Tuareg
-
Posts
370 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Tuareg
-
-
i was always wondering why the objects on orbit in KSP doesnt follow the tidal forces and laughing into the face of basic gravitational laws. its a bit easier to understand if i say lets think we have 3 fueltanks, one at the center, one at the right side connected with a string and one on the left side connected with an other string and we put all three on the same orbit they will naturally always rotate with the same speed as they orbit the planet. if it wouldnt be the case (like it happens in ksp, it would mean that the 2 tanks on the sides would fly on a decentralised circular orbit which is impossible).
you could ask why is that still normal in real life if its naturally impossible? its because the irl launched crafts never reach the state of complete rest as per there are other forces (initial rotation), solar activity, effects of other planets gravitational forces etc.
in most old satellites they use gyros to stabilise them, modern ones are already using the gravitational laws to set the satellites into sync orbit and leave them like that forever.
ksp is however completely theoretically and as such, if we once stop the rotation of a craft on orbit, they should follow the laws of gravity as per the gravitational forces apply to every point of the craft and face always the center of the orbit. and maybe here is where the kraken is hiding. if ksp calculate the forces independently for every parts, with the current orbital mechanism the parts are continuously forcing each other to change orbit in every moment.
in case 1 the fueltank is pushing the engine and pulling the commander module while in case 2 the fueltank is pulling the engine and pushing the commander module causing a continuous wobbling...
more about sync orbit, tidal lock and gravity-gradient stabilisations
what do u think?
-
The experience level of the Kerbal would have some relation to how accurate a task is executed. Your maneuver requires, say 120 dV. A highly experienced pilot will get within 1 m/s. A moderate experienced pilot maybe somehwere inside a 5 m/s range, and so on. This would obviously be a sliding range based on the experience percentage (but not necessarily a linear relation). In similar fashion it would relate to how accurate the navball is kept on point.
i would like much more if the more experienced kerbals would be able to do more complex things. like less experienced pilot can just go straight with engines on unfocused, a more experienced can do correctional burns the even more experienced ones can dock and the super ones can even land. i would hate if they would do random things for me and miss the duna because it went 5 degrees out... same with rover driving. teach the kerbal how to do it and then let it to do on its own...
-
So the only end game you can see is financial Tuareg? There's more to life than money
Space exploration should be for more than just economic reasons I think.
its not about money. its about giving a reason why to build things out there. in the current system if you stop doing missions you stop building anything as you will obviously run out of cash. now they can either find out even more crappy random missions or make it the primary reson to build colonies/bases on other planets and on/around asteroids. atm there is no any reason to put anything permanent anywhere are you cant use it, there is no reason for satelites, there is no reason for bases there is no reason for rovers. sure its all possible just there is 0 motivation. the money is not the aim, its the tool...
-
well, the only worthy endgame i can imagine is building useful planetary and spacestations for resource mining and generating the income from those but i fear, whats more i know, that will not happen to be and endgame function and they will just mess it up.
-
-
far bigger issue if u change the stage order during flight, the entire staging gets messed up and the stages fire in "random" order. bug since i've tried this game the very first time and it still is in the game...
-
Then don't play it. It's as simple as that.
As for development speed:
Do you have any idea how much work there needs to be done? AAA games are produced by 200-500 people over the course of 3 to 5 years. Squad can't compare to them.
well, AAA games are developed with 2-500 ppl in 1-2 years and even thats just cos of the incredibly lots of artwork and 3D modelling they have to do. squad cant compare to them cos they do 0 artwork or 3D modelling (well, 0.00005) and they cant even fix extremely simple things. KSP is a garageproject. OP is completely right. I'm a dev and I know very well how much work is put in ksp from patch to patch. its like a drunken group of uni students could do on their weekend meetings.
-
-
Okay so Infinite is a bad idea, but a class E asteroid is about 40 full orange tanks in mass. Let's say you can get something like 1/4 of it in resources (just handwavy here). Is it better to get the asteroid or launch 10 orange tanks? What about a Class X asteroid that is 1000 orange tanks in mass, or 10000?
so that you cant move to orbit then and chasing it to refuel would cost more than what u can get from it. dont forget not just the amount in the asteroid is what matter but the limited fuel capacity your craft has.
if chasing a 10000 orange tank asteroid eats all your fuel (and it does) what is it worth refueling on it? or will you launch 10000 rokomax engine to move it to orbit?
as long as asteroids are not bond to planets like asteroid belts, (aka tiny moons) its pointless even to talk about them...
