Jump to content

g00bd0g

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    412

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by g00bd0g

    Engine Pre-Cooler still useless?

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted

    1 hour ago, swjr-swis said:

    I use the pre-cooler all the time. It's surface attachable, it's still the least draggy of the 1.25m intake+tank parts (and the -shared- lightest dry mass), and it is a bit better at pulling heat from attached parts due to its thermal properties - especially helpful with hot-running engines like the Whiplash or Nerv.

    Care to explain with a bit more words what you mean with useless, or what change you are looking for?

    I've never had a problem with engines overheating, and it's not the best intake, so I'm just not sure why one would use it?

    Stock props, please :)

    in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion

    Posted · Edited by g00bd0g

    This entire forum section is for "suggestions". It's not called "suggestion bashing". I am entitled to make any suggestions I want. You are not entitled to tell me what I want is wrong, it is my opinion. If I want to make electric aircraft for duna, or helicopters on laythe, or submarines for eve, that is my personal preference. I understand if you don't want/need props in your game, but that is no reason to poo all over my suggestion thread. Squad is entitle to accept/ignore my suggestions. The rest of the negative attitudes here are very misplaced...

    1 hour ago, JadeOfMaar said:

    All these threads popping up asking for mod things to be added into stock. No one seems to consider (and I don't mean to offend, just being matter-of-fact here) ...

    1. Whether their request has already been made. Every day someone new asks about stock multiplayer and the run-around debates go on. Squad never gave a clear answer in words, but the fact that it's still not here speaks volumes.
       
    2. It's not about whether it's easy to do. It's about whether it's relevant to Kerbal Space Program. Any engine concepts I've seen concerning aerospace are generally chemical rockets and ion drives. Any engine concept that seeks to exploit foreign atmosphere will very likely be a chemical rocket and I've never seen ideas for off-world fan engines... If any real space agency launches something with a fan engine in it, that launch is not going to be in our lifetime.
       
    3. If it's in a mod already, it has much less chance of becoming stock (in my opinion). Anyone who knows mods well should be aware by now that Squad will do a weak, halfway and bugged out version if they make a mod thing into stock. Once a mod doesn't break easily with KSP updates, and meets people's needs, they ought to download it, keep it around, and add it to their standards for share-worthy craft files.
      For example, Tantares  by @Beale puts the parts portion of Making History to shame.
        Reveal hidden contents

      RUTZWYx.png


      KerbinSide Remastered by @Eskandare wipes out the stock launch sites.
        Reveal hidden contents

      i5aJsAt.png

    4. Multiplayer, prop fans, more planets, life support, weather... We've asked Squad for years for these things and several if not most have not been delivered. (Several existing mods have become stock...but all we really have to stand on is whatever and whenever Squad randomly decides to surprise us with in the next KSP release.

    Thanks for a mature response, seems rare around here.

    In regards to #2, they already have jet engines, so obviously SQUAD considers atmospheric powered aircraft to be part of the game. Propeller driven aircraft are not much of a stretch from Jet powered...

    Stock props, please :)

    in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion

    Posted · Edited by g00bd0g

    43 minutes ago, Greenfire32 said:

    yeah, but someone had to make those parts. As in from scratch. From coding to modelling to implementation.
    And that ain't easy.

    It's easy to just copy/paste someone else's work and say "look what I made!" It's not so easy to actually make something from the ground up.
    Especially in game design.

    But hey, if you're so convinced, just keep using them mods. I'm sure you could update them yourself every time a new version update breaks them. Should be easy, right?

    Oh please stop with the reactionary uninformed FUD. You do realize all current engines share a common "template" and are just slightly different from each other right? I think if you actually poked around in the part .cfg files you might realize it is a lot simpler (to squads credit!) than you think. As long as there is no new resources or other fancy features implemented, it should be as easy easy as tweaking a couple of the jet engine variables and making a new cad model. Shouldn't take more than a few hours per .cfg file and maybe a week per CAD model, depending on details/animations.

    How to open a 'chute as high as possible?

