steve_v

Nice necro of an almost 2 year old thread, the aerodynamics has been completely overhauled since 0.24. On that, planes turn just fine - though you may want to turn off SAS or it will fight you.

Well... I think I'm seeing everything being longer than mine maybe what I'm building is just too short and the nose is pitching into the water. But career game, no Mk.3 parts yet. Project on hold I guess.

3 letters is a Really Convenient Size for the label on control panel.

Yup, that's how I got a steady 0.68m/s vertical speed. Really not even getting that far... kaboom on touchdown, or suddenly 'digs in' moments after. Either way, instant disintegration. Target landing speed (nice and safe on the runway): ~7.5° AoA @ ~75m/s. Too fast? The current goal is supersonic flying-boat. I've got the supersonic, and the flying is working out just great... The boat bit is driving me nuts. The best I have managed so far is destroying only all the tail sections. If I have to use all 50m/s impact tolerance parts for the floats it's going to get real ugly. Water 'aint that hard anyway. Floats just fine, with just the bottom edge of the outer pontoons submerged. Centre hull section is 1.25m structural fuselage and type b tail booms (3 rows) clipped into the underside of the mk.2. Can't really see any other parts that give a remotely boat-like profile. Only 200 fuel on board to try to get the landing speed down, I'd kinda like more... ---- Okay, tried putting floats on old, slow, early-career prop-driven taildragger - about the simplest aircraft I have here. Same insta-stop on touching down, flips over and disintegrates. It's really not this hard in stock. Hell, stock has a supersonic flying-boat. Lands fine in stock, disintegrates on touchdown in FAR. Same goes for the Gull. Tested the aircraft in my screenie without FAR, guess what: It lands just fine, skimming across the surface as expected, takes off fine too. No insta-stop, no explosions. ---- So I tried to land the stock Osprey in FAR, as soon as I touch the water, this happens: From ~70 m/s to ~5ms instantly, nose digs in and breaks off, craft catapaulted ~100m into the air. This is like trying to land on a sticky trampoline.

Okay, request: Anyone got a working seaplane / flying-boat (extra cookies for supersonic) design? I have plenty of effective aircraft here, but nothing I build seems to survive a water landing intact. When a landing seems to be going well (as in actually skimming the surface), suddenly it's like hitting a brick wall, and then there's just a large debris field. Often with parts catapulted ~2km away. I can't help thinking there's something funny about water drag, either that or flying-boats are just really hard? Gah, this is impossible. 77m/s, 0.65m/s vertical, kaboom. Enormous, instant explosion. not a single joint remains, AFAICT. What's a safe landing speed on water anyway?

They both work perfectly, though technically StageRecovery hasn't been updated for 1.1.3. Both should be part of the stock game, IMO.

Now, why the hell did nobody say this before the initial console release? Would have saved much disappointment, frustration and pitchfork wielding. Err, what are you on about? Nobody asked for a delay fixing this (in fact quite the opposite), they expected the product to work on release day, which is quite reasonable. Squad / Flying Tiger spewing out more premature garbage won't help, but it's hardly the customers fault it was DOA. The "wait and get a release with less bugs" should have happened long before it hit the store.

Some like new features, and the devnotes do sound good in that regard. Me, I just want the rotten foundations fixed - for everything else (e.g. this new remotetech / scansat type thing) there are perfectly good mods. Mods and stock features alike need a solid foundation without the bugs, crashes, lousy performance and general jankiness we have been putting up with since early-access. We're not in alpha anymore, Toto. As for post-1.2: Career mode still needs work, and graphics updates would be nice... but no matter how much gold paint you put on the pig, it's still a pig. After the engine / legacy spaghetti-code issues are fixed, sure.

