Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KerikBalm

  1. Ignoring his lack of understanding of what combustion is - you are, and I guess he is, describing a resistojet rocket https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistojet_rocket They are pretty bad, but better than cold gas thrusters. I wouldn't use them for more than RCS - or maybe station keeping on a small satellite
  2. I prefer 6.25x, ie 2.5^2. It's easier to multiply orbital periods and dV requirements by 2.5x than... checks sqrt 6.4= 2.529822 I would have there be various difficulties Difficulty: rescale factor: orbital period and approximate dV multiplier Easy: 1x: 1x Medium: 2.25x: 1.5x Hard: 4x: 2x Expert: 6.25x: 2.5x Or maybe, depending on bodies and part stats: Easy: 1x: 1x Medium: 4x: 2x Hard: 9x: 3x Hard would be close to "real" scale, and would require parts with stats quite a bit better than those found in KSO1. In all cases, I wouldn't scale the atmosphere up by more than 1.25x Not true, you can make orbit in RSS with stock parts, payload fraction is terrible though. 1x scale is still much easier than real life - compensation is partial at best. I find 3-4x rescales to be about right for balance purposes. 6.25x gets to the limit. With a 350 isp LFO engine (poodle), you're getting a proportional dV less than that of a hyrdolox engine, while being saddled with poor mass ratios due to heavy empty tanks, and poor rocket TWR. For saves where I enable KRnD in KSP1, I play at 6.25x
  3. I don't fit any of those. I don't have a positive opinion of the product as is, and I don't have confidence that they will sufficiently remedy the situation. I hope they remedy the situation. I'm not going to be on here much, spreading the pessimism, because that may become a self fulfilling prophecy. I'm not going to blow smoke and say everything is great, because if the devs believe it is, that's not good either. So, I think it's best to sit back and be generally silent. Give praise where praise is due, and greet disappointment with silence.
  4. ^this^ As far as control, I haven't really made any helos that I would describe as "nimble" Quad copters are technically helicopters, you can make an ok control system with the KAL controller modifying rpms of the 4 rotors. I've made workable quad tiltrotor cargo aircraft that are controllable enough to land on top of the VAB, hangar roofs of the island airfield, etc. They are ponderous and require patient and gentle maneuvering in hover mode Other than quad copters, I do contrarotating rotors, Kamov helo style. With enough reaction wheels, they can be fairly nimble Another thing is the speed we expect from the helos. IRL, most helos fly slower than 200mph/320 kph, or less than 90 m/s. Really slow in ksp when you get used to jetting around at >mach 4 Helos don't do well at high speed, and retreating blade stall should also manifest in ksp
  5. No, it cannot be placed. Notice it is red. That is the preview for the placement, it won't get placed at all. Yea, I'm trying to go full stock, but text file editing is needed to use a ground anchor. Of course, a ground anchor is only really needed with scatterer modding which goes beyond visual mods and adds wave effects to spalshed down craft. So I had another idea, and that would be to: 1) send down a diving rig, while the floating part stays above, really light (floating high) Then after joining the floating part to the miner, the mined ore will weigh down the top part, which will be resting on the miner, preventing it from sinking down as it increases in mass - and hopefully it won't rise up with the waves, and will thus be stationary despite the wave action But this was very tedious, so I turned to robotics There were multiple candidate locations A simple set of linked extendable pistons (one hinge to pivot 90 degrees to point the drill down, another hinge to swing 180 degrees to allow for the drill to fold in half for storage) can give quite some reach, the bottom was accessible here: But one candidate location was almost too shallow, I had to drill at a slant - the next iteration will have the hinge oriented so that I can just point half the "drill" down, and leave the other half in the cargo bay: Of course, this looks more like a boat than a fixed base like the others, but it can serve the same purpose. Due to the robotic drift bug, in use I would just have it maneuver to one undersea mount, extend the drill, lock everything in place, and then stay there. I may try to change the robotic mounting so that the drills are below the CoM, and have some supports so that the craft can rest on the drill arm as it gets heavier (again, to avoid going up and down with the waves) So, EVA construction vs robotics: EVA pros: Lower part count, more flexible? EVA cons: Tedious to build, requires some precision to look right and be level, cannot get down lower than crush depth (if part pressure limits are turned on: 400 m for Kerbin, 500m for Laythe, about 235 for Eve I think) Robotics pros: Easier and quicker Robotics cons: higher part count, robotics associated bugs must be designed/worked around.
  6. One should always try to limit part count - so my fuel depot's are large 3.75 or 5m tanks It's a fuel depot, there's no need to be fancy. Some docking ports, a big LFO tank, and a big monoprop tank. Throw on a reaction wheel, probe core, solar panel, and relay antenna for convenience.