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted

    1 hour ago, bewing said:

    IRL If you can't get enough ram pressure into the chute, it can't open. And when the devs put that in, they were just figuring that people wouldn't want to spend 100 years floating down. Plus, if you fully deploy a chute above 10km, gravity will easily still accelerate you because the chute will produce almost no drag. So you will probably accelerate enough to destroy your chute if you open it that high.

    FYI -- that altitude number is "above terrain", not sea level, just in case you were wondering. So you can get the chutes to fully deploy 5km above the highest mountain peak you can find.

    But no, in pure stock that's it.

     

    Thanks! I was just making sure I wasn't being a dork and missing some setting. So 5k limit it is then... I'm trying to do a mid-air retrieval type mission, which historically deployed at like 50,000ft. I think 10km at kerbal scale would be more realistic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-air_retrieval

     

    Kerbal Space Program 1.4.2 is live!

    in 2018

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Just Jim said:

    It's not... This has been stated before... I'm not a dev, but my understanding is it has something to do with the game physics, and is much more complicated than it might first appear. Otherwise it would have been a quick patch and done.

    And according to the newest KSPweekly, the fix is in the next patch... cool.

    Coolio,  any timeframe for the next patch?

    Kerbal Space Program 1.4.2 is live!

    in 2018

    Posted · Edited by g00bd0g

    What is a reasonable time frame to expect a fix for buggy landing gear from SQUAD? If it's just a couple lines in come config files it shoulda been like 48 hours, it's been almost 2 weeks...

     

    1.4.2 Landing Legs = Craft Wiggle

    in KSP1 Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)

    Posted · Edited by g00bd0g

    5 minutes ago, JPLRepo said:

    That is not the same bug discussed in this thread. And that one should be fixed in 1.4.2. Well relatively - your bug is quite complex due to a number of factors including: the terrain in KSP is procedural and changes depending on the users terrain setting and every craft is user constructed from many parts in many different configurations. (Perhaps I’ll do a dev blog to explain it when I have some free time).

    But without going into it more now and derailing this thread which is about legs jittering and wiggling. Which is not the same issue.

    edit: I’d be surprised if that mod doesn’t cause issues in 1.4.2 tbh

    Again, I do appreciate your ongoing efforts. I'm only pointing out that the landing gear and other terrain interactions have NOT worked correctly in 2 years. It got broken during the big Unity upgrade and has never been "solid" since.

    1.4.2 Landing Legs = Craft Wiggle

    in KSP1 Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)

    Posted · Edited by g00bd0g

    22 hours ago, JPLRepo said:

    If people are able to raise bug reports (or even better add to existing bug reports) with craft files and save files that goes a long way to help us resolve the issue.

    https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/18286
    https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/18289

    abcabcabcabcabcabcabcabcabcabcabcabcabcabcabcabcabcabcabcabcabc

    I appreciate that you guys are looking into this. I would like to point out that landing gear has not worked properly in almost 2 years now. 2 issues I opened years ago that were "confirmed" but never resolved...

    https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/9557

    https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/9557

     

    Until Squad fixes it, a great "band aid" is World Stabilizer.
     

     

    Wolfhound & Cheetah engine thrust off-center

    in Making History Discussion

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Delbrutis said:

    Can I ask what your adjustment was? Don't see much need to radial attach direct to the engine. Not that it should not be working to begin with.

    I used the "non-snap" move tool to adjust the outer edges of the woolfhound engine to be aligned with the tank above. Then, when I attached the RCS using the 4 way symmetry I noticed the symmetry was not aligned with the tank on top, as shown by the obvious ladder-RCS alignment.

    Do you like the new Shock Heating visual effects?

    in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion

    Posted · Edited by g00bd0g

    My 2 cents.... I'm sorry, but the new shock heating effects are just awful, they totally obscure the vehicle and look weird and fake from different angles. Also, reducing quality to any of the lower presets seems to just turn it off completely? I know someone must have put some significant effort into it, but the choice to implement them at this stage was not the correct decision

×
×
  • Create New...