-
jeb went to the mun to plant the mission flag and crashed his craft. but u all know him, he isnt the one to give up so he decided to still take off (at 3:00)
-
Not if an asteroid has 50 orange tanks' worth of fuel. Or is an infinite source.
even if it has 5million orange tank worth fuel its pointless dont even mention how abusable to bring an asteroid to lko build a ship around it and u have a big infinite fueltank... i want to build bases, extract those resources not chasing fistsize asteroids and pull them to orbit kerbin. dont even mention that it doesnt extend the endgame while a proper mining system would. but sadly thats not something squad able to do
-
what i would like to have is the ability to bond objects to the surface. i will build my landing area and take it with me to the mun but its pointles cos every parts but wheels are falling into the planet...
-
If you go to each asteroid and refuel, and then go on to your destination then yes, this is a horrible idea.
If you capture an asteroid and bring it into LKO and make a refuelling station out of it, then any non-jet-engined SSTO with a docking port becomes a SSTA(nywhere) because it takes about as much dV (or more) to get into orbit as it does to get anywhere else. And once there, you can again refuel at the captured-asteroid-fuel-depot you smartly put in orbit there.
yeah, but i can do that with an orange tank too... the refuelling should add to the far away missions not the lko refuelling
-
well chasing down an asteroid already needs an awful lot of resources so whats the point of mining resources to refuel a ship which uses all of its resources to chase down an asteroid and then slow down from that orbit. its like building the only petrol station on earth into the middle of the sahara. u will use all ur fuel to get there and after refueling u will use all the petrol to get back from there, ergo its useless. (at least in current system where asteroids are random and not bond to planets) worst possible solution anybody could come up with
-
[*]Everything, everything about implemented features so far has been about “making the game fun for the general public†and there are good reasons for that. blabla
actually minecraft is a popular game cos u can do MILLION things in it. ksp isnt popular cos u can do just always the same and for other than geeks its boring like hell. just like the last patch with contracts... i would have to do the same missions, actually the same pointles and turd missions again and again. build rockets just to take a wheel to orbit to test it or build a specific rocket to test a huge engine on 23k height at 200 speed... actually exactly the casual playerbase is what needs a lot little things to do and to look far more realistic cos they are having problem immersing in the game if its not logical. they dont want to learn rocket science to launch a rocket, they want simplicity and that their kerbals to bring lunchbox to the sky. they will not understand why they cant strap back the broken solar panel or put a light up where there isnt or assign an actiongroup in the space or why their absolute flat rover can still roll over in a slight turn on the mun. they will say its boring to get that ship back and launch again just cos they cant open their solarpanels with 1 button or launch 20 testrovers and find that even the most logical rover will always fall on its side. geeks will do it, geeks will try again and again but casuals wont. with squad's general mentality ksp will always be just the game of the few fans. better get used to it. ksp is missing so much basic functions and have such showstopping glitches what will drive the casual players away always. casuals will not be satisfied with a list of "what science u've done", they would need a map showing where they have been what they explored... these are the basic problems.
-
yeah. still things are falling trough the terrain, still its wobbling... the worse is when you switch to a part crashed on landing and it start to fall into the mun or kerbin and because it is moving you cant even switch to something else. its such a showstopper at least for me... terrains would need some love for sure
-
actually i feel op is right. as a modder myself i prefer steam workshop over everything else. why? its extra job for me to upload the newest on top of the old one, it forces general licences on me (not like if i would care, there are far more than enough options) but... it is organised, its automatically available for everybody signed up, its always up-to-date. i, to be honest, dont use any ksp mods just because im fed up scrolling through 200 pages of outdated mods and manually downloading unpacking copying trying to follow what is updated checking back every day if there is a new version (hidden on the 3rd 4th page behind older versions of the same mod) etc... my skyrim has about 3 pages of modlist in the modmanager (with my owns included) and i never have to care, if i go back to play it, i just install the game and it checks if it has the up-to-date mods and at first start it will kick off with all of them included.
When has the entirety of any group of people ever had the exact same opinion? I'd wager, never.You want world peace? But that would bankrupt the weapons industry!
I would be happy to see the weapon industry going bankrupt and all those ever created any weapons starve to ***
-
I would also like some sort of experiment that kerbals can deploy on the ground, something like this: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5947HR.jpg
I also propose making ground based eva reports time dependent a little (kerbal must be on or just above ______ surface for ___ seconds prior to eva report). take time to hop skip and jump around like the real astronauts did. give me reason to keep my kerbals on the surface for longer than 10 seconds.
perhaps let us place experiments on the ship maybe a stack mounted or radial "experiment holder" that has 3 expirements, that kerbals have to grab and carry off to deploy http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/images/transport_lg.gif
Also of note: https://www.kerbalspaceprogram.com/about.php
Would a Squad employee mind mentioning what is included in " a whole lot more"? I remember a thread a few weeks ago asking what "scope completion" meant to squad.
i would like to know what will they be trained for...
