Search the Community

Wall of text alert.. Well, the tricky part is that because the wheels hang so much lower than the vehicle, just a simple decoupler on the bottom wont work, so what I do, is I put a node connector part in the cargo bay then attach the rover and the decoupler on the bottom to that node, which gives you the extra height you need to accomodate the wheels. Bear in mind, the rover was not really resigned for the WT-51, but its about the only ships I have created capable of taking something that big into orbit. Also, it looks like yes the game project im working on with some friends is going ahead, but at the moment my only job for it is to make a few basic models for the initial engine to be worked on, as I won't be doing much coding at the moment for it, I really need to scrub up on my python, the last time I seriously got into coding was Pascal and fortran, sure Ive made a tonne of crap in vb.net, but really who can't? drag and drop programming while easy doesnt teach you anything unfortunately and it's those years of relying on quick and easy ways that basically got me out of practice. I'm not by nature a mathematic person. I'm good with figures and percentages, profit margins etc.. but when it actually comes to complicates physics, it's just out of my ball park - luckily have people to help with that part. We've made 2D multiplayer games before (and our own engine) so we have some clue as to what we are doing So, all the work I need to do for the first few months of that project is actually almost done, so ironically im almost back to having some free time. So I spent a few hours last night designing something new (yes I actually got some pen and paper out! ) I thought to myself, what do I actually want to build? Once you start looking at Sci fi ships, you go nuts.. I mean how many things are there out there that would be cool to put into KSP? But... really, the game is neither designed for that type of ship and also it just doesn't fit the over all feel of KSP. I started making mods originally after seeing Bobcat's and Tiberions stuff. Sure, there were other modders around at the time but they had probably the most neat stuff you could download (we're going back a bit here.. not that things have changed ) Only once you start making mods, can you have any appreciation really at all what goes into actually making a massive pack (like HOME or KW Rocketry) , I can't say I could accomplish anything as great as the B9 pack, but If I was unemployed, didnt have kids, and didnt have to worry about mortgages and life in general, I think I might actually have the chance (and time) to try and do something as professional looking as that - it takes alot of time :/ Hand painting textures etc etc.. So I often cheap out to save time. Last night I asked myself (I talk to myself alot lol...) Why do I cheap out? Why am I rushing? do I really feel obligated to churn something out because 40 people are hounding my inbox for it? Would it be worth actually making a serious effort and putting 100 percent into it? I don't know, mainly because I never have.. The WT-51 and the PegasusX1/X2 are the most popular downloads I have at the moment. There are about 10,000 of each floating around out there in someones space, hopefully being flown. That's one thing about the Spaceport, it does give you a pretty good general indicator of the types of mods people want. So my two most popular mods, are the ones I spent the least amount of time on! No plan, not idea just started making stuff. The pegasus was of course a modification of the original, but still we are talking a day or two. I did the WT-51 in the time the forum was down in april from start to finish, I think it was done even before the forums came back up.. Anyway the point I'm trying to make while I sit here and type this wall of text, it's clear that If I just stopped, sat back and concentrated on one thing, like the new large pack Im working on, then it probably would be all for the best and the finished mod would be alot more polished. I love making 3D models of sci fi ships, but so do a million other people, and most of them do it better than me! At the end of the day, you are not re-creating the wheel, you are simply sprucing it up, cutting it apart and giving it a paintjob. Also, with the new PNG optimised KSP, I will probably be going .PNG for all my textures from now on too, so you wil be able to edit them as you see fit. The next pack (and really the only pack I am working on) is going to be very large, all original and hopefully fits with the style of KSP alot more. @Khaos yes the KAS hooks work well on it

Now, now, crasher. That it equally uncalled for. I'm sure we can talk this out with him over a cup of tea.

Is this game being marketed to schools? I'm 35 years old, and I've been HUGELY educated in a short amount of time. You want to talk about inspiring the future generations ... what better way than with this game? It is a phenomenal interractive education experience!

Odd. Then again I'm at the point where I'll take what I can get. So I'm not a good person to talk to about this. @mercy. Oh wow.

Oh if I would be able to do this... Right now I have around 10 pages Stuctural Parts and my games takes 10! minutes to load... Talk about a lot of mods.

