Renegrade
-
Posts
2,419 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by Renegrade
-
-
12 hours ago, Gamax19 said:
WOW!!! NOW THAT IS WHAT YOU CALL A PC!!!
It still cost more than 2000 pounds in the UK COOL RIG!!!
I'm seeing it as 2200 CDN. That should be like... 1200 to 1400 pounds?
On 10/17/2016 at 1:39 PM, tjt said:Macs can be great for gaming, but you just have to buy the right machine. Just like you can't expect a Toshiba Protege laptop to run KSP well, you can't really expect a macbook Air to run it well.
..or a Mini, or a Macbook normal, or a Macbook pro, or the iMac. They're all specced like 'business' PC desktops - ie small and low wattage. It's really only the Mac Pro that's well-built in terms of power. I can understand why they've done it - the vast majority of the userspace doesn't need a 1080GTX or 32G of RAM or nine SATA3 ports, etc, and a low-airflow Mini is a lot lower maintenance than my CoolerMaster HAF932-based system. And lighter too. And less juice to run. But it doesn't make 'em gaming rigs...only the Mac Pro is.
That being said, if I had unlimited (or at least 'vast amounts of') money, I'd definitely have a current-gen Mac Pro for my iOS work. This "Late 2009" mini3,1* is driving me nuts and it just got cut off from Sierra.
(* Why can't they have EXTERIOR model numbers? Why can't anybody be sensible with model numbers/designations anymore? Oh well, that's a different rant)
-
22 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:
Screaming fast download from the store. Did I beat the rush or are the servers more up to the chore?
Actually the store downloads have been better of late. 1.1 was actually downloadable from the store on the first day for me (or was that 1.0? it was something "recent" in any case), whereas the older releases wouldn't download until at LEAST a full day after the initial release (sometimes two or three days), so I'd be playing the Steam version while I wait. Heh.
-
1 hour ago, RX2000 said:
I dont see the point of multiplayer in this game? I mean we're just supposed to burn towards each other & dock together? I plan the rocket & you drive the rover once we get there? lol
I dunno, multiplayer is probably at the VERY bottom of my list of features I would like to see added to the game. But then again I never really play multiplayer in any game anyways. I'm more of a Skyrim kind of guy.
Agreed; it seems kinda.. edge case scenario to me. The solutions for time-warp in existing multiplayer mods have always sounded kinda sketchy and weird to me...
Anyhow, I also run by a golden rule for multiplayer: If I can't punch and/or put into a headlock any of my opponents for being idiots/cheats/brats, I won't play. The LAN party era was the BEST era, hands down.
-
On 10/4/2016 at 4:41 PM, Carrot said:
Why not just launch fuel tanks up and refill? It is not that hard to build a full recovery rocket in KSP. Just put a probe core, heat shield. Parachutes then you can pretty much land everything on kerbin. You even save up time to dock on the uneven terrain by hitting the recovery button. Launches are cheap as well. Why bother so much to set up a mun base, mining and so on?
The more reasonable mining places should be jool's moons and duna?
There's no need to recover parts unless you're playing some some crushing funds penalty. In default difficulty, the game just absolutely craps money all over you. In hard difficulty, it's a bit less "FREE MONEH FOR EVERYBODY", but there's still plenty (esp. once building upgrades are done).
And yeah, the ISRU units are better deployed in far away places and/or places where you'll be doing a lot of landings. I use ISRU to power my training programs for instance. A surface base sends up fuel to an orbital station, and trainees arrive, land, plant flags, take-off, refuel and head home. The re-usable lander is also refueled from the station (which is again supplied by a surface base). In my 1.1 save, I had a Moho base set up with ISRU as well, so that craft only need one-way fuel capacity to visit...
-
1 minute ago, Sonny_Jim said:
Right before release isn't exactly the best time, as there may be bugs that aren't apparent until a full release of the game gets into peoples hands. If the majority of devs who made the changes have left before the bugs surface, then it's an uphill struggle for the guys brought into replace them. IMO, a couple of weeks after the release would have been much better.
Strongly agree. It's also why you don't release on a Friday*, there will be bugs. There are always bugs. Sometimes it's not really your fault (system or middleware API is just craptastic and doesn't work as intended), sometimes it is (shouldn't have made that change at 5am dammit), but there are always bugs.
I'd have retained everybody for at least a month after, just in case. Doubly so as I experienced a crash for the first time since the PR started with the current build.
* - unless you're willing to work on the weekend.
-
Yeah, I'd really like to know what Squad's future plans are for those components.
They were quite spiffy looking, but only covered the early 1.25m stuff ...
-
1 minute ago, rem0230 said:
I live in a small town in France XD
Ah! Bonjour! C'est va bien?
Toronto, Ontario, Canada myself
I sorta know your pain though - Ontario is basically really just the cable provider vs the phone company (Rogers and Bell), and the cable guys are awful quality wise...but the telephone company hasn't bothered putting in anything past original ADSL in my neighborhood (7-8 megabits down at best) so the cable guys have a local monopoly and don't really bother with service calls or increasing provisioning or anything like that (high density apartment area here with insufficient head modems on the cable network).
