Jump to content

Dakitess

Members
  • Posts

    403
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dakitess

  1. I'm afraid it would look really bad and would only be some kind of very rare specific location, not a credible terrain feature that you'll try to find by yourself. I would love cave as well, but as something that I would randomly find or look for, not these very messy easter egg, very badly implemented, with different shaders, different lightning, different textures, etc. Terrain tech in KSP2 is so deceiving, this is exactly what I was expecting the most and what actually bring the less
  2. I did not try SSTO Ascent Path in KSP2, but what you describe is a bit different of what we have as an optimal in KSP1. In KSP1, using Rapiers Only, most of my SSTO has a very simple optimal path to orbit : SAS ON, proper take off, nose at 1° above the horizon and... That's it. It will accelerate very strongly at low altitude and the rotondity of Kerbin will naturally and very progressively raise it up without any input, thus without sacrificing any sudden AoA change. I tend to Lock Prograde past the 8-10° above the horizon to avoid the nose to get too high and it even improves the last minutes aerodynamic, when all what matters is to get as fast as possible in closed cycle. That's all. Sometimes I have to "Power Dive" : take off, climb gently at 1-2°C above the horizon until I reach 2-4km, Mach Aerodynamic barrier would prevent me to go faster : I lock prograde, thus falling nose down my velocity vector, so that aerodynamic is as good as possible, to help the Rapiers kicking past the 400 m/s. Past that point, it will continue to accelerate and you're good to go, without adding another(s) Rapiers which would represent drymass, just because of the Mach barrier.
  3. I've wrote a bunch of Tutorials and Missions for KSP1 and I like to alternate between : - Construction tutorials : your first rocket for instance - Navigation tutorials : manoeuver nodes for instance - Specific skill tutorial : RCS placement and docking for instance - Milestone missions : to the mun and back My KSP1 global tutorial was planned with theses chapters : 0) Presentation and hands on KSP 1) The basis of rocket design 2) Lift-Off, orbiting and Gravity Turn 3) Manoeuvers Nodes and basic transfer 4) To the mun and back (1st Milestone to exploit the 3 previous tutorials) ---------------- 5) Design a station and its modules (introduce the docking and thus the RCS placements) 6) Rendez-vous and Docking 7) The logic of interplanetary Transfer 8) To Duna and back (2nd Milestone to exploit the 3 previous tutorials) ------------------- 9) How to build and control a basic plane 10) How to build an SSTO and the ideal path to orbit 11) The atmospheric Reentry 12) To Laythe and back (3rd Milestone to exploit the 3 previous tutorials) ----------------- And I did not get any further but we would have some Advanced Rocket Design (aesthetic, performance optimization, etc), Advanced Orbital mechanic (Oberth effect, Bi-elliptical rather than Hohmann, Gravity Assist, etc), Buoyancy and boat crafting, etc. I wish we had something like this in KSP2, with more intermediate missions, more distincts chapter, some repetition, etc.
  4. It's actually really not a big deal if it stays as is, indeed. I don't care too much, I just find it not very good, and it feels way too forced, so it can be better for sure. But it might be the least of the priority, clearly, and we can totally overcome it : it does not mean that it should not be mentioned as something to improve / correct
  5. This, a thousand time. I really "hate" this kind of forced humor, everywhere, anywhere, all the time. It does not serve any purpose, it's annoying and quite puerile, because of repetition. Yeah haha okay, coffee, haha, I got it, hehe, addiction, so fun, and Kapibaras, haha look at their big nose, lol, it's funny, it's big, and they go to space, or perhaps, or we don't know, but whatever, Kapybaras, and coffee addiction, cause we all love coffee and all are addict to it, and it's fun, just like big Splosions, always, way more fun than actually succeeding a mission, don't get too serious, c'mon, it's a game, crashes are fun, and eclipse as well, haha, Jeb crashed its face on the ground and still live. Lol. Yeah, sorry for the rant. Regarding the topic, I did not watch the tutorial except the Gravity Turn one, which is very good as a very short "basic" which does not teach everything step by step. I think it's the best Tutorial format, a 2 minutes animation that won't go in Gameplay details, so that the community then handle the 20minutes long docking step by step tutorial. It ensures that tutorial actually don't ruin the Die and Retry aspect of the game, the proudness to succeed by ourselves, while in the same time giving just enough information about physics and global advices to not feel abandoned. It needs to be declined with all the Tutorial topics that we usually looked for in KSP1 : manoeuver nodes, RdV, docking, interplanetary transfrt, aerobraking, Gravity Assist, landing, but also some Craft design tutorial, about RCS placement, CoL/CoM, optimization, and so on.