  7. You don't have to turn them fast, any reaction wheel will work for eventually. Or you could unclae, and re-claw facing the right direction
  8. Let's not forget that size and detail aren't the same thing. In 1999, Arma:CWC (then called Operation Flashpoint/OFP) had maps 12.8x12.8 km, with almost 60 km^2 of land 17 years later, Arma 3's expansion came with a map.... 15.36x15.36 km, and about 100km^2 of land. A modest increase in map size? The maps went from a 256x256 grid with a 50x50m cell size, to a 4096x4096 grid with a 3.75x3.75m cell size. The difference in the number of objects was astounding too. You should also look at detail, and resolution. A 1000x1000km featureless plain is not really "bigger", computationally speaking, than a 4x4km jungle map just packed with objects, and with a 1m terrain resolution Ksp planets, for the most part(including mods), are rendered from 1024x2048 (or 2048x4096) height map and texture, or simply from procedural generation, and have simple procedurally generated ground scatter. It actually not that impressive. It's the physics system that is impressive for KSP
  9. I don't know about the mods, but the stock one can't be placed by a Kerbal underwater, which was quite a disappointment for me. I had to place it on solid ground and text edit it underwater. So much for an underwater sub fueling/ballasting station - transfer too much stuff out of it, and it floats up, no sea anchoring. Also would be useful for floating bases with a seafloor connection and scatterer oceans that make waves actually move your craft up and down if floating
  10. With breaking ground in ksp1, you could have electric rotors propel your sub, powered by RTGs. Simple text editing could make surface features show up there
  11. Do they have the equivalent of a Kopernicus mod for KSP2 yet? This would also be a big factor for whether I purchase the game. I'm not interested in playing at 1x anymore
  12. No, I am not saying that at all. You have your opinion, I have mine. I am saying that our opinions different markedly, not that you opinion is dishonest. I just want them to do better. What I have seen is not enough, and I wouldn't want them to think their progress so far is satisfactory
  13. I absolutely agree that the science and career modes are lacking. I was quite disappointed by the "First Contract" update. It remains to be seen if KSP2 will do any better Agreed, the increased terrain detail was one of the things that excited me about KSP2 (I said as much on the giveaway thread). I'm sure the terrain is still polygonal, but I am guessing the "grid size" is much smaller (like arma:cwc's islands being about the same size as arma 3's Tania island, but the original had a height map with a 50m grid size, and tanoa's grid size was 3.75m). I haven't been able to judge that well from videos though. Can't tell how much is due to more detailed geometry vs just textures Not in it's*current state*. I do still hold out hope that it will get good. However I am not going to contribute to any impression that what they've done so far is satisfactory for the price
  14. Can you be more specific? From what I understand: Pros- graphics (debatable vs modded KSP1), paint schemes, procedural wings (are there any KSP1 my DS for that?), And UI (in most aspects) Cons: poor performance, wobbly rockets, fuel transfer doesn't work right, docking summons the kraken, collision detection on celestial bodies often doesn't work, trajectories don't display correctly, maneuver nodes are harder to use (?), No robotics and even old KSP1 style stock-non-DLC rotors don't work, no reentry heating, I'm guessing no com-net, no career/progression mode, very limited mod options... As far as I can tell, it's barebones KSP1, plus some graphics mods, minus a lot of other features, and with major game breaking bugs. I am absolutely not sold on its current state, and will wait for the game to get better and/or the price to come down
  15. So it's not SAS that is broken, but reaction wheels?
  16. You could with the old maneuver planner too I am not, see below Hmmm, well, as the title of the thread suggests, I haven't bought the game - you are correct that I have not touched it. I was unaware of this feature, and given all the videos leading to release featuring stuff that wasn't in the release, I was using (overall critical) videos of the post release product for information. I guess if that maneuver planner is in and works as described, then the complaint of the burn timer not appearing until after the burn starts does seem to be a minor nitpick. Agreed, but I was hoping for it to be possible in KSP2, I expected it to be, it was a not insignificant selling point for me. KSP 1 had virtually no competition- Orbiter would be the closest thing to competition before Simple Rockets. I agree that KSP could have done many things better. There was certainly a lot of room for improvement, so it's not hard to imagine a superior competitor was possible. We all knew it could be improved a lot, it's why we were so excited for KSP2. I still hope KSP2 turns into a great product. It's just not there yet for me.
