Jump to content

boolybooly

Members
  • Posts

    1,484
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by boolybooly

  1. First and most useful would be not to disable Kerbal RCS maneuvers while carrying parts or while using the laser, in short never disable Kerbal RCS in engineering mode. It is a very fussy business when your Kerbal is drifting and the processes can impart velocity for example when a Kerbal turns to use the laser if they collide with part of the structure it can send them zooming off through no fault of the player, which is compounded by the fact that when they are doing this animation their velocity cannot be corrected until its over. Likewise when moving a part, removing it can change relative velocity of Kerbal and structure so it is most unfair and not a little frustrating that you cannot correct this while the part is being carried as it were, to ensure the Kerbal drifts towards their target. Also if you could steer a kerbal while carrying a part you could have some fun with that. Also you need to know which inventory slot applies to which part, so for example if you have a bunch of Mk1 Crew Cabins (Mk1CC) and can see inventory space you need to have the cabin in question highlight itself in the model when mousing over the inventory space item in the list on the left side.* e.g. I just had this happen where I had to stow a hose in a Mk1CC quickly because removing it caused a relative velocity change and the kerbal was drifting away and I was not confident that if I dropped such a small thing in space I would find it again. So I had to stow it in craft inventory because the kerbal's slots were full and I had to do it before I was out of range as I could not maneuver to stop the drift with the part in hand and had no idea which Mk1CC it was in but plunked the hose in there then lost it and did not find it again for ten minutes until the same part suddenly appeared on the engineers inventory list again entirely by luck. What's more, the part did not show when focussed on the structure in question when checking inventory space, because many of the inventory spaces in the structure built from spare parts of many ships simply do not show up even though they are all directly connected to the same structure, which I guess is a bug. *The same principle also applies to crew allocation to multiple cabins in the VAB btw, if you have say 6 Mk1CC and kerbals in some of them which you want to keep and you are going to jettison some of the Mk1CC after achieving a mission, you need to know which cabins the Kerbals are in, which requires a highlight in the VAB when you mouse over the cabin in the crew list. Currently you have no way to tell which one the crew are in and have to check after launch or by taking them away in the VAB and checking the crew list.
  2. Who is driving the spaceship in the final segment? Looks like the Kerbals have come to life and decided where they want to go! Nice video, thanks. Looking forward to playing it myself one day. Must find something else to do between now and then.
  3. PS I had a hunch it might be a root part issue and tried grabbing the Mk1 Crew Cabin with a grabber jr, then engineered it straight from the grabber to the ship, which worked except that now I cannot remove it from the ship, which I wanted to do. Any insights or workarounds would be welcome. Looks like we cross posted @Blaarkies
  4. Thanks for your replies. I hope you are right and agree there is no knowing what they have fixed and what will stay the same but they are using Unity for KSP2, just like KSP, so will need different or additional methods to prevent these issues returning in KSP2 and can only do that if made aware of the problem, which is why I am chiming in with my 2 cents worth. I would comment that the devs appear to be using KSP as a dry run for a lot of new tech and there are a lot of minor bugs in KSP at the moment so I think its worth talking about this stuff to make it less likely the bugs will follow us to KSP2.
  5. I have just discovered I cannot engineer an empty rescue pod (Mk1 crew cabin) onto a ship, the engineer just wont pick it up. You can add parts to the pod and take them off again. You can engineer Mk1 crew cabins with a different origin i.e. from a ship you built. You just cannot engineer a Mk1 crew cabin which originated as a rescue pod. This is a shame because I was hoping to add them to my junk pile space station orbiting the Mun and recycle them but it won't let me!
  6. I have been playing KSP and encountering velocity bugs, e.g. transferring parts in engineering mode and kerbals on ladders colliding with craft structures accelerating the craft etc. Transferring parts in engineering mode should prevent velocity changes to whole craft. Kerbals on ladders including hatches should be treated as not colliding. Thinking about how to do that I had the idea that each situation needs to limit velocity changes, then it occurred that this might work as the more general case of permitted velocity modifiers. I dont know how this works in KSP2, whether devs have found a way round the "kraken" as it is commonly called I can see the same ship collision toggle already exists in advanced tweakables but it struck me that the velocity of a craft could be locked to prevent physics bugs like that unless the velocity change comes from a trusted source i.e. a whitelist of velocity modifiers. Like engines or atmospheric drag or bonafide collision. So only when an engine is firing can the velocity change, only when collision is between two otherwise unconnected surfaces can velocity change likewise drag. All other krakenesque anomalies could be ignored. This would require a check on the velocity change source to see if it can be added to the craft velocity. You could have this only operating under specific circumstances like engineering or ladder, or maybe it could be an ongoing kraken blocker, I dont know how badly it might affect the frame rate. If the velocity change was discarded and only became apparent when the conditions met the rules of the check then when a kerbal lets go they might get pushed, if they were already colliding. Currently getting a kerbal out of a hatch already gets them a push and often they get stuck and then pushed which is like slapstick comedy!