  6. This presentation, and especially the visuals are stellar, for real. Really really nice. As an occasional Orbital Mechanics / KSP teacher in Engineering High School / University, I've been trough all theses explanation in pretty much the exact same order, but with about 3 to 4 hours courses content, detailing every aspect of it and using KSP as the perfect support to learn and feel how it works. I'm clearly not at the point of doing that kind of visuals which are very helpful and well thought ! It's a shame I'm such a bad drawer haha.
  7. I don't understand what could be the problem in KSP2 if you're handling that perfectly in KSP1. Where do you struggle more, what do you find different ?
  8. Yeah 1.3 is really the lowest TWR you wanna have. To suit some RolePlay crewed mission for instance, this is what I do. Otherwise, best performance is around 1.8 to 2.2 depending on the rocket (sounding very aerodynamic tiny rocket can get way higher as an optimum). It really changes everything. Can be hard to find the sweet GT spot though, 1.4 to 1.6 is the easier. Really, forget about that "drag" losses, they are so marginal if you're doing a proper GT (which is optimal regarding Drag) and if your rocket is correctly designed, i.e. without an atrocious fairing or something else. Even though, you can still do a GT and win a lot, you'll just have to adapt and do a "round" GT, not an agressive one, to get a bit higher than you would than with a proper design. By the way, here is my tutorial about Gravity Turn. It's in French, but you all know what I'm talking about :p It won't sound as "pro" as other, regarding the audio and so on, I'm not a Youtuber, but i'll humbly admit that I consider this video as one of the most comprehensive regarding this topic.
  9. Yeah 1.3 is really the lowest TWR you wanna have. To suit some RolePlay crewed mission for instance, this is what I do. Otherwise, best performance is around 1.8 to 2.2 depending on the rocket (sounding very aerodynamic tiny rocket can get way higher as an optimum). It really changes everything. Can be hard to find the sweet GT spot though, 1.4 to 1.6 is the easier.
  10. Totally right, typo haha ! Can't edit, there is new rule (I guess) with a limit edit time... Arf ! I hope it's not really the case OR it will be fixe ASAP as I won't ever launch this way after such a good experience in KSP1. It would not make any sense, like, at all. No launch will suddenly pitch by 10° at high speed, this is absurd, even for a game. Edit : misread the Vl3d quote, my bad, you're not saying we should angle 10° at 10km, but rather that the angle should not exceed 10° by 10km. Which I still strongly disagree, of course, it would be a VERY vertical non-Gravity-Assist ascent, very unoptimized, something like 10-15% less efficient than a correct GT. But it might necessary with the actual KSP2 release, did not try it : if it's the case, yeah, I confirm, it's very very bad, but we would have seen way more complaints about it I guess, I did not see anything about it, past your experience.
