hotcrazyfruit

I have all of them back to 0.8 in my kerbal folder, none of the original zips though. Would it be illegal to upload them up to 0.13.1?

I've used telemachus, while fun and innovative, it does not give the level of immersion I believe would stem from this type of multiplayer. For example, my buddy is out on EVA performing science, while i'm inside the cockpit determining the re-entry procedure. Communicating through VOIP would only make this the most immersive space simulation/game to come. At least that's how I feel about it. Any takers?

Multiple people flying multiple vessels will not work. (Correction: It's been worked around with a mod) Why not make it possible for two or three (sessions would be small) people to build a rocket together in the VAB, and fly it together? One person would assume flight control, others assuming "flight engineer" positions, responsible for looking after fuel, electrical, and whatever other systems are implemented in the future. Of course how you decide to role play it is up to you. Perhaps I should clarify that this proposition is different from suggested multiplayer implementations and current mods on the grounds of having multiple people fly in ONE ship, and the ability to aid each other on missions as such. Each player is more or less assigned a Kerbal, as opposed to his/her own flying session. Reason for clarifying this was, while yes, Multiplayer is on the WNTS list, it's an entirely different concept NOT constrained by the same reason that doomed multiplayer to the WNTS list in the first place. Happy flying.

I stand corrected on my opening statement. After consideration and talks with my KSP buddies, we feel as though if there were to be multiplayer at all, this ought to be the way to have it. Multiple people, flying one vessel. The role playing is endless.

Multiple people flying multiple vessels will not work. (Correction: It's been worked around with a mod) Why not make it possible for two or three (sessions would be small) people to build a rocket together in the VAB, and fly it together? One person would assume flight control, others assuming "flight engineer" positions, responsible for looking after fuel, electrical, and whatever other systems are implemented in the future. Of course how you decide to role play it is up to you. Not hoping for much, except a thread lock and possible ban. Hopefully not though Happy flying.

I think a different system for selecting parts should be used all together. I like the way garry's mod did it, a spawn screen. Where you get the all the screen space to build, then while holding q a menu shows up covering the whole screen with the parts menu. you click a part and it spawns into the world, where you get the whole screen to work again. Best way to do it, IMO.

I wish I knew how many hours i've played since 0.8. It's got to be at least a thousand, though. How many Jebs have died T__T

I imagine it wouldn't be impossible to code a mod for this.. An excellent example is e2/wiremod for garrysmod, if anybody ever used it. I wish I knew c# so I could fool around with it.

I am all for larger RCS thrusters. Maybe 3 - 5 kN Range. There are, arguably, places where these will simply be more useful than multiple smaller thrusters, one for sure being part count.

On that exact token, the reason it was easier for me and other players since the early days were because the only objective, was to get into orbit! Given no symmetry and limited parts it was a difficult task, however once we did that, and got the improvements that came with later versions it turned out to be an excellent progression into the game that it is today. IE, once we got the mun, we all went for it. That was the objective for that update, and so on. OP, I agree 1 swivel joint is needed, however I can't think of a viable way to make use of it. Maybe some sort of programming interface such as Garry's Mod Wire mod, or Expression interface. Using the number pad might be a good way of doing this, sorry for those who don't have a number pad T__T Which, by the way would completely revolutionize KSP. The only reason I don't play Gmod anymore is because I wanted to fly, which doesn't work on a 1 sq mile map. I long for wire mod and the building mechanics however.

I'm with you, on the point of using hibernation with special warp speeds when such systems are present. Certain conditions should be met before engaging these warp speeds, like being on a hyperbolic trajectory from kerbol. With that, I think life support should be required since these trips out of the solar system will be tens if not hundreds of years. I never agreed with FTL drives, but didn't say anything.. since that's what's expected around here.

I suppose I will just use my modded part from here on out, if its application is perceived as limited. Thanks for the discussion.

Yes. Do you feel it makes it not worth while? Also night time driving with electricity for ample lighting, without having to rely on ridiculous amounts of batteries.

I appreciate the comments very much. However, please read the *Primarily for rover power in atmospheric environments, during night, without having to carry a gazillion batteries. Also counters having to have solar panels everywhere which can break, and can cause lag.* It isn't for space use, its a gas turbine. There are no gases in space. RTG's arent really fun, in my opinion. They just sit there and give you free electricity. This gas turbine generator i've modded is about to power a massive train to the north pole, one big use i've found with it thus far. Cashen, are you a stationary or marine engineer? The main reasons for gas turbines rarely used in real life are mostly noise, low thermal efficiency and cost. Perfect for kerbal, IMO!

