Corw
-
Posts
423 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Corw
-
-
No payload but would make a great crew shuttle. Not like you can't do this a million other ways in stock KSP either; Kerbin is easy.
But this is not easy, this is trivial
- - - Updated - - -
Oh, just to make it clear, it lifts off from runway, horizontal takeoff...
-
This really doesn't look right. I was fooling around with new engine and accidentally got to orbit?
Can someone confirm the build, my config files might be borked (upgraded install that used to be modded) and I can't be redownloading right now to confirm (I'm off to bed).
- - - Updated - - -
Note: it is just a cockpit, large rocket fuselage, that new rear plate part, new engine, tail, wings and single control surface pair for both pitch and roll... It is literally minimum parts I've thrown in to test engine gimbal...
-
I want to download it because well it's a KSP update with some parts in it. So there's hours of fun messing with those. But I also don't want to because I purchased KSP before it was on Steam and now have to download the ENTIRE game every time I want even the smallest patch update. Which takes forever. But I think I'll power through for those new parts.
I think you can still switch to Steam, if you want to.
-
i AM bothering with 1.0.5, but what i am curious to see is if the bigger mods will bother updating for it.
not really worried about if they will be or not, as i plan to get rid of all part mods, and all but a few plugins for a more stockish playthrough untill 1.1 does finally get here though
They should be compatible as is. No major changes under the hood.
-
Whoa... it just hit me... if they are writing code for an underwater buoyancy model, how much harder is it to code in an atmospheric buoyancy model? STOCK AIRSHIPS WHOOOOOOO!!!!
I think we already have that? There are balloon/zeppelin mods.
-
As has been proven everywhere the memory leak on scene shift/relaunch is still there even though it has been around for years already. And this has been the major reason why stability keeps getting worse.
The only leaks like you said they have fixed are the newly introduced ones, which is something that was much more simple since they knew what introduced it.
If you look at new features/parts vs optimizations and bugfixing you really cannot deny that it has gotten worse performance and reliability wise.
Things got more complex over time, that is for sure. They never actually finished adding major features (heat for example *is* a major feature, it is not an eyecandy only, that is for sure), so they never managed to get to the point where they have nothing left to do but bugfix and optimize. For all intents and purposes the game is still in beta. But from my experience with the game it was always rather stable. I do get a crash from time to time, but last time I checked it was like once in a month of gaming. I would have it running like 5-6 hours a day (playing 2-3 hours out of it, but leaving it on at all times while I'm away, something you do when you have kids, many, many, many unscheduled breaks). During that time it crashed *once* and it got me really surprised. Yes, there are part count limits and other problems, but it is a rather stable game (I have it with 20-25 mods, but none of them are part packs).
From devnotes it looks like we are finally getting into a phase where fixing and optimising is getting the focus, but bare in mind that shifting to new Unity engine *is* again a major change to the game.
In short, I do agree the performance has deteriorated over time, but I do believe the major reason behind that is that there just wasn't that much stuff running under the hood back in 0.17 compared to now, not lack of love from Harvester and the crew.
-
No it wont. It has been getting steadily worse with each update now due to squad adding more and more stuff without actually fixing the leaks or optimizing the code.
How exactly will the new update where they add even more parts that will always be loaded into your ram solve anything?
Squad has been fixing the leaks and optimizing their code for the whole time of the development of their game. For example 1.0.4 fixed memory leak introduced in 1.0.3
There is plenty of information about bugfixing and optimisations in all devnotes regarding next releases. So your statement is rather invalid. -
Just another note, any unattended object in Kerbin orbit with periapis below 30 (35)? kilometres will be deleted (simulating deorbit because of atmosphere braking).
-
Thank you, Kasper!
Thank you, Kasper!
-
2 weeks ago 1.1 was unplayable, but before 1.0.5 was announced it was heading to QA soonâ„¢?
1.1 is Unity 5 implementation, so using completely new system. 1.0.5 is is what we have now with few more parts. Those two versions can't be more different than they are.
