DYJ
-
Posts
659 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by DYJ
-
-
Check if your node_collider is concave. The game doesn\'t support that.
-
What has the simplicity of aircraft to do with Hondas? Or hating on ignorant COD people for that matter?
-
My first thought was: 'More of this nonsense? madmadmad', but then I saw the options and laughed a little. 'Both are bad', so true we should just stop measuring stuff completely.
-
Sounds great.
If we can get this pack properly balanced I don\'t have to release a set of rocket parts and can continue making aircraft parts I can\'t be arsed to texture and release to the public.
If you are going for a 'complete pack' kind of deal you should probably throw in a few münlander legs. A 2m tricoupler might even be a new part, good thinking.
-
Can\'t we just agree that jumping out of plane without a chute is about as stupid as arguing about metric vs imperial system, or having a 'Last person to post is the winner' thread?
-
You better look at everything, one of those big solid boosters get you to 40k altitude be itself for example. And most engines seem a bit too fuel efficient and/or have a too high thrust to weight ratio.
-
Check out http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=3133.0
We don\'t really have anything ironed out yet, but Johnman posted a wip spec calculator ( think the fueltank works, the rest is a bit wonky) which can be of a little help at least.
Also: Parts look pretty and doesn\'t seem to have any problems other than the whole OP issue.
-
Well these parts are fantastically overpowered, and not the good kind of fantastic.
^Single stage to orbit (and back) rocket, pretty silly if you ask me.
-
I have never piloted an AN-2 so I\'m not going to argue in any direction, but most planes crash after hitting a tree.
And jumping out of a crashing plane is only recommended if you have a parachute and you are above minimum parachute operating altitude.
-
If we had shock absorbing landing gear yes, most likely. With the current rigid ones I\'m afraid that most moon landing would result in a bounce putting you back into space.
-
We should probably stop with the 'K's before KarolRawley goes completely mad.
-
Watching the defranco show on youtube?
Levitation caused by super conductive materials is nothing new, this has been around for years. Still pretty cool, but it\'s not until a material is discovered/created that is super conductive in 'normal' temperatures it can be used for something more exciting than levitating tiny objects.
-
Im all for standardization and I do believe your system would be great for sorting parts ingame, I just cant see how implementing it on the folders would help
-
Is it ingame or in the folder structure you want things to follow this system?
-
What? and Why?
Currently most modders name their part folders with a prefix containing their name or an acronym giving you a list looking like to following:
Modder1engine
Modder1fueltank
Modder1wing
Modder1booster
Modder2engine
.... and so on
What you propose would result in list that if sorted by name doesn\'t differentiate between modders/mod packs resulting in a scrambled less organized folder structure.
In my experience it has always been easier to see if an engine is made by me,C7 or sundaypunch for example than judging them by their thrust. So I\'m not sure what you are trying to accomplish?
-
I think you are circumventing the truth by using unmath atm, the volume of a cylinder is V=r2h and always will be. And according to the rules of math squares and routs of stuff has to be done first followed by multiplication/division and then addition subtraction last.
The reason the difference between a radius of .5 and 1 is so large is since it\'s an exponential growth thing. Hope that made sense, don\'t think I ever tried to teach anyone math before.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=volume+of+a+cylinder
Great site for doing math your brain can\'t handle.
-
There is a link to this thread in the post I made in Moach\'s thread.
I\'ll look at your updated java thing when I get back from work.
But we do need more people to look at this to give it some legitimacy.
-
The 'Recommended Deviation Index' could later be used to determine the cost of modules when that gets implemented, a part with an RDI of 2 would be significantly more expensive than stock module while being twice as good. Cheat modules would get an RDI of over 9000 and would therefor be be impossibly expensive in campaign modes but still readily available in sandbox modes. This would need some kind of (exponential maybe?) multiplier to prevent ships using a single small but high quality fueltank to get to orbit.
Module cost = stock module cost * RDI2
The main challenge we have with the formulas is that there are a lot of different variables that need to be considered some of them very hard to quantify, one example of this would be the physical awkwardness of the module.
A Hall effect thruster unit with a lot of large solar panels would need a greatly increased fuel economy compared to standard liquid fuel engine to make it a viable option, but how do we quantify the physical awkwardness of it\'s solar panel clad model?
Other complications comes from air resistance, if it played a part in the LFE equation, a space-launched craft could be equipped with an engine with an infinite air resistance and infinite fuel efficiency and still be within the given parameters.
This is why we need to get a proper discussion going and get the community involved in coming to conclusion we all can agree with.
-
We can probably get one of the artsy people on the forum to make an original pic. And your java stuff stays in your post until we have properly decided on something, so don\'t worry about that.
-
Finally back home. If you ever visit Sweden, stay the fuck away from commuter trains.
You guys have managed to get surprisingly much done, the java thing seems to check out but the radius input should be changed for a diameter one and an option to manually input the area of non cylindrical objects would be great.
I\'ll update the first post with stuff as we go.
-
I propose a standardized part balancing system using equations to determine certain aspects of component characteristics, this would make it easier and most importantly faster for modders to make new parts as well as allow for challenge creators to allow a wider selection of parts for their challenges.
For example:
A liquid fuel engines fuel consumption/efficiency could be determined by it\'s weight and thrust:
Fuel consumption = Thrust / (Weight x multiplier chosen by the community)
In a similar manner fuel tanks can be balanced using standard values for fuel mass and so on.
Basing these variables on the vanilla parts as far as possible would likely be a good idea.
This is of coarse something that require some initial work as well updating when new modules are released and so on, but I believe there are plenty of highly active forum participants who could spend some of their time forming the IKAO International Kerbal Aviation Organization responsible for maintaining these standards.
-
They overheat just as easily as a bunch of C7 engines mounted close together would, but if it\'s in the public\'s interest I\'ll release a slightly safer variant after dinner.
-
New stuff goes here
Turboprop demo on page3
Propfan demo on page4
Gentlemen BEHOLD
I bring you the Radially attached jetengine, inspired by the B-52s dual engine pod setup.
Since C7studios is the current leading manufacturer of spaceplane parts the engines have been carefully tuned to match the performance of the C7 packs C7AX-301 engine. They can be applied directly to fuselage or mounted under wings (or on top if you are a silly).
Textures are terribad, therefore the texture map thing included. A less sucky texture would be greatly appreciated, keep in mind that the UV-map might be as bad as the texture.
Radially attached jetengine revisions:
1.3 - Thrust vector updated
1.2 - Reduced fuelcomsumption to match thrust reduction.
1.1 - Reduced thrust and heatproduction, 20% reduction in thrust and heatproduction.
1.0 - Release.
Heloskids, not much more to say.]
-
The reason I chose to base my wing of your wingload1 part and not c7\'s wings is that he doesn\'t use milkshape and his .dae file therefor looks different. And your wingload1 part does work as a wing, but the low values you chose in the .cfg means that you simply need a lot of them to support any kind of airframe. My dragCoeff and deflectionLiftCoeff values are therefor closer to C7\'s values than yours. Which leads me to believe that ksp simply does not recognize my parts as wings.
Component Space Shuttle (CSS) v0.2.1
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
With the risk of sounding like a jealous bitch I\'m going to say that this thing is bit on the too high polycount side. 8 Parts at 10Mb compared to the millions(no idea how many they actually are but there is a metric fuck ton) of parts at 23Mb in sunday punches pack for example. And the geometry in between parts is fairly pointless, never the less it looks fantastic.