  11. I had a whole article about that, with some diagrams and abacus to be able to get some proper real Gravity Turn based on the TWR at liftoff, considering that it's design is OK-ish. We spent something like a hundred hours coding an empirical method to plot the very best PitchOver Speed and PitchOver Amplitude, with some automation and some variable, and then coding a whole Perfect Gravity Turn kOS code, quite better and more versatile than the Gravity Turn mod for instance. Unfortunately, this article is lost at the moment, we are transiting from a website to another one. I can anyway provide this abacus : It shows the PitchOver Speed trigger and the PitchOver Angle amplitude, relative to the LiftOff TWR. How it reads : for a given TWR, say 1.5 which is quite a "normal" TWR, you can Pitch Over at 14m/s and 65° (from the horizon, so 25° from the vertical), or 62m/s and 85° (so 5° from the vertical). Both would perform quite similarly, BUT the lower the amplitude, the better : you don't want to pivot 25° abruptly at high speed when you can do otherwise and smoother : it would be unaesthetic, dramatic for the structure even if KSP would allow it, and can lead to loss of control because of the AoA, even if at those speed and with gimbal, it should be fine. You'll say : it depends on the rocket, yeah, of course it does ! It depends of its Solid to Liquid fuel ration, the TWR of the upper stage, but also the Sea Level to Vacuum ISP ratio, the Stages mass proportion, etc etc etc. Of course. But you'll find by experience that the very main parameter is the LiftOff TWR, assuming that your rocket has a "normal" configuration : not a crazy large fairing, not an anemic or overpowered 2nd stage, not an unrealistic asparagus mess, etc. Even though it would be a good start and it's easy to spot when a GT is going too low or too high within the first 30s (or even sooner) of a launch Also : most of these parameters are addressed in the final code, the OptiGT kOS script, which handle many things. It's based on a dichotomies approach but include some shortcuts and clever adjustments, as well as a very very nice GUI ! I would love to get your feedback about it, it's for KSP1 but I'm pretty sure a lot of us are still using it. Don't see it as a cheaty autopilot, more of a Perfect GT finder, to learn how it's doing and develop the "sense", the feeling of a good GT. And it's very very handy when you're optimizing every drop of fuel as well :p https://github.com/PhilouDS/opti_gt Anyway, as a way shorter answer to the question : I always, alwaaaaays to the Follow Prograde method, the only good looking GT method :p And with quite some experience, I can perform a perfect GT in a couple tries as well as ensuring that the first one with be "good" at least It's very satisfying, and it's soooo much more efficient than any other kind of ascent trajectory. Ho, also, never ever throttle down your engines. NEVER. I've never encountered a single rocket launch when it would be preferable. Change your engine if it's too powerful, you'll gain Mass and ISP most of the time. Be aware that Atmospheric drag is WAAAAY over estimated by players, Gravity Losses are the most important one. At least with a proper GT, of course, in follow prograde :p It does not prevent you to do an active GT though : you feel you're leaning too fast ? Hold that SAS button a couple seconds, it will help a lot, especially if noticed during the first 15s of flight ! There is some "key points" that 90% rockets will follow : 25° from vertical at 3500m, 45° from vertical at 8000-10000m, 70° from vertical at 25000-35000m. The very first 2 key points are essential, they can vary, a TWR = 2 will lead to something very aggressive with 45° as soon as you hit 3000m, especially for light sounding rocket, but for 1.4-1.6 TWR, you'll have a good feeling of a GT being too low or two high with theses key points.
  12. I tend to second that, It really does not give any feeling of coherence to unlock techs because of achievements. Of course, it's not completely absurd, because it's a game : it can be understood as a big shortcut like "Congrats for doing that, here is more funds, enjoy" that allow for research and better techs, to go further, please even more Mister President, that will allow for more funds, etc etc. Why not. But yeah, it could have been done better. I don't know exactly how, though, and it does not seems to be an easy task ! Money exclusively, actually, why not. But it loose the advantage of Science to allow people to discover the part gradually, bit by bit, for new comers.
  13. How do you reach orbit at all if parts are exploding at such low speed during ascent ? Only specific parts ? It might be something related to the max temp resistance the parts were given ?
  14. I havent tried the update yet, but have seen 3 videos about it and read some pages around there. Soooo basically, the "Exploration Mode" is still the same than KSP1 but a bit more refined and with some kind of narrative regarding ground anomalies ? Is there any kinf of real "story", a kind of career to involve the player ? We know there is no money and all, but, so no other limitation than research points to unlock parts ? I find it a bit deceiving. Actually, I played KSP1 Science mode for about 5 hours at most, and career 0 hours. I'm not the client I guess, but specifically because I find it poorly implemented and lacking of interest, so I hoped something more deep and more enjoyable for KSP2. I'll try it anyway but your feedback are welcomed about it !