-
(From the second thread Laie linked)
Holy crap this is a lifesaver. I'm going to go rebuild my planes right the eff now.
lol, that is so lame, typical squad
-
Maybe the game is trying to tell you to create a Mun base
ahhh, its just the same as some request here on the forum
lol. the revenge of SQUAD -
well, this request came from kerbals, didnt? im not surprised. decline and move on
-
Powered landings are very successful...
With the new vernor rockets, this is more possible:
Currently KSP will destroy both those reusable stages if you attempt it in game...
[edit]
WAIT... What? I just tested it... KSP now lets you fire ships out on ballistic trajectories in the atmosphere, and keep them alive?!
I'm SOOOO making that grasshopper reusable rocket now... Although I still need to get perfect timing between craft, as it's going to drift quite some way without power (as it's outside sim range).
that video is nice but its just fantasy. there is no pod can hold enough fuel to touch down a pod like that from freefalling. in KSP you can solve the problem if you give a pod with crew to the stages and after separating you shoot the next stage further and while that reaches its AP, you manually land the dropped stage. at least thats what i do/did. i just gave up on these silly missions
-
Didn't you get we are discussing about a way for booster to land under the very same conditions than any other rockets, rather than asking the game to magically consider them "recovered" ?
what are YOU discussing and what was the original op are 2 completely different things but no worries.
there was nothing about very same conditions... they are left to their fortune... there is no any need of an other physics "bubble"
(however even that would be solvable as we are talking about the one single ship falling into pieces, if unity was able to calculate their physics together
with extra connections, it would be able to calculate them as separate crafts too, especially as they "live" only for minutes)
their fallback can easily be calculated. there is a suborbital rail its going till it reach the atmosphere.
now instead of erasing it there a node could be added (generally a burn against the orbit-vector as the slowing down effect of entering the atmosphere) and at 500m an other node an other negative burn as the slowing down effect of the parachutes. when it lands get the speed the mass and the collision tolerance of the weakest part. (yes, not the colliding part count, its the stupidity of KSP. try fixing a glass between 2 rocks and drop it. let see what will break...)
from these its easy to know if it survive or not. OP was asking to remove the stupid part erasing not to give a realistic landing for every unseen booster.
-
Yes, I did not consider that option. BUT... this would mean that every part with a control unit would constantly be inside an "active" physics bundle. The minute you say "well deactivate them after landing" you're just going to get other complaints by users who find that their plan of bomb-dropping probes all over the place isn't working.
Ok, so we keep 'm active*. Keep in mind that you're stuck in Physics Acceleration until all of those spawned off units have been resolved. And since you're running a handful of them (or more), Physics Acceleration at maximum speed probably means realtime. At best. More likely your simulation will be running at half-speed. Or quarter speed. "So what?" Well, you're going to be stuck with that for the full 500m those items are floating down on their chutes at a leisurely 7.5 m/s - That's about 1m gametime, and if you're running at quarter speed that's 4m of real world time. And that assumes you can keep track of them until they land and hit "recover" to speed things up. Let's hope your launch vehicle doesn't need attention in the meantime.
I'm not saying it's impossible. But it involves adding a lot of features to make it happen, possibly dramatically impacting framerate performance. It's a lot easier to say "design wisely. Boosters spent are boosters spent and won't be recovered. If you don't like that, start working on those SSTO skills"
What I do suspect in future versions is that some boosters will have some auto-recover flag. After all, the KD25K description already states "This super heavy booster is designed to be recovered after jettisoning. Once recovered, it is refurbished and refueled for another launch."
well seen you know nothing of development. the falling back could be simulated the same way as the rail for orbit with a simply check at the impact if the speed of the falling back part will destroy it or not. it doesnt need the unity physics just the primary school physics knowledge. you know, from weight and speed you can simply calculate the forces and check if its within the impact tolerance or not... you accept this simplified mechanism for the orbit why you want silly way over-complicated crap for the unsupervised reentry?
lol. the revenge of SQUAD
syncronous orbit
in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
Posted
what doesnt work and which way? there are 2 above
nope, in ksp i get the orbit seen on my picture. in reality the engine would face the center of orbit all the time. thats the natural way, thats why moons orbit showing the same face towards the planets