-
You haven't kept up with the devnotes. In 1.0.5 they are going to be more damaging if the plume impacts an object and according to NathanKell you have to "aim them carefully". Not only is that unrealistic as evidenced by the video but it isn't something not easy to do in the editor. Simply using sepatrons to separate boosters mounted on a TT-38K will have the plume impacting the main tank, if that plume is going to now destroy the tank, sepatrons will be severely limited in use. Because damage in the game is instant, unless that has changed too, the moment the plume touches, it will be destroyed.
I was talking about seps in current version.
-
I guess the main issue with slow separation in KSP is the SRBs behaviour: at separation, the shuttle's SRBs had very low thrust, so they kinda stayed at the shuttle's level while slowly drifting off; in KSP, boosters go from 100% to 0% in an instant. So the booster will most likely "fall" behind the rocket and hit its bottom if it doesn't get away from the rocket fast enough.
If you are losing your main stage engines to boosters, you are placing both your decouplers and sepatrons wrong.
-
I hate to make a point out of it, but technically I was first
Technically, Squad was first
-
BTSM disabled all those things (personally, I think removing part offset tools is retarded).
-
Mass never changes, but weight does, depending on the gravitational forces being applied to the ship/object. This is why TWR changes. But it's still important to know when wanting to launch/land on a planet or moon because you need a ratio of more than 1:1.
This is half-true, because the mass of the vehicle changes as it expends fuel. Shedding fuel mass is main factor in TWR change during flight.
-
If you actually want to cheat fuel in, there are so many easier ways to do it. But for the launch eyecandy, this is just beautiful.
-
I always for for the low part count/complexity, but not because of the game performance. I just like to build efficient. As a side effect, I have no experience with game performing badly :|
-
Nice, but does that not also allow free fuel?
(build a ship with empty tanks, attach one or more refueling launch clamps, wait for tanks to be full, launch)
Another option might be adding a fuel reservoir to the launch clamps, that way you still pay for any fuel used. (may not always take from clamps first if your staging is wonky though)
It is a free fuel only to a point when you stage the clamps, so basically you are not doing anything but adding nice visuals to your launch.
-
It might have something to do with part clipping. Those can do funny things, especially in conjunction with cargo bays.
-
You need large solid pieces with plenty of mass if you want them to survive reentry in the real world, otherwise they would just burn up in the atmosphere.
I think the 'falling debris' involves multi-ton chunks of rock which heat up enough during re-entry to melt/ablate large chunks of its surface, heating the rock substantially.
As this would effectively be large chunks of semi-melted rock landing over large areas, I can see why it would cause lots of fires...
I can't see a man-made craft having enough mass for this to be a useful mode of attack, especially when precisely guided 'rod of god' style attacks would be so much more effective for less cost.
Two words. Tungsten rods.
-
Hi, you must be new here?
-
I often use Kerbal Alarm Clock for this. With no target, setting an alarm for the next An/Dn sets it to the appropriate equatorial An/Dn for the body you're orbiting.
Or in career... rescue a Kerbal in low orbit, they're almost always perfectly inclined. Before the actual rescue I rename their piece of space junk to 'Inclination Zero' and use that for the target.
That is a nice trick
-
KER tells you exactly when (time to local An/Dn). You have to configure it, as this information is not in the default display.
To know how much, just use manoeuvre nodes.
Oh. I'll have to check that too. Thanks.
-
Sorry, I don't do MechJeb. Yes, I'm one of those people
But it is good to know it actually has the option to create node, I'll have to look into that. Thank you.
There is plenty of information about bugfixing and optimisations in all devnotes regarding next releases. So your statement is rather invalid.
Single stage rocket SSTO?
in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Posted
It is trivial in a way I wasn't actually trying to build anything. It is just the bare minimum parts throw in together, without intention to build an SSTO and it worked from the first try. I wasn't even trying and I'm not that good.
I have no experience with rocket only SSTO, can you show me?