Jump to content

Wallygator

Members
  • Posts

    1,527
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Wallygator

  1. Take the craft you used to put them where that are now. Deleted all the karbonite related stuff. Get rid of any landing equipment. Slap on an advanced probe core. Launch with no crew. Rejoice.
  2. ^^^ Yes this. But also its behaviour in the VAB during assembly is perplexing.
  3. true, but even though it is octagonal, it does not exhibit octagonal joint behaviour in a cubic manner. This part needs to be fixed so I can sleep at night. ;-)
  4. Also, why does it respond well to vertical replication and snap placement and not horizontal? Hmmm, could it be that it is not cubic at all? Perhaps the part should be renamed (or fixed?) Basically, something just doesn't seem right about the mesh and the visual model. Or am I just mad?
  5. When I went back and reviewed this thread I kid of chuckled at many of the responses, then I thought, hey, the end of career mode really means the beginning of "Retirement Mode" What's THAT going to be like?
  6. Yes you are correct in everything you say, except for the embedded assumption that it is the testers who are doing it. Now, you may be right - but I think I would need evidence to indicate that the rebalancing assessments and tweaking are happening on the testing side of the development, deployment and readiness methodology. Anyway back on topic - I also would like to see some rebalancing surrounding the relationship of rep v funds v contract availability. I think there is a huge issue about how that all gets aligned correctly (I will not mention my soap box regarding the poorly constructed career mode... oops... there I did it. Sorry)
  7. If there is planet out in the Kerbal system that has a liquid ocean (hmmm... let me think...) then it would be likely that (our) Kerbin scientists would devise a contraption that would float and/or sink into this ocean to get science points - Let them call it what they want, but it would require proper fluid dynamics to work once deployed in the game. And it would be nice if it didn't break up when splashing down softly. Plus, "space" is really just the thing that connects a bunch of rocks which have water and stuff on them.
  8. Fair enough - I learned "computer graphics" back on an Apple III running pascal in 1982. I'm making a best guess here (someone correct me if I'm wrong please) that some things have moved on.
  9. From a game base system I guess having tried both, I prefer the Karbonite bit if its all I'm going to get in lieu of a more multi resource proper chemical-reality based approach - The stock game probably will never get more than that. Suppose I can live with it for now. But this... ...literally made me spit a bit of my drink. OMG. Had to get a wipe to clean my Macbook screen. Nice one.
  10. Yes - I get that. Have felt with it many time is various versions of KSP ;-) I have successfully diagnosed the situation and parameters - here goes: 1) Your ship must be accelerating at .98 m/s or less (from what I have observed - I could only get .96, .98 and 1.0 even with throttle adjustment set to .75 max on the tweakable) 2) SAS remains in whatever state it is in. 3) The throttle position remains as you have set it. 4) Fuel is NOT burned while you are in the tracking centre. This was quite disconcerting to see straight after selecting "Fly" with a very large craft with 2 LVNs burning at FULL thrust (even with acceleration being .96 m/s) Would be nice to see if someone else can replicate this before I set the thread to answered.
  11. I wonder if there could be a procedural mesh deformation routine written which could operate on existing loaded parts? I know nothing about how parts are loaded and transformed when in unity, but it would be cool to see your idea put into reality in a dynamic manner which doesn't require construction of a small multitude of part representations. Part collides at high threshold, run routine, bend up the mesh and then redraw it. lol - it might work but at like .5 FPS for all I know. Then again I could be speaking out of my lower end, as I only loaded a white cube into unity and got it to finally show up in the VAB. Then I ended of those efforts...
  12. Yes - fix the softness (make it more splashy - Like that word better!) for 1.0 for sure - no debate. If they need from time for added fluid dynamic fixes then it would be in 1.0+ probably.
  13. These were a pair of Nukes BTW. So yes a slow burn. But regardless I would expect the switch to tracking centre to be blocked if the ship is under any acceleration. Unless there is a known threshold? EDIT> SAS remains on also. - - - Updated - - - I've narrowed this down a bit. Need to get some pics uploaded ad you can see what I'm seeing. It's repeatable and only relevant to long slow burns. Wait for it... - - - Updated - - - Here is a similar burn in progress which allows a switch to the Tracking Centre while engines on... And here is the limit at which a switch to the Tracking Centre is blocked... It was just one tap on the up throttle. Notice the small thrust and TWR rating on both and the acceleration which is slightly over/under 1.0ms, but still you get my point, there is a very very low limit which allows a switch back and forth to the tracking centre while the engine throttle is NOT off. I think the threshold is near 1.0 m/s acceleration. Needs to be tested i guess. maybe later. Hope that helps. - - - Updated - - - And for the record Jeb LOVES hyperedit for these purposes ;-)
  14. I'm only saying what I expect to occur based on the slow historical fix rate, the large number of open unaddressed bugs, combined with the rather high level of attention which must be now be placed on a much wider set of inter-related game subsystems currently implemented. I have no idea of the exact number of dev vs. testers. I can't see their balancing methodology or framework. I can only set my expectations based on past behaviour. If you have any factual data which will influence my view then fire away - I stand ready to change my perspective based on new relevant facts. Small point of clarification based on my experience: Testers are supposed to test. That's it. Its a specialised set of skills and a focused core mindset. They live to validate/break systems. Give them a system that is supposedly balanced and a set of scripts to verify it and they can tell you if it passes or fails. They are supposed to try and make systems break. Establishing a balanced system framework is the result of an integrated architectural, design and implementation decision. Establishing that the system framework "works" as designed (or not) is a function of testing and validation. Its been years since I've managed a major software project, but I expect these core principles remain intact regardless of the development or testing methodologies selected. EDIT: I am not saying Squad is a train wreck waiting to happen - far from it. They are as skilled as any other game dev team. Let's not include size as an issue. KSP is the finest game out there in my opinion and massive cred to the entire team at Squad. But reality is based on perceived behaviour - so there is still room for improvement.