-
2 minutes ago, rem0230 said:
YEAH !!!! 700ko/s and try !!!
ko/s? Kilo-octets? Gettin' 3700ko/s here myself hehe...which is strangely better than usual. Woot!
-
2 minutes ago, Temeter said:
Maybe they're working just now on their patcher so it works in 3 weeks when the beta hits :^)
Truths.
(although it probably won't work right away, but Soon™ thereafter ...)
-
On 7/25/2016 at 3:39 AM, flatbear said:
I had to watch Scott Manley videos to figure out how toget to the moon. No idea how anyone could figure out how to get to Duna in their own without quite a bit of Manley and google
I always try to figure something out before resorting to Google-fu - including interplanetary KSP missions. It's not that hard to GET there, the only real issue is efficiency. My very first technique basically involved the following:
- Perform an LKO burn until the Ap is at the target planet's orbital altitude
- At that Ap, burn prograde or retrograde until an intercept is developed (if the planet is ahead, retrograde, if it's behind, prograde)
- Profit!
It works fine, but you need a crap-ton (that's a technical term, honest!) of delta-v to perform that second burn, and depending on the relative angle between the planets, and takes forever timewise as compared to an optimal Hohmann transfer (performed during the correct window).
@5thHorseman has a technique that lets you basically detect the optimal transfer window via some very clever tomfoolery with the stock maneuver node.
NB: for the inner planets, obviously it would be the Pe instead of the Ap etc blah blah.
-
Obligatory hype post~
Hype~ woot~
-
19 minutes ago, regex said:
I have no real issues with 1.1.x because the majority of the problem is not with the KSP code, it's with Unity.
One of my Golden Rules of Programming is that for every hour saved by not writing from scratch, you spend two hours fixing bugs arising from the third party library selected.
-
As it's described in the OP, this is NOT the orbital decay bug.
11 hours ago, mjl1966 said:Once I'm in orbit around the Mun, my orbit further destabilizes. I've seen both decay and "anti-decay". On my last experiment, the orbit simply decayed for both apoapsis and periapsis, But I have seen some scenarios where apoapsis actually increases over time.
Has anybody else seen this? Is this a known bug? Is it being worked on?
I've noticed that landing struts/legs will cause that sort of decay/anti-decay. For my typical four-legged landers, they can accelerate even a mid-sized station at upto 0.15m/s^2 at times, which can de-orbit 'em in very, very short order. It doesn't always happen (especially on the initial entry into a scene) but after a landing and re-docking, my stations are usually going off to explore the cosmos or crashing into the surface on kraken drives. I've confirmed this on a pure-stock install. NB: It also imparts some fairly violent torque.
My workaround is to use cubic octags or i-beams or such for landing legs instead of the actual legs. As a bonus, they're much stronger and don't randomly explode. This of course doesn't help the unrelated orbital decay bug, but that one is incredibly slow and easy to overcome.
-
On 2016-05-27 at 10:56 AM, The_Rocketeer said:
Now you're talking.
But I don't know if/think the game engine works like that...
Uh, ever used Hack Gravity in the cheat menu? *cough* It works exactly like that.
---
Also to the thread in general: I wouldn't worry about people "abusing" a cheat option. That's exactly what they're there for. If such a thing were implemented, I'd just go with no limits on it, and leave "acceptable use" up to the user (just like all the other options in that menu).
-
I think this would be a fine idea...
-
I generally don't use 'em anymore. ISRU bases basically cut round-trips in half delta-v wise, and the miserable TWR means really long, inaccurate burns, or spamming nukes until you have a craft every bit as inefficient as a chemical one. Plus the stock system is kinda small vs. the specific impulse of chemical engines... it's not necessary.
Besides, sending my Duna station to Duna on four Skippers at 1.85-3.35g was a lot more fun than drooling it out there at 0.2g on a nuke-based platform. And cost about 20k less
I made a DunaBus-N crew carrier as a test - the LV-N "all the way there and back" model is actually bigger and slower and more expensive and requires more fuel than the Poodle-based "refuel via ISRU" model.
-
Ugh this again. The title of this thread has been bugging me since this thing was originally posted back in 1867. "KSP 2.0" implies a version number, which means it's really still just KSP 1. "KSP 2" or "KSP II" would be more clearly a sequel (especially the Roman numerals one).
-
3 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:
That's not cheating. That's assuming that the actual engineers and construction workers realized what you wanted and put it on that way before even launching.
Actually, I recall from Chuck Yeager's autobiography an incident where some assembly line worker was putting a bolt on a plane upside down vs the blueprint's specifications, which was resulting in one of the control surfaces binding during certain maneuvers (I forget which control surface or what maneuver exactly), resulting in crashed planes and dead pilots.