Sliding slowly up slope is what mine do. Nice joke Squad, very funny. Apparently that's fixed for 1,2, no word on friction generally not working as friction should though. All the hype over Unity 5, and we get random CTDs. All the hype over new wheels, we get something worse than in 1.0.x, and landing legs borked into the bargain. All the hype over 1.2... let's see what new and exciting bugs we get this time around. I'll get hyped when I have some reason to think the next release will come without crashes and funky new bugs, so I can actually play it. The most hype of all would be a new-stuff-free release that just fixes all the open bugs. Right now I'm more excited over new mod releases, as when I discover a bug it actually gets fixed in a reasonable time-frame. A new KSP release is more foreboding than anticipation.

Why GUI? There are extensions for nano and vim here. Kode seems to work okay too, if you don't mind wine and un-dosifying the scripts. Notepad++ also works in wine, and there's xml configs for KOS.

You're still being unrealistic. Start something yourself, then look for help, not the other way around. Sounds awfully like you don't want any advice, as you shoot down anyone who tries to give any. What do you want, pullstring sympathy? Aside, you have no monopoly on depression, I know it all too well. Wallowing in self pity solves nothing, go do something, even if it's trivial. Small victories and all that.

It's been a long time (0.90) since I played with B9 Aerospace, IIRC engines overheating means you're going too fast at too low an altitude. Climb. Have you tried this with the stock turbojet? I've yet to have one of those explode on me.

Those 1000 fogeys still need to eat. See option #2, or seek to gain sponsorship of some big company with 1000 spare fogeys. Now you're putting words in my mouth. You may note I haven't written my own game, largely because it isn't worth the time investment for me, let alone for someone else's idea. While I do have some programming experience, I'm realistic about how much time I would have to invest to gain the skill needed write a complete game. And I'm suggesting you should be too. My point was, if I'm going to make an investment of my time, for free, be it in utilising skills I have or in learning new ones, why should it be for an "ideas guy"? If you want to lead, lead from the front, not the rear. Hypothetically, I might be inclined to help if you were to muck in with the actual work, but if your input was inspiration only, then no. It occurs to me that this may have something to do with your apparent difficulty... Ma google isn't a particularly good tutor. Have you tried a real course, or failing that, a good book? Bear in mind that the best courses are not generally free, the skills I have now cost me real money and sweat at a BS job earning that money. Becoming proficient in something as complex as game programming with only google / free online courses may not be overly realistic either.

Yeah, you'll need at least panthers for an airbreathing SSTO spaceplane. Insert obligatory plug for Kerbodyne SSTO division, my go-to for spaceplane inspiration. At lower tech levels, just go for a cheap SRB first stage. SRBs are cheap.

Egads, don't get me started on the wobbly rockets thing... KJR all the way, and if I need more I build suspension bridge-esque structures with structural beams and struts. No pics at hand, but yeah, structural beams for structural reinforcement... stack separators for separating stacks. Yes, firmly in the "realism camp" I am.

For a payload, sure - hiding that kind of thing from the airstream is what we have fairings for... the smooth profile of which is then promptly ruined by the randomly varying cross-section of the other stack parts. For example, why is the Rockomax decoupler so much wider than every other 2.5m part, it makes no sense. I'm quite capable of building silly looking rockets without the help of extra silly parts.

I will be observing this train from the safety of the station until I am quite certain it won't crash with "Error in `./KSP.x86_64': double free or corruption (out)".

This gets my vote, under the general heading "unnecessary and nonsensical camera constraints in VAB / SPH". Agreed, actually all the rocket tanks but the Kerbodyne series irritate me, there's no reason to have a lip at the top and bottom, and it breaks up the otherwise smooth cross-section of my rockets. I don't care about the textures, but the profile is horrible. I run with tank mods, not for variety, for the not looking stupid and not fouling aerodynamics factors.

