Search the Community

I'm a bit less worried about griefers for one simple reason: orbital rendezvous is hard. Think about how often you see people talk about how they can't figure out docking. I think the learning curve will deter a significant amount of new players who might be inclined to be jerks.

Firstly, I just want to say how heartened I am by the outpouring of dislike towards pewdiepie. He is without a doubt one of the most irritating, inane, and idiotic Youtubers and it's always nice to see I'm not alone in thinking so. To talk about what seems to be the main proposition of this topic, that Squad should give him a free copy, I think that's a daft idea. If he wants to play, he should buy it like everyone else. He's not exactly short on money. I really don't relish the influx of idiots that will likely flood here if he does a Lets Play of KSP, but hopefully figuring out orbital mechanics and how to actually do anything will make them short term members if they do turn up. We could probably deal with it, but I'd rather we didn't have to.

I think we are not really talking about the core problem when we talk about about resources or multiplayer. The core problem of KSP right now - as I see it - is the lack of things to do once you have landed. Of course you can build a colony on the Mün or Duna. Who of us hasn't done it? And then what? There is really not much to do after you planted your flag and pocketed your dirt sample. And why should you come back? Some celestial bodies present you with a challenge that is fun, like Moho, Tylo or Eve. (Yay, out of fuel!) Some have a neat special feature that makes them interesting like Laythe or Duna. (Yay, spaceplanes!) However, you can fly your airbreathing engines around Laythe all day but there is still nothing to do but bring out more fuel and admire the landscape. Why would resources have been a great solution to this problem? Done right they give you a reason to go out exploring and mining day after day. I've seen some of you guys hate on Minecraft but Notch did one thing right: He gave you a reason to stop building your cobblestone monstrosity and dig to the center of the earth (sorta) repeatedly. At some point even your diamond pick is done and you need a replacement. Exploiting resources to build what you want can basically stem your entire game as Minecraft and Terraria have proven. Is it the only solution? Nope. There are a lot of popular mods and different players like different playstyles. I'm sure Whackjob might not be that interested in mining the resources for his "rockets" legitimately on Dres and Eeloo. Might take a bit too long... Career mode, science, payed missions... there are a lot of ways to extend KSP's lifespan. Admittedly, the career mode introduced in .22 had a very short-lived fascination for me. Once you get the batteries and solar panels it really just becomes a grind tbh. And I have recently added FAR and Deadly Reentry just to make it more interesting. Now I have started playing with Mission Controller Extended to simulates a real Space Program. Still, there is this one blind spot left: I EVA Jeb, plant a flag, pocket some local rocks, type my report and there is nothing left to do but admire the view. Unless you have Kethane installed of course. So, what's the conclusion? Resources are not the only solution to keep the game interesting long-term but probably one of the best solutions. Squad should look at resource management again. If the first implementation was not fun they did something wrong. Because resource management can be extremely fun! Ask any strategy fan out there. Concerning multiplayer: I honestly don't see how this will be more than a bubble for KSP. Multiplayer can carry a game like Minecraft because you can get 10 friends together and work on a giant project for weeks or months. Well, try to build a space station in KSP with 10 people. Oh, everybody can only use 25 parts for their module or KSP turns into an unplayable slideshow for everybody? Yup, sounds like fun for - oh about 10 minutes. You got some packetloss just as you were trying to land? Oops, 3 hours of designing and flying down the drain. PS: If you can tell me why multiplayer would be fun, please do! I can honestly not think of any worthwhile long-term project for multiplayer KSP but I would love to try if it is not a complete waste of time.

I'll assume you have signed up for Mars One and contribute to its funding. Good for you, but i will admire your pioneering spirit only after the mission has actually gone underway with you on board. So far it's just talk and pretty pictures (reminding me of the "Venus project"). There is no point testing it in space if a closed loop ecosystem that can run on its own for many years (preferably much longer) has not been realized on Earth. It requires more equipment than can be fit inside a cubesat. Controlled Ecological Life Support System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Ecological_Life_Support_System

You'll have to talk to twitch staff about twitch UI, not to forum mods and devs.

Yea, I don't talk on forum very often but I think this question is very important so I will answer it, in my opinion this is a great thing, the dev blog every tuesday and release date and everything that come from behind the curtain give me a lot of motivation and I'm even more excited to see what's next. We all know that these release dates are not immutable but its great to give us something to chew on until the patch is released. I prefer to know that next patch will be out next month for exemple, instead of asking myself if they plan to release it the month after or in 2 month or even during the season.