So no, I wouldn't say that workers would necessarily be a guard against derp. They may even be the SOURCE of the derp - this fellow didn't like putting the bolt in the way the blueprints specified since it was "upside down" to his own personal reckoning (ie he probably put the bolt on the top and the nut on the bottom, as the "the way it ought to be" and the plans called for the opposite, or vice versa). It wasn't that the plans or directions were unclear..he intentionally reversed the decision.
That being said, of course, the Sr. ports aren't very clear as to which way they go on.. the smaller ones have a skirt that gives them a more directional look that the Sr ports lack. Thus, if it's a Sr. port, I'd lay the problem on UI/part graphics design and thus on Squad and happily flip the port over in the save file. I actually had one of those issues myself once.
-
Meh, ablator is overrated. My current re-entry capsules don't bother with it at all, except perhaps as ballast for some of the compound designs (and Eve). I did a re-entry test at one point at about 4.1 km/s (orbital speed as it crossed the 70km boundary, ~3850 surface vel) without any ablator for a 1.25m capsule, and although the heat bar was stalking the end of the gauge in a dangerous manner, it never reached it.
Funny thing was, it was a Minmus-rated return capsule. Overkill testing might be overkill, but it's also safety~
(NB: A shield is used in all cases, simply stripped of all ablator)
-
Just now, 5thHorseman said:
My current job has the same (and has for years) but I have not taken more than a single week (sometimes with an extra day before or after that week) since my car broke down 1200 miles from home and it took a week to fix it. And that was not really planned for
Ouch. I feel your pain, man. My old rustbucket did it's level best to die in Florida many years ago (about 2400km / 1500mi from Toronto) when I was doing some contract work down there. Took many trips to the local dealerships to fix - fortunately I was there for a long time and they had it working well enough to take me back (I hate flying). At the time, it was a new car too. Funny bit is, all the problems it had vanished when the warranty expired a few years later -- planned obsolescence, you're doing it wrong
-
8 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:
The poll options are a bit biased, but even so your conclusions are a bit fallacious. Only 7% of the poll respondents can confidently be said to be unsatisfied with 1.1, 69% are playing 1.1, and 23% responded "I can have both options if I want" which tells us nothing about which they're playing (and really everyone should have selected this option, as everyone has the option to use either afaik).
I agree; I voted for the "both versions should be available" (third option in other words), but I'm "satisfied" with, and playing, 1.1.2.
Not to say it doesn't need a load of bugfixing and stuff, but I'm not likely to go back to 1.0.5 any time soon.
-
3 minutes ago, sormi said:
Then there is KSP, 111 hours for 25e. 1.0.5 was the first version I've got. Not complaining about the value here either, but I think it's pointless to argue about value per hour when it's so subjective.
Already have Skyrim (200h+, not including whatever caused my play time to reset) - I'll have to check out Company of Heroes (looks interesting). Counter Strike, not so much.
I've got over 4k hours in KSP at this point, however. Granted a fair share of that credit goes to the modders...
14 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:Hear, hear. Last time I was on a vacation that long I was making minimum wage and didn't care if they fired me for it. These days, 2 weeks of vacation is a luxury.
My last good job had 4 weeks of paid vacation, but it was usually paid out at the end anyways, since getting approval was next to impossible for anything more than a day or two :S
14 minutes ago, fourfa said:You know this is how much of the world works, right? Ever been in Europe in August? US/Canadian workstyle is very atypical, globally speaking
I don't want to get into an international debate over vacations, but I'd like to point out that most of the world is China, India, and the United States, numerically speaking, so I wouldn't say it's quite as clear cut as that. A case could be made either way.
-
10 hours ago, Shpaget said:
50mm 1,8 is not only brighter than either of your current ones, but it is optically very good (much better than 18-55), it is also very small and light, so caring it around is less of a problem.
I agree, I have the II model of that - it's very inexpensive, works very well with the APS-C bodies (digital Rebels and 30/40D etc), and takes great shots - crisp and clear. The only caveat is that it's really bad when mounted on a full frame body (like a 1D or a 135 film body -- I have an old Rebel film camera that it's miserable on), but that's fairly high end use, and probably deserves more than a $99 lens heh.
-
3 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:
Generally when you go on a 3-week vacation, you make plans that are difficult to change.
Y'know, (random aside incoming!) I don't think I've ever been on a 3-week vacation aside from layoffs heh. That'd use up most or all of typical vacation time around these parts, and most companies I've been with would never approve such a thing.
Preferred CommNet Difficulty
in KSP1 Discussion
Posted
Full control loss isn't realism at all anyhow. Signal delay makes direct control meaningless anywhere in the system aside from LEO (or for certain remote lunar rovers during the Space Race). Probes are pre-programmed with maneuvers LONG before they reach the target.
The round-time trip to Pluto at c is about nine hours (give or take), for example. Even to Mars it's 4 minutes to 24 minutes (depending on the positions of Earth and Mars). Real-time control is pretty much out of the question.
That's some EPIC level lag there. Three million ping to Mars (worst case), thirty two million ping to Pluto. Two thousand to the Moon...