Themohawkninja
-
Posts
2,332 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Themohawkninja
-
-
Hundreds, if not thousands of Kerbals die in rockets and spaceplanes everyday, what difference does it make? :b
Dieing in war seems like a better death than running out of EVApack fuel when your 200+ meters away from a ship.
-
By the way, have you tried it with other engines? Or does it only work with those weak ones?
It works with the LFE\'s (at least the smallest of them), but the one that I used in the video seemed to be the most effective.
-
Does it work with any rockets? I would love to try this on the Mun.
Yea, I tried it with the smallest of the LFE, and it launched a Kerbal. It actually damaged the Kerbal about 6-8 times before launching him... those suits are tough.
-
So... I found that Kerbals get LAUNCHED when they encounter a jet blast.
-
Everyone is always like 'no combat is KSP!'.
Seriously... THIS IS SO MUCH MORE AWESOME THAN EVEN I THOUGHT COMBAT WOULD BE! (nice designs for everything).
P.S. How did you get everything to move autonomously? You make it look like this was done via multiplayer.
-
Introduction: So you want to make a plane, but you have very poor knowledge of KSP\'s physics? Or maybe you can\'t seem to get your plane off the ground until AFTER it\'s went sailing off the end of the runway? I have been making planes for a while, and I have acquired a wealth of knowledge to get planes off the ground and in the air! Here are a few tips and tricks that I have learned.
Controls in the nose: One of the most frustrating things about making planes in KSP, is that many a times, you will only get your plane off the ground, once you have left the runway, and your wings are able to pitch upwards. There is a simple solution to this problem... put control surfaces on the nose (or as close to it as you possible can). This will help life your nose up while you are on the runway, thereby allowing your wings to get the necessary angle of attack, and you will fly up into the air! (given you have enough lift to do so).
Bi-planes: While it may seem a bit odd that you would want to build a bi-plane in the age of jets, the fact is, is that bi-planes in KSP allow for a high lift with a small wingspan. I personally use the swept wings as the wings for my bi-planes, but any wing design should work so long as it isn\'t really heavy, otherwise the upper wing will collide with the lower wing.
No tricycle landing gear: Even though in reality many planes use a tricycle design for landing gear, it doesn\'t really work well in KSP. Reason being, is that if you try and turn at too high of a speed while of the ground, your plane... will tilt over... and crash.
-
How does one edit the distance at which the physics of a craft come in to play?
-
Now that we can make crew-able parts by editing the .cfg files, it has come to my knowledge that you can\'t designate the parameters for a hatch in the ,cfg file. I assume that the hatch is another layer that you would add in blender (or another modeling program), but I am unaware as to how you do it.
-
I would just like to mark it down for the record is that it is written nowhere that KSP is for kids. It is for everyone, kids and adults included.
Yes I know it\'s not specifically marketed for kids, but it sure isn\'t T or M rated.
-
It would be nice to see a nicer 'sky' at night.
Personally, I would like to see a greater variety of objects that you see. Instead of just the little white specks, there should be red, yellow, and blue specks. Along with small nebulae, and distant galaxies, there is a lot that Squad could do to the sky.
-
IIRC, Kerbin, the Mun and Minmus are all procedurally generated, just with a fixed seed all the time so they never differ.
Than why did they procedurally generate them? Was it in preparation for actual randomness?
-
I don\'t think that Damion is a dev. At least I\'ve never seen him post something to the effect of 'what I worked on for .16 today is...' posts.
-
Perhaps you should re-read my post. Then do a wikipedia search on procedural generation. It doesn\'t have to have 'no character.' Only if the programmer is lazy. This is the reason Infinity: The Quest for Earth has been taking so long. The programmer kind of wants to make it so that it\'s not 'boring, without character.'
You beat me to it!
Now to go check out that game you mentioned...
-
Procedural Generation is alot better than you might think. You can set it to craft as many different types of planets/moons/stars/asteroids/comets as you want, with a TON of different details, and it will do that, randomly, but it can save the generated item so that when you come back to it later, it will be the same as you left it. It doesn\'t make carbon copies, unless you set it to make carbon copies. It\'s very versatile, and allows for much larger play areas with a lot less lag.
It\'s been proven to work with areas up to 30,000,000 m2. That was with the game filled with hundreds of objects at any given time. It should work on an even grander scale, because in KSP there is much less occupying that same space.
-
Spore\'s galaxy was an awe-inspiring idea (I\'ve read that it has 100,000 systems?), but seriously, what percentage of that did any player ever get around to visiting?
100,000 systems? DAMN!