So far, I only got into Newton's and Kepler's laws. I haven't yet gotten into inclination change and Oberth effect. I'm not a 100% sure if I will cover Oberth effect, but I might. I'm most likely going to talk about inclination change soon. I want to cover a few things before I get into this. BTW, I doubt we can use the Oberth effect in KSP. My next video is going to be on gravity, gravity wells, and the theory of gravity. I think I'm going to do a lagrange points video 2 or 3 videos out. But, I'm not a 100% sure on that. (I'm not sure how I'm going to show off the points) As far as the n-body problem. That's something easier to learn by seeing than reading/hearing. Because of that, it's going to be a little while before I can show that off. I think I'm going to show it off when I introduce the moon/planet/star wobble effect in my videos. I'm still looking for a good cheap software to use.

In space it becomes more a question of how long you want to wait to finish a burn. The lower your TWR the more dV you have overall, but the longer it will take to execute the same burn maneuver. For example: I have a ship with a decent TWR (let's say .5) and we want to execute a dV maneuver of 500m/s. This takes us about 45 sec (rough estimate, I really don't feel like doing math right now). To execute the same maneuver with a lower TWR (let's say .1) it will take 5 times longer to execute the same maneuver. Conversely if we have a higher TWR (1.0) it will take half as long. Now, let's talk about fuel efficiency for a sec. Fuel efficiency is directly related to the specific impulse of the engine (regardless of weight). So, let's say I had a really efficient engine, but it's not very powerful (The LV-N). I plop one of these on a fuel tank and capsule I will have a high dV, but not necessarily a high TWR (they tend to be very heavy). Now, if we take the same ship, but put an engine with a lower specific impulse, but more power (the LV-45) we would get a Higher TWR, but a lower dV. This being said an ideal engine would have an infinitesimally small mass (because mass can't be zero) and an infinitely high specific impulse. This would result in a massive ammount of dV. Now, at this point you might be wondering, why bother with the LV-N at all? It all comes down to fuel efficiency. Because of it's higher specific impulse it is one of the most fuel efficient engines in the game. The only issue is it's very heavy with a low maximum power. TWR is nothing more than the ratio of the amount of thrust you have to the amount of mass you are trying to move. The higher the TWR the easier it is to move a given mass. So, at this point the Rocket Equation comes into play. The rocket equation basically says for a given amount of fuel burned at a specific rate your velocivy will change by a certain amount. The reason we use the LV-N over the LV-45 is because of that equation. Could you get to Jool using just LV-45s? Sure, but you would need a metric butt-ton of fuel to do it because the LV-45s are not very efficient. By increasing the efficiency (at a TWR trade-off) we can go the same distance with much less fuel. Tl;Dr: bigger is not always better, and TWR Only affects the length of your burn time.

Until SCIENCE rolled into town, the Kethane mod was really the only reason for me to set up shop on a far out moon and continue regular operations there. I would love more than anything to have a full resource system, as it would allow for more of a "colonization" of the other planets, and would give an active site of operations. That being said, if SCIENCE were to be a continuously generated thing (the direction it appears to be going), this could be a fair substitute for the resources. Nevertheless, I like the ideas of different metals for construction, even if it is only a few selections. Since the first talk of resources I have been waiting and longing for them. I do understand that it may be simply to complicated to add in, this game is fairly complex as is, and would understand if this is the case. Still, I will frown a little...

ppl, if you wanna make a case for resources being reconsidered, this is not the place for it. this thread is off-topic enough as is, but most importantly - in here, you arguments go nowhere. If you can really think of a clear and concise point to make in behalf of that concept, defending it's claim as a core part of the game (which is not how I see it, in my opinion) - take it to the development boards and let this beated thread rest a while. having this discussion in this thread is somewhat likely to be taken as little more than pointless digression (aka: off topic) - take it where it belongs and have it clearly elaborated - then it's a proper suggestion. but make sure it's not put in a confrontational way. that's a sure way to get ignored - be calm, civil, and concise. and think about what exact stuff it is you want - nobody can guess if you don't specify. (try to avoid the TL;DR effect, tho) Ok, the original topic itself might actually be rather moot by now, but then again - topics are set by the thread at start, so starting a new one is the usually a good option if talk goes astray, lest your arguments are hidden behind an irrelevant initial point. I'm not gonna throw any more wood into this fire, anyways. Just back to topic (whatever that still means)

First, I'd say the KerbalKon was AWESOME!!! I didn't see the second day, but what from what I heard about, the only thing I think they neglected on KerbalKon is that there was no some bigger discussion about mods and modding. There was some talk here and there, Mu giving tutorial, but I'd really like to hear a discussion like what made a biggest impression on devs, what they think about some of the mods, what they expect of the mods, what do they see in the future. All we really saw was stock stock stock launches and repeadatly showing what's in 0.23. I mean that's great, I was looking forward to 0.23 info! But for the next one I'd really love to see at least an hour dedicated to mods =)

KSP makes 13-year-olds with well-informed opinions who talk like adults!

