Corw
-
Posts
423 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by Corw
-
-
Get a proper fairings mod, you hobo
-
I've put entire stations up in spaceplanes, but yes the time to orbit is usually at least 3x a rocket.
64x is my next port of call once I have a stable install...
I think your "three times longer than rocket" is way, way, waaaay underestimated.
-
Works like debris of solar panels? Glad to hear that since my framerates is already a two-digit number and I will feel sorry to see a one-digit one.
99 frames would also be a two digit number /pedantic
-
The distance between the biomes is not an issue. If you build a rover, or play this game in fact, you need patience, and a lot of it. These things take time. I myself have spent hours of time roving around alone, but I get the leisure of saying it was all worth it. Would you rather waste money on fuel for a hopper that you really don't even need?
Not having to press key all the time would help. And a throttle.
-
Nah
I'm old. I've been here before vBulletin!Though I know some users are even older than me
Indeed.
-
Eh, it's not that great. Graphics aren't what make a game, but it's a lost opportunity, considering space is really majestic and stuff.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/cache/file/0A2C232A-1E73-497D-BBC990D98F9AD53B.jpg
Exploring the planets should look great, and visually stunning. Lucky for us, that's what mods are for.
It just goes to show that space is great though, even without mods KSP still looks awe-inspiring in certain situations. Just look at the "Show off your awesome KSP pictures" thread for proof. While the atmospheric mods make KSP look so much cooler, it looks alright even with stock graphics, too. AND without melting my GPU.
http://i.imgur.com/TPe8cLm.jpg
(some mod parts)
http://i.imgur.com/KkapCbe.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/BmiwnlD.png
Of course, with realism and atmosphere mods, KSP looks SO much better. Just to provide a pic for comparison:
http://i.imgur.com/dQdbod7.png
Now, say to me with a straight face that last one doesn't look so much more epic. Original KSP graphics are nice, but they cannot hold a candle to all the expertly made mods out there.
tl;dr space looks great and KSP looks meh
Only problem is I can't see landing site from clouds
-
Check out. Totally a rocket (quite powerful too).
I know. And I agree. But if you are using RCS as main propulsion system, you are doing it wrong (in most cases, it is completely viable for very small craft).
-
RCS is still rocket propulsion using hypergolic fuel, so it doesn't count as an answer to OP's question.
But yeah, you can either store air in air intakes or use ions (although we could debate if ion engines are just another kind of rocket).
Yes, but RCS is not usually viewed as propulsion system. It is a control system (reaction control system) which can be abused, as shown. Ions, on the other hand are first of all propulsion system.
I know it is semantics and it is quite silly to start with (my plane got to orbit with bit more than half a tank of jet fuel and spent less than 20 units of monoprop to circularize). Easy to fly too
-
YES, you can!!!
While I unfortunately don't have pics, and I don't recommend this since it takes forever, but I once got an airhogger pure-jet into full orbit by gradually increasing my apoapsis over tons of passes through upper atmo, and eventually getting pushed out into a full space orbit with a slight tug from the moon. Not exactly useful though. You're stuck once you've done that.
Wow, that is amazing. Not. N body physics is not a feature, you can't get "tugged by moon" unless you are not in moon's sphere of influence.
As for the OP, you can circularize with RCS easy. Been there, done that. Very low part count too
-
Corw: That's from Orbiter 2015. It's a graphics update, because the 2010 version *was* graphically outdated (despite some excellent work from our own asmi).
Cool. I'll have to check it out then
-
I remember not having idea if my rocket is able to actually get off the ground. That part sucked.
-
Yes, let's do please compare it to Orbiter.
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/images/2015/compare/florida5_new.jpg
if I remember correctly (it has been quite some time I've played Orbiter), that may look nice on screenshot, but when you are actually fly above it, you clearly see that you are flying over a photo plastered on a ball. So no, KSP still feels better.
-
Is there a mod that links throttle level to wheels?
-
try and remove the eva suit!!!
Seconding!
-
I strongly disagree with those that say the graphic does not matter. It is not the most important part of the game, but it matters. Personally, some of the best parts of the game are when I get to orbit and then take a minute to enjoy the view. THAT is really important moment in the game for me.
As for graphic in game, my biggest gripe is that a lot of things look mismatched. It is clear it has been made by many people over significant period of time. Streamlining the design and aesthetics is one of the things I would consider to be necessary for KSP to feel finished (or call it 1.0 if you like). Clouds go into nice-to-have category, not mandatory.
-
Oh now you tell me. At least I've pulled off an Eve mission before (tho not a land and return yet). Moho really gives me fits. The closest I've come is a probe whizzing by.
Me: Ok, time to circularize at the periapsis.
KSP: You'll need ~9k dV to do that.
Me: But this handy chart I downloaded says 2200!
KSP: Don't care. You'll notice that chart is way off for Dres, too. 9k dV please.
Me: Well, I'll wave at Moho as I pass then.