This is a thread to talk about SSTOs we have the technology for today.... Here's one I really like, the SASSTO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_SASSTO It's VTVL, but I think things like this are really worthwhile. Another Idea I have is that we could use a reusable discarded 1st stage, that might fly to another continent to land (the biggest problem right now is that the 1st stage would need to turn around and fly back as it would be too far downrange to land, but we could instead say have a 1st stage from Kennedy Space Center land in Europe or Africa, eliminating the problem of an ocean landing. We would necessarily need much larger first stages to ensure it could make it, but the reusability would make it more cost-effective over many launches.

Because it was originally made by r4m0n using mechjeb.dll as a framework, before the library came out for all those mods that relied on features that it was moving away from. It became somewhat neglected, and now I have no idea whether or not r4m0n has even touched it in months. It definitely needs a rewrite. If you go for it see if you can make more control modes possible, such as preset toggles numerical inputs and maybe even set torque values, in addition to imprecise manual controls. It'd be really interesting if you managed something that piggybacked on the control surface code to manipulate the joints. I know there had been talk about landing legs that adjusted their position to level out your lander. If you managed to tack this functionality on, one could use it to land on just about any surface. (I imagine the legs drop to full extent, and then go limp. As the lander comes down, each leg is pushed up again. When the code detects that all legs are in contact it locks them in place, and the user then uses pitch and yaw to adjust their attitude in relation to the ground. This could also make the lander capable of "kneeling", maybe using h/n to keep the control inputs standardised in terms of motion, in case you are trying to dock a rover or what not.)

Something is up with your installation. B9 3.0 takes less time to load than the stock parts. Please check that you have the correct KSP version, installed correctly, etc. If you have a 32-bit machine, sorry, you're out of luck. We reduced the memory load of B9 from 1.8Gb to under 800Mb, but if you're running under a 2GB per-process limit there's no way you're going to load this, or any other large packs. I'm not sure what's going on for you. Either you simply do not enough ram to run B9 (we optimized as much as possible but it is still a LOT of parts), you did not follow the installation instructions, or you're not using 0.20.2. We're using it everywhere. Have you noticed how many things can be toggles in VAB? However, you can't get around a KSP limitation with 2 animations affecting the same GameObject. I'll have a talk with ferram about it, to check if there's any other things which need a special name as well. You did not follow the installation instructions. Please follow the installation instructions. They are there for a reason.

You wanna talk family curses? Everyone in my family except one of my sisters has broken at least one bone. And that sister seems determined to do everythign up to breaking a bone!

actually you can use a dish to talk to omni directional antennas. The dish has a longer distance transmit/recieve ability so it can hear the omni from much farther away, and the omni can pick up signals sent to it from a directional antenna just as easly as from a omnidirectional antenna. This doesn't actually increase the range of the omni but it does allow for communication at a much longer range then between just to omnidirectional antennas. you will note that remote tech models this by increasing the range of the omni but only for the dish thats pointed at it. its range is not increased globaly

Nice, taking some initiative, but I think BlazingAngel is working on one of the delta's, you should talk to him.

Not sure yet. The more detail we add, the more polygons it needs, and thus the overall framerate of your game decreases. I'll talk to aphazael about it. I want to add those, but at the moment I can't spare the polygons.

Thanks Devo, for all your work and I promise to keep crashing your Eagle for a long time to come. Drop us a line when you are ready to talk about your game.

That's me--all day today I've been distracted by how to get my interplanetary mission to Moho. On paper I have enough delta-v, but I'm worried that there won't be enough to circularize after the inclination change. I was debating on whether to send up a refueling tanker along with the interplanetary ship, swap out drive stages, etc... Needless to say, I'm not one for small talk at the moment

All this talk about the "Tsar Bomba", but no Tsar Cannon?! No silly bomb made when the Tsars weren't around, this is a real cannon made during the Tsardom of Russia!

Khrissetti, you're not a bad person. You were putting your brain to better use than trying to keep up with party small talk of how much a @%$!*^@# Justin Beiber really is.

