of an actual building. There's two approaches I'm really considering for this: 1. Gingerbread house mentality. Make everything out of Blu-tack - the buildings, the roads, the furniture... literally everything. 2. Make only the human figures out of Blu-tack - everything else can be made from something more suitable. Starting with option 1. I've messed around with this a little bit already, but Blu-Tack has proven to not be so great structurally while scaled up. It's a pretty inherent trait for it to stretch, and not in an elastic way, and can't support it's own weight for long periods of time. That, and it doesn't simulate the kind of materials a building is made of very well - it more squashes and flattens than breaks. I guess I could reinforce it with wireframe or something, but even that is pretty thick, and again, tends to bend rather than crumble, even under "high" forces. Now, option 2. I've considered a few things already: Paper. Very flimsy, but combined with cardboard, can be supported to make some pretty big structures, and is very cheap. But... tends to rip and fold rather than break and crumble. Also susceptible to water damage, I guess. Non-fired clay. Pretty good in theory - it can support weight and crumbles like you'd expect when dry. But... quite annoying to work with on a small scale - it just dries out too fast to work with, and starts cracking by itself if it's too thin. Any advice here would be appreciated. Wood. Again, difficult to work with when very thin (MDF might be an option here. Hmm.), and tends to more splinter than crack and crumble. Plastic sheets (acrylic?). Very strong. Perhaps too strong - it takes a lot pressure to break this stuff, and when it does, it breaks into larger fragments than I'd be happy with. Also not super easy to work with. So... that's more or less where I am right now. I'd appreciate if anyone had any input into what materials to use, particularly with regards to the buildings themselves. I'm also trying to keep things pretty cheap (another reason I'd rather not use Blu-Tack for everything) so things I can get my hands on pretty easily would be best, and bear in mind I'm not trying to make perfect replicas here - much like the figures themselves, I'm more looking to represent rather than reproduce things. Thanks for reading

Doesn't seem to be exactly what I was looking for... but it's close. Thanks

Okay... so I'm trying to hunt down a specific mod, and so far the usual google/search methods have failed me, to the point where I'm starting to wonder whether the mod exists at all, or if I just imagined it in a sleep-deprived haze. Essentially, it was a mod that tracked which kerbals were on the same vessel, and tracked how much time each kerbal spent with every other individual kerbal. Based on that, it would apply bonuses if a kerbal was on a mission with a kerbal they were 'familiar' with, presumably in the form of sanity bonuses for things like USI Life support and Kerbalism. Not too sure on the specifics, because I never actually got to try it put myself. So... does any of this sound familiar to anyone?

*urge to spend student loan rises*

It doesn't just lock rotation - it puts the craft on rails. While normally KSP does simulate gravity on each part individually, while in warp it treats the whole craft as one, using the CoM for reference... I think. At which point, you might start getting weirdness, because the craft would probably have the velocity for orbit above the surface... but not for near the center of the planet, where the CoM is. So... prolly best to avoid warp entirely in this situation

Well, now I have to ask... why doesn't it require a counter rotating part? Wouldn't it cause the rest of the craft to rotate in the opposite direction?

No, silly, it loops back around! So it's actually 26 billion years old

Read: A drawing of Sputnik from an alternate dimension where really tall people throw satellites into orbit

Mmm, I'd say 3 with the arms of 1. Because I'm a sucker for smiley faces 2 certainly is appealing too, though...

Not having faces reminds me of this: https://youtu.be/t6x0sj7xFB0 ...which may or not be a good thing

The QBE is great for little rovers, though

I haven't really used them much since capsules got their own monoprop, but I always used to like using a 2.5m tank, attaching a Terrier to the bottom, and surrounding it with round mono tanks along the rim. It looked pretty nice, and it meant I could have them not stick out the side of the craft Nowadays I use the same trick with Fuel Tanks Plus's half-sphere 0.625 LFO tanks.

Bear in mind that designs were a lot wider and crazier back then (no aero) and people like me were a lot less experienced, so rockets didn't always go straight up to begin with. And yeah, it probably could have worked if it adjusted to craft size, but not having it at all seems like the better solution (or have something like FASA launch towers, which are much nicer to use).

Trying to re-teach myself perspective, although it failed a bit on the left. Might go back and fix that. Or maybe just leave it to remind myself what not do. I don't know Happy with how contrast-y it came out though, I usually struggle with that

This is actually pretty standard - even the highest tier jet engines can't go higher. What's more important is speed. The idea is that you cruise at around 25km until your speed stops decreasing, then fire up your rockets to get you to orbital velocity and altitude. Not sure if you're already doing this, but for some reason I've always had better luck starting the Panthers in afterburner mode straight from takeoff. I don't know if it's efficient, but it gets you moving pretty fast. In regards to your takeoff problems - are you sure you have enough air intakes? AFAIK, if you don't have enough KSP prioritizes some engines over others, which can cause asymmetric thrust. It's not always noticable once you're flying because you're moving faster, which feeds more air into the intakes.

To hide in space shrubberies, of course.

Definitely would be nice, especially for spaceplanes/shuttles - the module already exists in the game for ore tanks too