  7. It liiives! @toshathanks for resurrecting the K-Prize. Congratulations on completing the K-Prize challenge successfully four times with four craft designs and earning three highly regarded APPAs with SRSTO, Jack of No Trades & Mk2 SSTO for Passengers and a sincerely respectable PPM for the Silver Bullet mission which I hope you agree did not touch the grey runway texture due to collision with the floodlight and came to rest, with zero dV or any other motive means, on the sloping green bank around the runway which counts as KSC field ... so close. Thanks for your video mission reports and welcome back to the K-Prize party guest list aka the roll of honour. (I have added the mission kudos beneath your previous successful mission listings.)
  8. Can anyone explain what is going on with these files failing to validate? I have had a few gremlins with my instal so I uninstalled and deleted it and redownloaded a fresh instal and manually rejigged .cfg so as not to reintroduce any glitches. I have no mods ever and three career saves synced with steam but I didnt run any of them. I ran a test sandpit game and the game behaved normally and I checked vehicles and kerbals to make sure I had the .cfg set up right. But after quitting I ran the validating tool and it picked up 20 files. Previously it was picking up 32 in the previous installation. The .cfg might account for one, why twenty? Anyone know what is going on?
  9. @jimmymcgoochie thanks for the suggestions and valid concerns I used the ratchet method, had four micro legs and two medium legs to use as jacks on the rover and found I could use the displacement tool in engineer mode to move them out further and further in pairs, retracting and deploying, as long as the point of contact with the Mun was the other side of the center of mass from the engine landing gears it was stable-ish on four points, so moved all fuel into the bottom tank, maxed springs and ended up I was able to right it using the extra gyro tacked on the side for a bit of welly on the last bit. You can see in the screeny from after righting the lander and prepping it for orbit, this process somehow mangled the weight distribution in the lander and it showed up in burns even after I removed the spare gyro but not so bad it could not fly. Dont ask why I brought a magnetometer to the Mun surface, basically I forgot it had it on there! Also for return the Kerbals had a Mun insertion stage in orbit which doubles as a fuel depot and junkyard and had the chutes tucked away in an inventory cargo section to reduce the Mun lander weight. After rendezvous the lander was re-engineered to add those and remove the science pod for possible recycling, which seemed like a good idea as you are right it is a weak link for thermals. Though if you keep it in the thermal shadow of the tanks and engine or ablative shield (which it does have below the Mk1 pod for emergency use btw), by reentering retrograde you can in fact keep everything behind the engine or shield cool e.g. chutes, though you do have to watch the engine thermals on a direct reentry from the Mun return orbit as it is a pretty high speed and anything from outside Kerbin SOI would blow up unless you decelerate first and or keep it above 50km but from the Mun you can go to about 37km and if it overheats enough to fill the bar a few m/s of retro thrust will take the edge off it. If that fails you can just jettison the fuel tanks and engine and go with the ablator which has higher drag and a better thermal shadow for its size and does the job. So the reengineered lander returned with engine intact and besides repairing the rover they collected over 1000 science as well as completing munstone collection and flag planting missions and testing the small rover wheel on the Mun.