  15. Yeah but... Planes ! I find landing in KSP way way way too easy regarding the challenge that it should be when it comes to shuttle, big massive SSTO, etc. Some random wind would help mitigate that, as a togglable difficulty option if necessary ! Though I would nuance and say that some wobble is still important, more than actually. Except if it implies to maintain a performance heavy system just for some light wobble than I can live without, I guess, to be replaced by something else more valuable indeed.
  16. Agree that in the videos I've seen, it feels really too much rigid, or more precisely, too much solid, rough, robust. It ain't wobble and bend ? Fine, make it snap ! Since it won't be really easy to do so, wobble and struts might be a good thing to fine-tune. Indeed, it's totally not OK to get a very well designed rocket, realistic, with good proportion, to bend over like a wet a noodle. Unacceptable, unenjoyable. But it's neither not OK to get a weird contraption flying straight while it would OBVIOUSLY bend / break. Lot of players were legit afraid of that, to loose a whole part of design visual failure feedback and it happened. Or I guess, I must say, did not try it for now, but videos are quite explicit. I remember reading that part snipping because of over constraint would not allow the player to understand why / where / how it failed. Indeed if the thing collapse suddenly, it's hard to improve it. But just like we have heat gauges, and just like some bridges construction gate have Mechanical Stress gauges, we could have something like this, something that would show the player that damn, this part is having a hard time and will break very soon. I still guess that a legit small quantity of wobble is a good thing, as a physic implementation. It already exist(ed), it's there, we have tool to fight against it when needed (struts), it just need to be fine tuned and, ideally, "logic" and coherent, regarding what assemble is clearly a whole big constant diameter cylinder that should act accordingly. And what it a mechanical entanglement that is a legit point of weakness. What part, even with the same good diameter that below and above, is a legit point of weakness. Decouplers, docking port, etc. There is a lot of intelligence to put in this game aspect, it's not hard (not speaking of dev here), it just need to be thought correctly, I guess.
  17. I'm discovering so many things about KSP1 now that people are getting nostalgic about it ! I've never cared about Kerbals, nor the fictional parts companies, or their description, or the dialogs, or anything like this. I play KSP for 11 or 12 years, 99% sandbox, when we had nothing of this and I admit that I never got hooked but any of this, like, really not. Now that I read it, I must say that I'm quite reluctant to "Humor, humor everywhere". Not everything needs to be funny, with a relief. It feels in KSP1 and KSP2 (guessing, I've only played it 4 hours in SandBox) it's a bit "ha, see, it's funny, yeah, like, 'splosions, snacks, and all ! and him, look at him, he's dumb ! haha !". I've never understand the whole Kapibara thing, like when it was all over the place, I found out quite cringy to be fair. I just might have missed the thing, it was probably funny if people enjoyed it so much x) Was that a reference to something external to KSP at first ?