To dredge up an over-used quote: "Genius is 1% inspiration, and 99% perspiration." You don't seriously expect to provide the 1%, and convince others to do the perspiring for you, right? If you expect to fart out a great idea and convince some other schmuck to do the all coding... good luck with that, I for one would rather spend the time writing my own game. People who make successful games solo have spent years learning the fundamentals beforehand - unless you happen to be some kind of code-savant you will have to do the same, however much you dislike it. Or throw a bunch of money at some programmers -for-hire, like everyone else does. Sounds awfully like you just want shortcuts to the "good stuff" without doing the hard work to me. Almost anyone can learn to do almost anything, IME, given enough perseverance. Try some more and learn to do it yourself, or go get some other job so you can pay to have it done for you. Programming is hard, and nobody likes working for free. Deal with it.

I doubt it, have to wait and see what DMagic has to say on that though. I certainly didn't, been using Orbital Science a long time and never noticed the excessive EC use.

Done. No, but it does muck with EC values. The EC consumption of that part, while unusual, isn't a problem in stock. I doubt Orbital Science will be the only mod that falls afoul of your rebalancing.

@DMagic: Any particular reason the temperature display on the dmUSPresTemp part uses so much EC? the pressure display doesn't use any... Gave me a bit of a runaround that one did (running with kerbalism makes it a bigger power-hog than life support).

Well, it's definitely something screwey in my save... hyperediting the same vessel into the same orbit == no problems detected. This all started when I installed JettisonFuel... but then I have manually removed all mention of ModuleFuelJettison from that save file, so ?? Nevermind, I'll just roll back to prelaunch on this mission. Ed. Nope, nope, nope. @ShotgunNinja: Found my mystery EC drain... It's the "Display" on the Dmagic/UniversalStorage PressMat / 2Hot part. what? it's switched on when you take a reading, and uses more EC than life support. Might want to patch this out: @PART[dmUSPresTemp]:NEEDS[Kerbalism] { @MODULE[DMEnviroSensor] { @powerConsumption = 0.0 } } Suspect it's actually a bug in DMagic, as the other sensor (pressure) on that part doesn't eat EC.

Yup, show energy flow, but appears to be locked up, and isn't actually charging. I have a lander in munar orbit - the planner says battery: perpetual, as does the details pane in the tracking station... but when I switch to it I get 28 minutes?? Even on the pad - Batteries: 1 hr + change... in direct sunlight. Right-click menu on the (fixed) solar panels shows EC being generated. Ed. Huh, mod conflict... with jettison fuel , of all things. Any ideas why? All that mod contains is a single .cfg with: @PART[*]:HAS[@RESOURCE,!MODULE[ModuleFuelJettison]] { MODULE { name = ModuleFuelJettison } } @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ProceduralPart],!MODULE[ModuleFuelJettison]] { MODULE { name = ModuleFuelJettison } } @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[InterstellarFuelSwitch],!MODULE[ModuleFuelJettison]] { MODULE { name = ModuleFuelJettison } } Ed. .Ed.: Still having EC problems, solar panels are now producing power (sans jettison)... but I have far greater drain than the planner would suggest. Not sure what's going on here. Kerbalism monitor in the tracking station shows "perpetual", but when I switch to the vessel I see ~1hr... everything I can turn off is off, so any way to see what is using EC? When in the dark, tracking station: 1h, 18m, in flight: 18m.

Indeed, really didn't match my idea of what a beta is for (final bugfixing & polish before release, no new features) - 1.0 actually had a bunch of new stuff, and a bunch of new bugs. Took five patches before the game got back to "beta" quality & playability. Looks like this is the general formula for post-beta releases - release early, despite all the "it's not ready" warnings, then fix the glaring bugs in a piecemeal fashion over the next 3 months. The 1.1 pre-release was another example - bugs found during the "testing" period are still not fixed. Obvious game-breaking bugs on release day? Release anyway - that's just how Squad rolls. "KSP is running smoothly crashing randomly on all platforms. It looks amazing mostly ready for release and we're doing our absolute best we've failed miserably to bring the KSP experience to console and to gamers of all ages with finite patience." Please Squad, for the love of Dog, stop doing half-baked buggy releases. Release it when it's ready. Does anyone think the console port was ready for release? Anyone actually playtesting it for more than a couple of hours would have found the save issues.