Not at all, RTG's put out a measly 45e/min. Gas turbines can put out megawatts in real life, compared to a few hundred watts from an rtg. The part I modified puts out 40 electricity per second at full throttle, its a completely reasonable number IMHO seeing as how were burning the same amount of jet fuel we use to move aircraft. Only were turning a generator, in theory anyways. Throttling this allows us to have a variable amount of energy production based on how fast we desire to go, lighting, whatever other auxiliaries you may have ect.

Perhaps it could be controlled via "onboard computer" Remember gas turbines derive power from accelerating air through a turbine, not through the use of oxidizer agents, perhaps it's use could be for emergency situations. I would only see the latter happening with a significantly reduced specific energy output; Similar to using a rocket engine for an airplane, its not practical for any length of time. For now, I've edited the turbine part to output 40 units of electricity, 1 kN of thrust (Cannot use zero, or the engine will not consume fuel) , and a specific impulse of 13s at sea level. Reason being that fuel consumption is determined by specific impulse and thrust, the thrust has been reduced by 150 times. Reducing the specific impulse by 150 times keeps the fuel consumption the same. I feel its a pretty balanced part.

A gas turbine generator would have many uses. Essentially turning a current turbine engine into an electrical generator, where rather than outputting much thrust (if anything worth noting, at all) it outputs a much more significant amount of electricity. Perhaps, 30 or 40 units per second. In the mean time, I could simply edit the CFG of the turbine, however I feel it would be a significant addition to the game. Primarily for rover power in atmospheric environments, during night, without having to carry a gazillion batteries. Also counters having to have solar panels everywhere which can break, and can cause lag. Both a 1.5m and 0.75m part would be useful. Thoughts?

I didn't even notice. Is it also responsible for the closest approach markers for target craft appear WAY (and I mean, 2 minutes worth of orbiting time around kerbin) after the actual interception? There I am, waiting for the closest approach, when I see the craft I intend on docking with go whizzing by me. Looking at the map view, the closest approach was supposed to be at 2.2km and a few minutes away! On a positive note, I am pleased with this update. The Mun looks absolutely fantastic, too.

I understand what you are saying, however shouldn't the snap to angle tool in the VAB be good enough to ensure ports are parallel to each other and so forth? (as well as a minimum of design quality to ensure you don't have RCS ports at weird angles). I do not understand, however, the notion that changing the RCS thrust on one arm will change the others in a way that breaks the solution. That part just doesn't add up in my mind :S

Hey, ZRM, do you think it is possible to implement a system where by selecting "control from here" on any given part, you could re-program the ship to rotate about that point? Perhaps we have similar ideas but with slight variances, as I do not see how the solution I will describe below could be wasteful as pointed out by allmhuran regarding ZRM's solution. I apologize in advance for any confusion that may be imparted within the description, I can be bad at spitting idea's out >_> I will refer to the 4 directions (x left, x right, y up, y down, about the CoM) as arms. What I was intending to say was that whichever arm had the least torque moment would be firing maximum, with the other three arms firing to match this torque moment during translation, such that the net torque across all axes is 0. I believe your math solution would end up with a similar scenario, however I am slightly confused as to why the solution would be wasteful as pointed out by allmhuran. If each arm is only putting out the torque moment of the arm with the least, there is no compensating to be done. It would be a nice perfect push in whatever direction.

Could you briefly describe what exactly a constrained linear system is? I'm no mathematician however I do understand working physics quite well. Is there any chance that a constrained linear system is, at its working level, what I am describing? We're kind of working from opposite ends of theory here

This is the cancer that is killing the kerbal forum for me. The arrogance being thrown around is *astonishing*. as per the topic of the thread, I disagree with this method of balancing RCS thrust particularly when considering space stations. If I am building a space station, I generally throw some RCS thrusters onto the first module. Each module I have after that will have reduced RCS thrust. I think there is a better way to do it, frankly. All that needs to happen is that Torque to the left of CoM = Torque to the right of CoM yours DOES do this, however read on. In your solution, if we have a thruster at x and 3x left of CoM, and the exact same to the right, the thrusters at x will give 1N and those at 3x will give just 0.33N. Total thrust would be 2.66N, rather than 4N if they all fired full; which they can since the craft is symmetrical. Before you critique this example for being a symmetrical setup, remember there will be symmetries in rockets people build, where using the lever arm will cause these losses. The solution is to calculate the minimum torque on either side of CoM, and have the side with higher torque fire at the torque of the lower side. This will provide a balanced thrust, at maximum capability. Nick