Aerobreak?
-
Of course not... but I'm curious about your emphasis on the original fans part. Do you consider that makes the forum more worthy or better than the rest of the communities because of it?
Max, check the url, please. It is forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com. A community dedicated to freaking Kerbal Space Program, not cat gifs or racist jokes or whatever with maybe some KSP sprinkled here and there. It is not unreasonable to want to be informed at one place. If I want to know what is new with my favourite alpha game, I come here. If I want bathtub girl gifs, this is sure not the place I'll come to.
-
I don't think anyones expecting an utter failure, it's just that when a significant number of the posts on this forum are about juggling the extremely limited CPU and memory resources, it seems like an odd way of going about things to add in unnecessary background checks when it would work perfectly well by implementing an engineers report button or something similar.
But that is the thing. The CPU heavy stuff is flying the rocket. That stuff is not done while you are building it. Open the task manager and check out the CPU use in VAB and in flight. But first of all trust the developer to make the right call. He has the information and he is doing the tests. If it is too heavy to be done all the time he will make it on demand. But don't bash him for the mistakes he did not make.
-
Interestingly, KER includes a setting to reduce the update frequency on more modest processors. Adjusting this made a noticeable difference on my old potato-PC, the simulation code can be non-trivial for complex craft on weaker machines.
I understand that. I have first hand experience with things like this. I believe the KER is periodically making the computation (once in a second?) no matter if you have changed anything or not (but I may be wrong about this) while new feature will be run only on part change. And as you have said, KER was felt on your "potato PC", I never noticed it on 5 year old machine.
What I do not understand is why so many people are assuming Squad to make an utter failure from this feature?
-
Considering there have now been 2 devnotes which alluded to the fact that the Engineering Report is in need of optimising, I would say that yes, there have been hints that performance is possibly an issue.
It may be an issue but you are assuming it will be released before optimized.
I'm no programmer but why run tests with every part change?wouldn't it make more sense to just do it when the player presses the launch button?
If it is not too taxing on the CPU, why not? Check KER, it is constantly updating info as you build. Does it choke you GUI? No.
-
OKay about the engineering feature: can we deactivate the check and use only when needed? I don't want a constant check for fuel flow slowing down my VAB to a slide show. even if it's only after every time I placed, removed or tweaked a part... I really suspect worse case here, but I don't want to wait half a minute everytime I compare two stage-subassemblies.
I'd rather have a "Komputer Simulation": my rocket spawns in a room looking like a tng-holodeck and I have control over gravity, atmo etc while seeing nice readouts to help me improve my design. And all a bit quicker than loading my whole savegame.
You are assuming way too much. There is not a single hint that new feature is CPU intensive or implemented in a way that is crippling your ability to play (example: low priority background threads anyone?)
Give Squad some credit, they are not morons that have seen source code yesterday for the first time. Quit bitching about hypothetical bugs.
-
Okay, okay. Everybody gets it. Folks would prefer that more development news and teases were posted here first. Seriously. We get it. Now please stop flogging that dead horse and discuss the news itself rather than its source.
Are you sure? Did Maxmap post a response on redit?
(I couldn't help it. I'm sorry. Well, just a little, but it counts...) -
Fixed that for you.
Regex is strong in this one
-
Criticism is one thing, but anger and vileness is something completely different (IE calling a company stupid). Also if you go somewhere where the food was god awful would you go back repeatedly to complain about it? I know I wouldn't. Yet with videogames it is seemingly different for some reason, almost like they like to complain to complain. I honestly do not see the appeal of first person shooter games (to me they are all rewashes of the same design) yet I do not buy them and go to their forums to complain about it. Even when I played MMO's I would get annoyed with things I felt were wrong with it, however I knew where they were going was not something I would not enjoy so I left it to its own devices.
Dude, but his stake is overdone...
I'm old. I've been here before vBulletin!
Are SSTOs' overpowered?
in KSP1 Discussion
Posted
When we are talking about SSTO we usually mean plane-based ones.
If you are talking about ingame cost to operate one, yes, SSTO are very efficient, off the scale. If you are talking about real time required to construct and operate one, it is simply not worth it. Let me compare it to ion engines. Yes, you get ....load of delta v out of ion engine, but you are going to grow a beard to actually go anywhere with them. You are not going to use them much.
Some people like the challenge. Hell, we have Whackjob. I could never get into things he is doing, I just don't have the inclination or patience for it, but that doesn't mean there aren't whack-jobs around to do it.
Yes, plane SSTOs have become easy to make. Maybe it is experience, it took me quite some time to break into them, but they seam to be very very easy to make after we got Rapiers.
However, I believe things are going to change drastically in near future. Nerfs to engines have been announced, the drag model is changing and re-entry heat is changing. It is unlikely SSTOs are not going to be affected. And huge monstrosities posted above will probably be affected the most.
p.s. most of them are too ugly to look at anyway