Tygroux
-
Posts
86 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Tygroux
-
-
Played a hardcore-modded install recently, and I think FAR is fine.
What WOULD be a huge improvement, both in playability and realism is:
-Bigger, better wings. (B9 does that)
-Better brakes. (RealChutes help with drogues, I'm almost sure someone made a mod that increase drastically the stock brakes strength. B9 gives pretty strong airbrakes. (seriously, tried 6 of the double ones -reversed-. It's radical.))
-A 2km long runway. Doesn't kerbinside add that? I removed it because memory, but now that I fixed that I need to take a look.
Increasing the aerodynamic failure threshold (that's somewhere in FAR options, the thing that decide when your wings rips off) also help a lot, and, as always, watching tutos on how to aerodynamic stability, sub/supersonic transition and orbital-speed re-entry helps a lot.
-
Not exactly a part, but I took the habit to call a simple 3.75m/5m fuel tank + engine booster a "GOTOSPACE" booster.
Generally used when I'm sick of min/maxing my fuel.
-
I just came over a strange bug that sneaked up on me, while trying to optimize my RSS/FAR launch script.
More or less suddenly either of the computer cores heats up without cause (Deadly Reenty), making the launch vehicle explode in mid flight. If I remove Deadly Reentry, FAR causes the structural links to break up and the rocket explodes. And even before that, the control core connected to the computer core just detaches and needs to be held in place by struts...
I have no freaking idea what is going on...
Same thing here.
The COM suddenly move (the camera center moves 1-2 rocket height below the engines) when my booster stage reach around half fuel, then the CX4181 module gets burned by the booster/re-entry/aerodynamics/G-forces depending on the config used.
I tested with it at the top and middle of the rocket, and the rest of the rocket seems fine. It's just the script module (and anything attached to it) that gets ripped off by apparently infinite forces.
It also seems to happen always at the same time: When my booster stage reach half fuel. Whatever thrust limiter ratio I used.
I'm going to test it with other rocket setup, and edit this post with any finding.
EDIT: Stayputnik core, KOS module, FL-800, engine. and stayputnik, KOS, Booster.
The brutal COM move seems to happens at 60% fuel remaining exactly (in the first stage to fire). After what the KOS module is ripped off by whatever gets it first...
-
Err, I'm a bit lost.
I'm playing a stock system with a bunch of realism mods (DRE, TAC LS, RT...), and am looking for real(scaled to stock) fuels and engines.
I guess for real fuels I should use real fuels, but for realistic (role/Mass/TWR/ISP wise) (with scale in mind) engines, wich engine config should I use?
-
I put "never" since I've yet to do it in a career save. Once I destroyed the launchpad in a sandbox one I goof around in, because I had thrown together a irresponsibly-large-and-shoddily-built lifter, and it instantly dropped those couple feet and destroyed the pad. Other than that, every building I've destroyed has been on purpose.
I assemble all of my big stuff in orbit (yeah extraplanetary launchpad!), so, like many, nothing I launch is big enough to destroy the KSC, appart from the metal supply itself. But given the launcher is extremely reliable, launched to the east and the payload is very small, the chance of it falling on something important are almost-null.
That may change once I experiment with booster-launched shuttles... And/or add neverunload, for the lulz.
-
No, just no. Even now, every time I see a pic of the launch tower now my brain does this: "I thought I was over you. I thought I wasn't mad at you anymore. I thought we had gone our separate ways and could be civil. But I'm not over it. I'm still mad. I still want you to suffer like you made me suffer. I never want to see you again."
Bringing that launcher tower back in KSP 0.25. Not necessarily on the launchpad, but somewhere near the KSC.
As a destructible building.
Just so I an blow it up.
And again.
And again.
And again.
Andagainandagainandagainandagain.
Doing it what it did to us.
Oooh yesss...
-
This is just further evidence that Squad's vision of KSP is incompatible with mine. The lack of useful information displays has always been an indicator that something is wrong. The emphasis on reusability in 0.24 made the career mode less interesting for me. Now we hear that kerbal experience will alter the laws of physics.
For me, modded sandbox will continue being the real KSP, as the career mode evolves into a casual arcade game.
Sadly must agree with this...
I first really enjoyed this game, even stock. Adding some mods to improve the experience...
I actually had some fun playing science(old career) mode, although I quickly went back to sandbox.
The breakup was when I realized I stopped adding mods only to improve the experience, but instead to change it away from squad's vision...
Guys, could we come back to a cool realistishic science-based game?