  18. You... Eyeball your TLI ? xD Haha, I always set up the perfect manoeuver node, the ideal hohmann transfer that tangent the Mun Orbit, then I move the manoeuver node while paying attention to not touch any of the axis, and game on Even after 8k hours, I would not eyeball that specific part ^^
  19. I guess the equilibrium with be natural : very high ISP, whatever Thrust (as long as it's still coherent), but very very massive and dedicated fuel (or not). Just like you won't stick a NERV onto a small craft, where an LV909 will perform better since it's more light than the Nerv is efficient. Math about it are quite easy and interesting So yeah an interstellar craft using interstellar HUGE engines would not suit any use for local platenary system. But I don't see the dev forbidding their use, and they better not to, it is KSP, let us play the way we want and we will DEFINITELY see some emergent gameplay about it, some RolePlay using this gigantic parts, etc. This is no doubt that a 2 giant engine, nozzle to nozzle, will shape a magnificent sphere-ish to hold some RolePlay habitat that would shield the crew from any radiation, etc ^^ As a side subject and as already said in other relative subjects, I really really really really (really (really)) hope that they will balance the Interstellar accordingly to the actual physic. Yes, have fun with speculative technologies, high ISP, etc, this is part of KSP. But don't mess with physics : a given quantity of fuel with a given drymass and a given payload will achieve a specific DeltaV, not a capacity to reach another place by magic, without entrance relative velocity to kill at destination. I really hope we won't be able to stick thousand on tons of payload on top of a giant interstellar contraption : even a tremendous quantity of fuel with a incredibly efficient engine, won't achieve a 10% of c if the payload is big or even medium. So yeah something like basic Tsiolkovsky equation and not another system like whatever the payload as long as you assemble "this engine" with "that quantity of fuel" and you're good to go. Real physic, real transfer time (with Warp, hu ? ^^) that have real impact on crew. I want to feel the need to shorten the transfer time, and for that, to bring even more fuel, to feel the tragedy of the Tsiolkovsky equation which imply that I would have to triple the fuel already absurdly enormous. Or... I will reduce the payload by a tiny bit, reduce the dry mass of that many tanks, etc Something really challenging, it's end game, after all ! Best intuitive solution would be to enlarge the whole star system to a multi-star one, just like we go from planetary view to star view, at another scale. So that we actually really eject from our system, travel in between and reach another one wich a perfectly fine and logical speed entrance to cancel at the arrival. But I don't know if they will do that this way, I guess, it might trick it and it would be fine as long as it's coherent. We don't need to actually travel from a star system to another one.
  20. That would change soooo much things for a game like KSP. In the good sense, obviously. I dream about that for a KSP3, be it in 15 years. Normally, in 15 years, StarEngine being the nowadays tech, it should be doable by the KSP3 team xD
  21. I really see it as an other kind of fuel, really... And it feels to me that people who don't want to bother with that are in almost defending Infinite Fuel since, damn, I don't want to bother with constraints. It's an hyperbole, an exaggeration, I guess, but we are not really far from this, are we ? Why maintaining the fuel constraints and not add something that is very similar and RolePlay / GamePlay relevant, which is the LS, just another resource, but not lacking interest since it's mainly depending on time rather than DeltaV ? I really feel like having an alert "20% crew resource left - estimated at 1.2 years" is really cool as it might imply a trade off because of your tight initial margin : you have enough DV to "cut" the transfer trajectory with a high-energy fuel costly back to home, that might save your crew from starving. Or you calculate it well and you're fine, doing the initially planned hohmann transfer, which might be 95% of the time since you can take some margin and I don't expect LS to be very "sizing", very impactful compared to a fueled crewed interplanetary mission. Just... Just a ton or two of drymass that you'll consume along the way. Yeah I don't really understand the reject of LS arguments. But it's fine, I just state that base on what have been written, I (I (I insist)) don't get how it can be a bad thing for KSP2. I would actually add more relief to it, more constraints, while not making any kind of microgestion but rather some RolePlay relevant addition : crew sanity, especially, depending on available pressurized space for the total crew, and the mission duration. See in my previous message for "details". Edit : and if it is made optional via a difficulty toggle, then it's pretty much like Communication, which is fine in KSP1, isn't it ?
  22. This. The throttle. I don't know if you're trying to make fun of us, but how did you elaborate such a rant and such resistance to explanation when you... Just failed to zero your thrust ?... Seriously. I'll even guess that you made out this video knowing that you'll need to use that thrust error to mimic the issue you were describing, since at 0'38" you indeed have a "drift" that suddenly disappear by an action of yours : to cancel properly the throttle rather than having that tiny 0.5% of gas. C'mon... Edit : OR this is totally honest, you're using a HOTAS or something else to control your thrust, and your dead-zone is really not wide enough and you got plenty false cut-off. I might even bet on that ^^
×
×
  • Create New...