  10. My space ship fell over. I was trying a rover repair mission. I had set up a lander with longer legs on one side than the other because the target rover was on a slope and it had to be parked nearby to transfer parts to the rover with an engineer. I was having trouble because of shifting frames of reference in engineering mode, even when the kerbal engineer was on a ladder on a rover parked on the Mun surface there was a kind of creep possibly due to the rotation of the Mun which kept misaligning parts. Also velocity was added to the craft every time a part was added. I bodged it and it worked well enough but dont get me started on rover wheels. I finally completed the objectives, brought the rover to a new location and back to the lander and then thought about salvage. As I sat there in inventory mode something about that broke the lander leg physics and to my horror it slowly toppled over stranding Val, Bill and Bob on the Mun. The kicker is, this is a "no second chances" career game. So no save and reload, I have to engineer my way out of this situation with a few spare lander legs etc, could be tricky but at least the Kerbals are safe! https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2635971208
  11. Back in the days when we had no Mun and no time warp, real time was the only way to orbit Kerbin. It was fun patiently waiting the half hour it took to get a chance to land back at KSC and watching Kerbin pass beneath but it was a big relief when timewarp arrived. But hey if it makes you happy, you can play it any way you want to. Maybe dress up in an astronaut costume at the same time just dont crash at the landing site or you will not be able to take it off until you get rescued!!
  12. FYI still gtting CTD on revert to assembly soon after revert to launch. This is after validating and repair as above. This instal has never been modded. After the last CTD, 31 files failed to validate despite previously being validated and passed after repair. So something is causing the files to fail validation and its not me! i.e. have not made any edits etc.
  13. I always play career in KSP, unmodded, usually >hard, currently trying a 40%/40%/100% (sci funds rep) playthrough, with revert and save/reload. Previous playthrough "Hard Science" was 10% sci, with funds and rep at 100% which I found fun but didnt get to finish it before the Final Approach update. I like finding ways around the challenges restrictions create and min-maxing mission craft. I also find progression in a career creates a sense of a narrative/history and rescuing crew helps to give them characterful significance. I agree the KSP1 mission system leaves a little to be desired but I pick the best and leave the rest. There are a lot of pitfall missions generated which are basically unworkable but by now I know what to avoid. Am looking forward to trying out whatever Nate & Co have cooked up for progression play, probably default settings for the first playthrough though.
  14. FYI as a preliminary to bug reporting I verified the Steam installation and it flagged 60 files for redownload so hopefully that will fix it. This suggests something did not update completely first time around. This installation has been kept up to date but is a year and a half old (Apr 8 '20).
  15. I have been getting more CTDs than usual with the latest update. Two when reverting to hangar and one when exiting research after researching a new node. Each time they gave me a kind of loading screen. See screeny below, I was wondering, does this mean they are being reported and I dont have to make a bug report?
  16. Before all the SAS bells and whistles were added landing was quite a learning curve, took me hours and hours to understand how to coordinate navball and eye. Its actually much easier to land now, if you have a pilot or probe core which can track retrograde. You just set SAS on retrograde, altimeter to mountain i.e. distance to surface and set relative velocity to surface, execute an approach burn then set up a braking burn node which brings the orbit velocity to zero, as a guide at the point just above where the approach meets the surface in the map, which will help keep a tab on how much dv you need to use to get to a landing velocity and the time it will take to make the burn. Then you approximately execute the braking burn as necessary by the seat of pants method and allow the craft to fall when it will continue to orient to retrograde at the correct angle for braking and you can bring it down gently and the altimeter will tell you how far you are above the terrain. The trickiest bit is right at the end, switching SAS to hold course when you get below 5m/s, by which time you need to be on a vertical descent, also if you want to gain altitude, as otherwise you will find your lander veering erratically or even upsidedown! Once you have that working you can do the whole thing with a target selected and land accurately by switching between target and surface relative velocity and navball display.