-
Yeah, the runway is bugged right now. I can't use any of my heavy-duty lifters or test my big planetary rovers because they cause the runway to implode under the weight.
-
KAS is the best option for this kind of functionality- Kerbals can grab the cable from a winch and control it from there while being constrained by the maximum length of the rope (50m is what you usually get) so unless you need something more complex, you'll want to use KAS.
This. You add a winch right beside your EVA hatch in the VAB, then when the time comes: EVA->Right click on the winch-> grab (it actually attach the cable to your backpack), then you're good.
I need to test if it works with time warp...
The only issue is that I don't believe it allows you to transfer EVA fuel, so if you run out, you're still stuck. Just... Not far from the ship.
But I don't know if even RL safety allow an astronaut to come back without help.
If you put the winch and ladder parts at the right places, you can probably manage it though. Or try to push the kerbal with another kerbal. And/or move the ship to the kerbal...
(I did that once. You what is harder than trying to get a kerbal to the hatch of a spinning ship? Trying to get a hatch to a spinning kerbal...)
-
0.25: It was inevitabl... Whoops, wrong game.
-
Wait... CAN YOU DESTROY THE LIGHTS AT THE END OF THE RUNWAY?????????? FINALLY!!!!!!!! REVENGE!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Okay, So, in preparation for our SSTO shuttle program, we will begin by launching a cluster-bomb ICBM at the runway's lights."
-
I'm using remote-tech, and I have a shuttle with a command module and its crew in orbit.
Make the installation of those early relays far easier, until I can get a proper com station up and running, probably beyond minmus.
I tend to set-up those everywhere I plan extensive mission.
For now it's the kerbin system, then advanced outposts around gilly, Mike...
-
You're welcome.
Are you adjusting your control surface tweakables? With mid-mounted wings, the control surfaces there should only be acting as ailerons (i.e. set to influence roll, but not pitch or yaw) or flaps. Pitch needs to be controlled with elevators at the tail and/or canards up front.
Not when I'm going for a spaceshuttle style... spaceshuttle (aka delta wing, no elevator), but otherwise I cut pitch on the wings, yes.
I do need to use more the others tweakable though...
-
Thanks for the input! Will try to apply that.
I was about to post pics, and found out that the unstability problem was caused by a bug with the B9 large S2 cargohold, wich had an offset COL.
I'm using mostly centered delta-wings, as I find they give the best stability at re-entry speeds, but encounter the same problem with every craft:
Tthe SAS keeps pushing my nose down (or up...), despite the controls being perfectly capable to keep it stable.
And MJ smart A.S.S. was just going crazy on the controls.
I guess I will try the dev build then, thanks Wanderfound!
-
I'm trying my hand at SSTO spaceplanes and became pretty good at designing and piloting them... Except keeping both hands on the controller at all time at supersonic speeds to micro-correct continuously becomes tedious.
I tried to use Mechjeb to autopilot the long boring part of the flight, but it keeps murdering my planes by going crazy on the controls when I'm supersonic.
How should I go with that? I actually like my behemoths that takes 20 minutes to get into orbit, and another 20 minutes to come down, I just want to not have to babysit them all the time.
-
(Neatly sidesteps a "flesh rocket" joke)
I've had a similar experience. I used to try a lot of mods and later uninstall them, now I find it's better to just start with a new install every couple of months and install the latest version of the essential mods.
+1 to that.
I have a cleanly organized bookmark folder to all my mods, with category for parts, utilities, gameplay, graphics etc.
I also keep all the downloads categorized the same, renamed with version number if necessary, so I can cut on download/install time next time.
Then, every major mod update, it's a full reinstall. (wich mainly mean re-extracting the KSP archive followed by 5 minutes of drag and drop to Gamedata).
Right now the last version of MM, RemoteTech and B9 are giving me problems, but that was expected.
When they get updated, I will just wipe the slate clean, right-click on KSP_Mods - Open all in tabs, quickly check if anything have changed, then quickly drag and drop from the zips to KSP.
Wich bring me to: If all devs could follow the MOD_NAME_#VERSION.zip/Gamedata/mod structure, I would be sooo happy.
-
Yo OP. whats with having Crew Manifest and Ship manifest at the same time?
Also, why do you have a "GameData" folder?
Seems like you are both wasteful by installing multiple mods that cover the same area, and also negligent to check if you extracted the mod correctly...
Or in other words: A true Kerbal player.
STRAP ALL THE MODS.
I'm being shy for now with only 20 mods, mainly because I'm going for realisticish mod experience, and these takes some art do get working together in a nice way.