But yeah, if they made something that was like twice the size of the Solar System, than I\'d be fine with that.
I just wander how many systems we will get, because I highly doubt that Squad would put in an FTL drive when we only have one star system.
-
I heard recently the Voyager 1 will soon reach the edge of the solar system. It took over 30 years. In my eyes, that shows that one solar system is large enough for KSP. If the team focuses on this one system, everything can be hand polished and put in properly. There can be multiple asteroid belts, a big Oort cloud way out at the edge, comets that have rediculous orbits, and as many planets/dwarf planets as you can find orbits for.
That would be pretty cool.
They would have to promote Kerbol to a blue super-giant in order to keep people from yelling at Squad for making a system that is way to large for a red dwarf to gravitationally hold. ;P
-
exactly you dont just put in an number and create a galaxy, with all the orbits and gravities, what spock called the celestial ballet (well he did in the simpsons)
I know it\'s not easy to program, I\'m just saying there are ways to make it easy/less taxing on your processor.
-
My point is, you make it sound easy, but it\'s not. It\'s extremely, EXTREMELY difficult. Just our (relatively basic) procedural terrain took months to create!
I wouldn\'t think it would be too difficult considering the vast amount of games that use texture streaming, but I have only ever programmed in 2D.
-
Yeah, it\'s also called 'Making sure all the values entered are possible, making something that can create planets from simple numbers, making sure it\'s still enjoyable and not overly boring, making sure you don\'t have cases where a planet can orbit inside itself or a star or another planet, making sure planets aren\'t square shaped, making sure the textures aren\'t just white noise, making sure the random planet lines up with the random texture'...
You start out small, and you grow from there. Thereby, you can find the issues early on, and find any limit in the size before the values go nuts. That, and you progressively generate it.
-
Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
It\'s a hundred thousand light years side to side.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
But out by us, it\'s just three thousand light years wide.
We\'re thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
We go \'round every two hundred million years,
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.
not possible with todays pc\'s end of.
A: We don\'t need to make it THAT big. Who said that Kerbin is in a Milky Way style galaxy? Maybe they are in a really small galaxy.
B: The whole galaxy doesn\'t need to exist at any given time. Only the area within a certain radius, and all other stars would simply appear as the 2D spots that they do now, until you get close enough to them.
C: Way to go with the Monty Python reference!
spore again eh? spore is not the same kind of game as this by any stretch of the imagination, and was also rubbish.
Correct, Spore has very little in common with KSP. That doesn\'t mean you can take parts of a game, and put them in another game.
-
yes its in dev so isnt finished so therefore cant be talked of as we all know games that looked great but were never completed or even had a playable demo, until i see it in a game as described here i say it isnt feasible., not at galaxy size at any rate.
i am hoping that one day it will happen as i it just needs time, but it isnt happening yet and not for a long while.
To be perfectly honest, Spore is the answer. There is a galaxy of star systems, and proto-stars. It is not all generated at once (as that is probably completely impossible with current PCs). If you switch out the Galaxy->System->Planet->Surface, with Galaxy SOI->Star SOI->Body SOI->(current KSP texture streaming as you try and land).
-
Like Infinity: The quest for Earth? Where a galaxy and all it\'s stars and planets are procedurally generated the same way for everyone.
Making every star and planet in a galaxy is just unrealistic.
Random Number Generators people! They make everything easier/faster on huge scales!
-
i think people are forgetting the sheer size of just one galaxy, and also the need to test every planet sun and moon, texture and place in space would take millions of years, however i think as someone has said a brief loading screen of some kind would enable much larger areas.
with regard to any space game like elite, do you really think that is the same as creating fully textured 3d approachable bodies in space that can then be landed on? with a physics engine directing rocket thrust and gravity effects?
i can write down what id like to see in a game, but to actually bring that into being takes a long time, i dont think a lot of people who post on here understand what it takes to create a game.
I understand what it takes... but I also know of a psuedo-cheat way of making stuff like galaxies. It\'s called a random number generator.
-
The purpose behind the on-rails system is that it is very easy to calculate, because you\'re using set formula based on the orbital parameters and the overall clock. If the engine needed to calculate everything\'s position by calculating the physics for them, then the engine would be stressed.
The way KSP is now (in terms of streaming), is that all the objects in space always exist. If we had a Spore sized galaxy, than (unless they changed the object streaming), the computer would have to load all the planets and stars at once. Even if they are just on-rails, that many 3D objects seems like it might take a toll.
Kerbals at War - The very first KSP War movie
in KSP Fan Works
Posted
To be perfectly honest, I have wondered if somebody is going to make little guns for the Kerbals to shoot.