If you take the ElectricCharge unit literally and we believe that the devs didn't call it "electric charge" just because then it should be measured in Coulombs, that translates nicely all the sources and sinks of electricity into Amperes (1A is 1C/s, ie, the small solar panel gives 0.75A or 750mA, the spotlights consume 40mA, etc) but then the batteries ratings get awfully low like Z-400 getting 0.111Ah or 111mAh, which is like 10 times worse than a typical AA alkaline battery. Also "electric charge per sec" isn't energy, you can't compare it with joules, for talk about energy we need to know the potential or voltage involved. I suppose that electricity in KSP is so disconnected from reality that we can't say what it is

AWESOME! I'd like to say thanks again to the crew for doing such an amazing job! (NO it is NOT too early to talk about 0.21 ) So, what can we expect for the next big one? I was told before by many people that this would be the aviation update! I really do get excited when i hear that. More parts, completed IVA's for the Mk2 and Mk3 cockpits, and maybe a better flight dynamics system? It is all a lot of hard work, and I know the devs never let us down! So, what do you guys think? What do you expect from the next update? Just making some good 'ol conversation to ponder while we play with our new toy

Okay. Lets talk about the KYOOT BUNNEH picture that Redwolfy (I think) posted. You know, the .gif one?

The figures you see are ideal numbers that assume you didn't do anything wrong, but there are lots of ways to use more fuel than the minimum and run over those numbers. For example, if you descend very slowly to Mun's surface, you will burn a lot of fuel hovering even though you're covering the same distance that the ideal figures talk about. Landing at higher lattitudes on Mun can also cost more fuel than landing near the equator (depending on how you get there), and so on. If you'd like an example, I made a rocket that should have enough dV for the job, and wrote out a flight path that is not ideal, but should be reasonably close to a minimal fuel method. You can find it here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/25029-A-moon-rocket-for-newbies

Yeah telescopic hatches are not really that tricky, just gotta make the hatch a child of the door and have it move with it. TBH Tommy, getting pretty over it, might talk to you in PM's about it not here.

Back in the 0.18 i made a custom version of all tanks and all engines to simulate RP-1 + O2 and LH2 + O2 engines and fuel tanks. NERVA runned only on H2 and didn´t need Oxidizer, like the RL counterpart. They also had a permanent generator within then. Orbital and sps Engines i made run with LH2 and have a higher efficience. I think the dynamic of the game became much more interesting. However, it was troublesome to mantain such a thing. Everytime i planned a new mission i had to manually adjust the cfg files of the tanks to fill the correct amount of fuel i wanted and that meant reloading the game all over again. Also, every new update of NP, KW and the game, i had to manually update all dozens of config files because usually many other things in the .cfgs were changed so i was afraid of simply overwriting the .cfg files. If this mod does all what it promotes, itll be very nice to have such kind of realism back! However, i don´t get your choice of fuel mixtures: AFAIK the 3 more common fuel types mixtures are: 1) RP1 + O2, Fuel mixture 1: 2.56 Maximum Theoretical ISP: ~353s (tough soyuz SM reaches 359s) 2) LH2 + O2, Fuel mixture 1:4 Maximum Theoretical ISP: 451s 3) (Non cryogenic) Hydrazines derivatives: Hydrazine, UMDH and it's mixtures like Aerozine 50/50, and UH25. All witch use Nitrogen Tetroxide. (Never heard of RP1 using NTO as Oxidizer like you main fuel type) Ratio: 1:1.34, 1.2:56 Maximum theoretical ISP: 339s (For simplicity sake, i would chose only Aerozine 50/50 mixture.) Hypergolic Monoproppelants: 4) (Non Cryogenic) Monopropellants; Hydrazine or Hydrogen Peroxide. Maximum Theoretical ISP: 235s 5) NTR Solid: LH2. No oxidant needed. The Radioactive reactor witch contains the "Nuclear Fuel" is already built in in the Rocket Engine and doesn´t need to be replaced for dozens of years, so a "nuclear fuel" makes not much sense unless you talk about Liquid/Gas core designs that never left paper. Nevertheless this is a great mod and i'll sure give it a try. Can i customize it to use my custom set of fuel types?

I have a fish named Petro. If where going to talk about pets now.

Yes. I agree with almost everyone else. See if you can talk to Nutt and cooperate with the pack

Indeed, boys. Calm down, this is all strictly medical and professional tattoo-parlour talk, I think.