I'm still happily hitting 4gigs, wich would never have been possible with an acceptable ammount of details before, all that in full graphics!
Now to get better atmosphere, B9, and all these nice little station parts to throw the numbers though the roof...
-
0.24 - MSI IR - 0.18
I must say, this is messing with my brain for a few seconds every time I read it.
-
You'd still have people asking "Is this compatible with .24 yet?" even if the post immediately above theirs says, "Working in .24". People are stupid.
People doesn't read past the title mostly...
-
My main concern with the mod isn't really price, Just simply where it is in the tech tree. It's my OPINION (Which means jack **** in reality as a lone kerbal pilot and Lets be clear on that because some people are getting pretty forceful with theirs You should be licking Wave's feet for even doing this for us, so we don't have to) That the parts should come after stock parts. The reason I say this is because the mod has a few game-breaking functions.. For instance, You park a science lab around jool, crank that sucker on, time warp and generate science. So as a rule, that part can be one of the first unlocked AFTER the stock tech tree is completed. Then you use this to generate the immense amount of science to unlock the rest of the parts. The Anti-matter fuel source could be sold at KSP to generate more funds to basically open sandbox mode for you because of the amount of money you recieve for it.. so it should be LAST in the tree.. Im thinking unlockable gameplay.. It's no fun to get everything all at once, and it always gives you something to shoot for. Whether or not Wave considers what I say, I myself am going to tweak the files myself along with unlockables for other mods that come AFTER the original tech tree and with a painful price. therefore, I continually have something to shoot for. I'm going to wait to see what happens with it, then go from there. The mod tree will include (when all are updated and ready for use with .24 if not already) Kethane (which will come before KSPI), Infernal robotics, KAS, KSPI, Extra-planetary launchpads, Then possibly a habitat mod. This will allow me to play through the game slowly building up my space agency then slowly start to hit sandbox-mode with basically unlimited cash in the end. Then I can go about populating other planets with habitats and machines with a purpose.
I think the short answer is "no, because we are not ("we" being both modders and squad, and the community in general) balancing for players that try to cheat the system."
Right now you can have infinite money and science with a bunch of SRB, a solar panel, an antenna and a thermometer.
Scott and others have proven a thousand times that it only takes 2 missions to get the totality of the Tech Tree.
And I would go as far as saying it's possible in 1 mission to someone who play the game the extremely non-fun way (but without cheats), using exploits.
So if someone wants to setup a science/AM farm and then timewarp a thousand year, let it be.
In general, if wants to use X exploits or use a method that doesn't imply playing Kerbal Space Program,then... Let them? If use the traditional way, having early AM farm and a science lab is a nice boost, but cost a heavy investment in money, time and skill.
Putting a science lab in jool orbit is not easy ask if you play with TAC and remote tech, accept non-bug/retardmoment related mission failures, and try to avoid kerbal deaths.
And AM is worth more in a single reactor than sold in funds to buy a thousands nukes. Unless you're whackjob in career mode.
And if you spend an insane amount of time and effort to get a giant AM farm to sell... back a few line above.
-
Theorically, we could make a cave.craft using rockshaped parts, giving it inifite weight and resistance, and leave it there. And we could let ships fly inside it, settle a whole base even, attached to the ceiling using claws and/or KAS.
We even already have proceduraly generated asteroids, and since it's not supposed to move we could have similar proceduraly generated ground features.
So that's definitely not an engine limitation... And I would go as far as saying it wouldn't even be that hard to do.
Now, the devs might have better thing to do... But while my knowledge of unity modding is null, I saw what have been done with Better Atmosphere, the cloud mod, planetary factory, RSS...
So maybe that could give ideas to the mod community?
EDIT: Thinking about it, I think that have already been done.
I remember a guy making a mod that replaced the launchpad with an underground ICBM launch base, with underground bunker accessible by walking, rovering, and obviously rocket...
-
What happened to the TreeEdit project?
I'd like to do a some Tech Tree Editing, but have no idea where to start.
-
If you have the Stayputnik, you can put it on top of the command pod. It looks nice.
I have a pretty neat design of automated rescue/one man transport vehicles.
Basically an ICBM guided by a probe core and a kerbal instead of the warhead.
-
Can we remove all the... er, "misinformed" "debugging is easy" posts by people that never touched a single line of codes, and only have this one left on first page?
This is awesome.
The Name Change Thread (WARNING! ONE TIME ONLY!)
in Kerbal Network
Posted
Could my Name be changed to "Tygroux"?
Thanks!