  15. I am posting this here as it might just be a gameplay issue rather than a unplanned feature / bug - however, feel free to relocate this if it should be characterised differently. Maybe others have noticed this and I have only just seen it. If its already registered as known, then please close the thread. Note ----> I scanned the entire tracker at bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com and did not see this behaviour explicitly mentioned - so I may be incorrectly assuming this is not a bug. 1) Start a burn with orbiting vessel normally. Leave engine running with orbit ap steadily increasing, hit escape and go to space centre. 2) Choose Tracking Centre. See Vessel in static orbit. Orbit ap and pe not changing. 3) Select vessel, time warp a bit, watch vessel move about the orbit path. Blah blah blah... 4) Select Fly. Camera view changes to orbital, and... Your engines are still on. Regardless that you have warped halfway through your orbit. Nothings breaking here. Just odd to see such behaviour. Has anyone seen any comments from the Devs or Mods regarding this behaviour (assuming is an unwanted feature or oversight)? Or is there a hidden setting which affects this? Regards, W.
  16. They are probably implanting (or do I mean implementing? no... probably implanting) the stock rebalance mod or most of it. I just don't see squad with the bandwidth necessary to do it all themselves quickly. Its likely in their best interest to reap the benefits of the mod ecosystem which has developed.
  17. Today, being an OS X user of KSP is like a wearing a turtle neck sweater made of chickenpox. It's warm and fuzzy but itches like crazy. All praise Uncle Mort! Death to memory leaks... (Wally grabs pitch fork and runs into street)
  18. If this kind of water improvement allows me to construct the Flying Sub and texture it yellow, then I am totally in (Need.. Kerbal... Named... Nelson...) Seriously - IF this water physics is fixed, it adds several new and interesting biome contexts to exploit by the Devs. You add a completely new dimension on Lathe and Eve for sure. Kerbin also for those players who choose to stay in the home SoI. I am assuming this fix to water is not just "softness" but a more functional buoyancy trait. Its it ends up being only softness, then I'll like it. If its softness and buoyancy, then I'll love it. WARNING: neither of these have featured in any predictive dev discussions which i have seen so far regarding 1.0 - my best guess is that it might someday end up in 1.1+. If it were me, I would immediately address the softness issue in 1.0 and then follow-up at some point with a free "Aqua-pack Exploration DLC (named "KSP Floating Point Correction" - lol) which includes revised fluid dynamics (including thermal transfer), buoyancy control parts, water propulsion and new science gear/dynamics. Think of the EVA/IVA potential, just think about it! Recovering a big rock from the depths of Lathe might be just as difficult as an E class asteroid...
  19. Removing crash tolerance, weight and thermal protection are all valid adjustments. Let's also remember there is still reasonable science benefit to returning these "cans" to Kerbin. Any rebalance should also comprehend any wider impact. Also, our current paradigm regarding actual RL landers is based entirely on Apollo (manned - airless) and a plethora of probes (unmanned - various environments). My suspicion is that is that if in RL we were to develop a manned lander for an atmospheric world it would be more aerodynamic, have heat shielding and be quite sturdy. Most of the Mars designs we see so far demonstrate much of this. SO... I agree a bit of nerving can be considered, but currently these two cans are entirely multi-purpose at the moment and the science retrieval construct is biased towards getting them back to Kerbin. A serious nerf might only be considered if there were also a few more landing system options to choose from based on more specific parameters - including thermal shields, pressurised or not, more resilient landing legs, etc, etc, etc, (say that last bit out loud with a Yul Brenner accent)
  20. I was cleaning up my Imgur files and deleting everything that has now become obsolete due to crashed saves... and I came upon this and it made me laugh I was attempting to document a full scale Duna mission to retrieve maximum science points. Could have been fun, but sadly .90 broke the save. Still, I laugh at it.
  21. I was under the impression that Squad was intent on maintaining a common user experience for players. I think this is fair from a flight planning, dV perspective and also from a "general" planetary terrain POV. But... taking 5thHorseman's idea further it would be really cool if the little details of each players landing zone were spawned unique for each instance. You might share common ideas and data concerning flight planning with other players to get to a general surface location, but there might be a plethora of unique visual and interactive items of interest every time a landing takes place. Ok so this might not work the same for multiplayer, but hopefully you get the idea.
  22. Congrats on cheating death for sure - nice to see you are no worse for wear. Only one question: Were you running FAR, NEAR or Stock on that mission? :-D No close calls here except for deciding to get up a few minutes early on 7/7. The train after mine exploded 30 seconds after I sat at my desk - which I felt since my office building shared the foundation with Aldgate Underground Station. My buddy was on it - he was the only one who emerged unscathed from the bombed carriage. Talk about sureal. He keeps his shredded Sudoku puzzle from that morning as a reminder. He definitely had a close call.
  23. Sir, Your mission posts were the "straw that broke the camels back" for me and inspired me to submit and purchase KSP without even trying the demo. What else can I say? Well done you. Very well done.
  24. Good one. I think the same, except I need to start naming my spacecraft something other than 'Untitled Space Craft"
  25. I try playing with the early space program attitude. Space is big. It's going to take while to fill it up. I look forward to the day when the debris forces a play style change to to game performance or an incident. Till then, I build and deploy as needed with debris set to 250.
×
×
  • Create New...