  17. I like the waves, what I really want to know now is ... can Kerbals surf ?!
  18. Thinking out loud, I did try this in KSP1 and encountered that problem that you cannot control two craft at the same time. I got as far as needing to make the first stage a high enough lob and second stage a high enough thrust to mass ratio so it could quickly make a burn and give me enough time to land the first stage before I had to circularise the second stage orbit. It worked and was doable for fun but was time consuming micro so I reverted to disposable stages, so I could focus on other aspects of the missions and optimise the second stage for flight instead of reusability of the first stage. In terms of how this could work in game play, splashdown with chutes or touchdown with chutes assisted by landing legs and last second burn were the ways I did it. Either way you had to engage the full physics sim to get a recoverable landing, since otherwise KSP1 just approximates a collision and you lose the stage. It strikes me that it would be nice to see a recovery option. You could just set it to recover anything with a chute on it in place of collision which would be OK though thinking like a criminal I mean gamer this is easily cheesed since you could just slap a smallest chute on and would also miss out on the challenge to actually do it for real. This implies there ought to be some kind of test for reusability. One way would be a simple one off physics calculation for landing velocity, involving the mass of the craft and its total drag with chutes deployed, atmosphere and altitude of impact/touchdown. Powered landers could factor in a dv deduction at the point of "landing" related to the amount of fuel remaining and engine properties. Another approach would be certification of a specific craft design by an actual mission flight, meaning you could certify a stage as reusable by actually flying it and landing it, Thereafter it could be treated as recoverable so you could just allow it to reenter and it would be recovered instead of collided. The reason this might be worth doing is it raises the prospect of a social aspect, using steam workshop to share certified designs, so others can use the design in their own game, meaning the design would carry its certification with it and be useful to others. Certification is also open to cheesing because e.g. you could expend fuel in later flights you held in reserve for landing in the certification flight. So there would still need to be a test for viable undamaged chutes and landing legs and remaining dv for a certified reusable stage to be treated as recovered. It could also be cheesed by reducing payload mass or reducing separation altitude for certification so this would also need to be tested and both recorded at certification and then applied at relaunch and recovery failed if either parameter exceeded. 2c
  19. Delighted by the lights. Attention to the player experience is welcome, in the little stories about how a part gets used. I beta test a fair bit and construe its too easy for engineering to go ahead with tunnel vision on the task at hand and the player experience being created treated as an afterthought, which is the other pole, as it were, of game development and too important to be an afterthought. So its encouraging that the player experience is front and center of defining engineering objectives in KSP2.
  20. Good to know objects will collide effectively at high velocities in KSP2 ! The √64k question, can we use impactors to shift asteroid trajectories ?
  21. Just want to say thanks to the people responsible for bringing us this update, I am grateful for the real long term effort that has been made to support and add to KSP #1 and give value to all owners of this game. As a player it creates a good experience and I believe makes excellent marketing sense as well as not only will KSP1 continue to be popular itself, it will also act as a great advert for KSP2. This is the right way to do it, a virtuous spiral of a good game and happy players, well done and thanks!
  22. Not sure if this has been mentioned, scanned the thread but not all details, nodes as bookmarks. In KSP1 you can overshoot a maneuver node. What KSP2 needs for SP and MP is for maneuver nodes to act as universal bookmarks and stop timewarp a few mins before a craft reaches it even if the player is piloting another craft. In SP it means you never miss another maneuver, hooray! In MP it means you set up your flight in real time with a maneuver node, press go for timewarp which is your vote. When everyone has pressed go the game warps to the nearest bookmark for all players at a speed matching the interval to the next node. Player communication would be important to help things go smoothly.
  23. I dont see this as a problem at all, you could just import the engine data with the craft file to use in sandpit mode and filter engine data in career mode and allow substitution of an imported engine model/specs with a player owned engine model, maybe add a warning or comparison like with prototype part testing mission designs in KSP1, where you can build a craft with a part you have not unlocked if you have a mission to test it and retain the craft design if you completed the mission but cannot build it until you unlock the part. The programming for that has probably already been done. Then with an imported design in career you can try to use your own engines or develope engines to meet requirements and match the imported craft spec. If anything it becomes an incentive/challenge to R&D better engines. Any designs included in the game would have to work at min spec for engine performance obviously. Personally I would like it if the product of engine R&D started below stock capability i.e. prototypes and then matched it to become a production model and went on to exceed it to a limited extent with trade offs allowing excellence in one capability. There might need to be different models of the same engine type for that reason, player named and player developed. Obviously you would not want it to get too silly but on the other hand it might be something to do with end game resources.
  24. I would like to play with test flights and static test firings as a part of component research and for components to actually improve as a result. Would like research to be far more granular, individual parts for some branches of the tech tree like SRBs and a separate branch which is similarly one at a time research progression for very large engines like Mammoth and Mainsail. Then test firings etc could add gimble cabability to prototype engines and improve it for production models as well as improve ISP and tweak atmo/vac ISP performance to your requirement, but consume resource of some kind, like research and funds with exponential scaling of cost per improvement. Many types of parts could be improved, like landing legs could have better load bearing / heat tolerance / lower weight but if you raise heat tolerance or load the weight goes up. Point being to feel like you are flying something potentially unique which you had a hand in creating. I also think you should need to achieve milestone goals to unlock the option to research some tech, as if under the control of a directorate, who only approve the need for a particular part if you demonstrate it, eg LV-N NERV is only unlocked if you complete an interplanetary flight of a large distance like to Duna, without it. 2c
×
×
  • Create New...