  17. That's not how ion engines should work, and the time warp factor was not what limits thatm Considering that you need that information to time when to start a burn, and ksp1 gives it to you while KSP2 doesn't, yes it does constitute even worse. No they added thrust under time warp instead of thrust under physics warp. If the thrust doesn't persist when you switch vessels, go back to KSC, etc then it doesn't persist and it's not persistent thrust. And if the vessel can't change orientation while under time warp thrust, then the sort of continuous low thrust trajectories that I was excited about aren't even possible, making this just a way to save time on long burns. All trajectories remain standard impulse trajectories, and it still doesn't allow for accurate modelling of how ion engines should work. A big disappointment
  18. I thought maneuver nodes were even worse in 2 so far, not even showing burn time until you start burning It's 800, so, not a bug... I don't follow your logic here Yes, Lf only tanks are too dense, so are planets. Rapiers and whiplash Isp is too high for kerosene fuel, but appropriate for liquid hydrogen. Aside from the bulk, does it matter? Tank mass ratios are too poor for kerosene or liquid hydrogen Have they though? All I know is that you can time warp during burns. There's no persistent rotation that would allow a solar-ion thruster with realistic thrust to spiral outward. You can't plot a brachistichrone trajectory, you can arrange for a long burn on a craft and leave it burning while you switch to another craft. Sooo.... they provide an alternative to 4x physics warp, with some upsides and some downsides
  19. They owe you KSP2 0.2, 0.3, ... 1.0 etc *IF* they get made. That IF is important. I have heard some references/allusions to a dev that basically sold an EA game, and then when it was ready to leave early access, they changed the name and released it as a different game. In such a scenario, I think that you are owed the finished game (since it exists in this scenario). Then we have other intermediate scenarios, that nearly became an issue for KSP1's early adopters. Buying the game in EA doesn't give you the right to future DLCs(KSP1's terms were ambiguous, and they did the non-jerk thing and interpreted the terms broadly instead of splitting hairs). They could take stuff from the roadmap, and release them as separate DLCs. I wonder what would happen if they made a "colonies" DLC, and an "Interstellar" DLC, and EA buyers didn't get them What is this incident that you speak of? They didn't say "more money" overall, but rather it changes the timing of when they get money, potentially allowing the dev budget to be extended I agree, however, the way they phrase things does tend to mislead a lot of people, and I am sure that they know that Yea, I have never gotten good vibes from Nate. I also wonder, what the heck was he looking at. What the heck have they been doing. It seems like its KSP1 with some graphics mods and a planet pack oh and worse performance, more bugs, and other features removed [snip]
  20. "On the community team" Well, aside from sympathy for other humans that we interact with, I think most don't really care- we're worried about how the development team has been affected
  21. Indeed, so far that isn't the issue, just a lack of progress by the dev team. Maybe it has to do with that star theory drama, maybe the star theory drama was because of the lack of progress. I don't know where to put the blame Have we actually seen video of them testing functional colonies? A wobbling base could be made just out of colony shaped parts, functionally the same as a normal can craft I am not presuming, I didn't make this idea up, it comes from here:
  22. As noted, you can make jet engines that run on liquid hydrogen. Simplifying fuel types into "liquid fuel" is not a bug, it's a gameplay feature, and I don't see how it's relevant to the state of KSP2. That said, I do consider it a positive that KSP2 splits it into methalox and hydrolox
  23. Cost-cutting measures? Not a good sign. The early access release shows us that there is a lot of work still to be done. It also is consistent with an idea that the game was released now due to a desire/need for revenue/a cash infusion. Otherwise why release early access in this state. We (the fanbase) waited 3 years, we can wait longer. Apparently the publisher can't, that's the concerning part
  24. Well, for now, I am mostly giving them the benefit of the doubt/ Early Access. They showed us lots of colony models, they showed us planets in new solar systems - those assets exist in some form. Hhowever, giving them the benefit of the doubt doesn't mean that I don't have serious concerns.: Before early access release, I thought they had made good progress on the new (gameplay and star) systems but that they still needed some polish. After release, it seems core mechanics present in KSP1 need a whole lot of work, not just polish, so now I wonder how much progress they actually made on other elements: Do they have anything for colonies other than the 3d models? They have certainly over hyped - they are a long way from slaying the Kraken, it seems like it is a massive step back on that front. I also had high hopes for large optimization gains as they rebuilt the KSP game engine from the ground up. Well, they aren't going to be rebuilding the game engine from the ground up now, and whatever gains they may have made are not evident - but it seems that they recognize that they need to optimize more. We shall see I understand that they have some massively unoptimized rendering calls to the GPU, and the graphics rendering is a problem. Vessels with high part count shouldn't be that hard on the GPU to render (considering everything else that is being rendered). In KSP1 the limitation on part counts was due to the physics calculations being very demanding on the CPU. So the GPU load of KSP2 doesn't really explain the slowness with higher part count vessels. In an interview, IIRC, their performance goals were basically set considering that vessels of 100-150 part would be common. I routinely exceed that in KSP1 by large margins (granted procedural wings could have a large benefit to part count for many designs) - and in KSP2 I expected to make even more complex ships for interstellar travel - so this is also concerning. They say they will optimize-fine let's see what they can do next. They say their goal is to have ~150 part vessels run smoothly enough. IMO that's a low number and even their goal is concerning. It's s early access, KSP1 came a long way, we'll see how far KSP2 comes. - that said, we waited a long time, we could wait more, why release it in this state? It suggests to me that someone in the company demanded that they start getting some revenue for the project. If there are funding concerns, then this is concerning given how much work is still to be done
  • Create New...