Other than kOS which clearly differs in it's goals, there's also ProgCom http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/24955-0-21-1-ProgCom-CPU-Emulator-V0-9 It's programmed in assembly and as far as I'm aware (which is not very far) there is a C compiler for it. Even if this still differs from your goals, it'd probably be helpful to talk to SimpleSimon. He's been too busy to update ProgCom, maybe yalls could team up *this is the worst ninja I've ever fallen to...*

Where are you pulling that percentage from? Plus I'm using the Real Solar System code because it is a decent example of ConfigNodes. Not for the scale part. Anyways, Kerbin can and has been scaled. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55145-0-22-WIP-Alpha-Real-Solar-System-v5-3 If you want to talk about planet sizes or my plugin send me a PM, this thread is about Nova's mod that makes Minmus less ugly.

If you read it correctly they say that they will not add more solar systems before the current one is finished. The reason why the word current is bold is because if you talk about the current solar system in this case you are talking about the propability of more systems in the future. So its not a flat out "no" they will probably add more systems once the current one is completed. It is a space game after all, so it would be stupid to not add more systems.

-sigh-. What do people on forums have against reading? As we concluded on the Barycenters thread, the best approach would be to modify the SOI logic to be able to have non-spherical SOI's, allowing you can bypass the problem with a configuration something like this: If you want to talk about the barycenters, please go to that thread. Actually, it'd be better to start a new one to prevent necro-posting.

I am deffinitely the most excited about all of the science changes. Minmus with Biomes, is pretty huge to me. I am guessing no "re-map" of the place like the Mun got though? Kind of a pitty. It could be cool to see those going hand-in-hand. At any rate, I know it is WAY early, but any talk about how the other planets and moons are going to go? Are the devs thinking they might be looking at just mapping a planet or moon per release? Or try to do a bunch at once in a future release? Not expand biome maps any further then Kerbin/mun/minmus? Also, Rapier type engine is cool. If we are looking at adding new engines though, can we please have another radial engine? We have the "big" effectively rockomax size engines, the tiny barely bigger than probe sized radials and the itty bitty probe sized radials. It would be nice to have something akin to the LV-909. IMHO, the Rockomax Mk55 seems light and low powered for its visual size (120 thrust). I feel like it should be more like 200-300 thrust and weigh in around 1.5-2t and then have an inbetweener that is visually sized between the Mk55 and the Rockomax 24-77 with thrust in the 50-80 range and weight around .6-.8t.

I guess that's where I'm confused. Pressure doesn't really mean anything to aerodynamic calculations. It's all about density and relative changes in pressure due to motion, not absolute pressure. As far as temperature modelling goes, talk to Farram4. Just watching the Mach number readout in the FAR mod, it seems that he has done some good work with temperature.

This picture was shown by devs when talk about resources started. We got some other tidbits of info that really got hype train chugging. Unfortunately SQUAD decided to develop other parts of career mode first. Since that day before announcement what will be in next update community is asking: "Resources?" So far answer was always: "Nah. Not this time."

You guess wrongly. It's not that it has no point, it's that you're missing it. KSP is a sandbox game made by a small indie developer with limited funding, staff and audience. Not a nerfed-to-death multiplayer Korea grinder by a humongous Conglom-O, micro-transactioning pocket money and souls from trillions of braindead mouse mechanics testers.1 You decide however you want to enjoy it. Add stuff, mod stuff, use infinite fuel, Hyperedit, or <spooky>Mechjeb</spooky> ... If all omissions were deliberate, why did Squad add the Jumbo when you can stack two X200-32? Why did they add the radial Ant when you can use the inline one with [strange contraption with Cubics, Oscars and fuel lines]? Where was your difficulty slider then? Talk about logic. Correlation, let alone coincidence, does not imply causality. "Oh no, Squad's Dark Council of Doom must have decreed the lack of a certain part to remind everyone to whose draconian rule their players owe their pleasure in little-green-men gaming"2 is not the first thing that should reasonably come to mind when contemplating said lack. 1 Totally true. 2 Dramaticised for entertainment purposes. … Or, is it?

I just watched the archived clip of Harvestr's talk this morning - those were a highlight for me. The large science lab module and the ability to transfer experiments and "do Science!â„¢" on them in situ will finally give a real reason for space stations. And Minmus biomes sound like fun too. Given that we won't be able to spam the transmitter to get as much out of each locale, having more biomes that are reasonably accessible from within the Kerbin system itself will be handy.

So I'm currently sitting in class right now behind a girl wearing a a blue/white wig and tiger ears, so I am unable to concentrate. Nor do I care, because I am a senior taking freshman biology, because I transferred in sophomore year and my university demanded that I take it (it doesn't really help that I came here immediately after my graduate-level advanced biochemistry course). That being said, I obviously have been nosing around the Kerbal forum shamelessly, and an unfortunate behavior seems to dominate the interpersonal interaction between you, my fellow Kerballers. This behavior in question: the tendency to propose/address scientific phenomena with scientific certainty, in turn causing others to debunk said phenomena in a totalitarian manner.Because of this, I'd like to extend to you all, my favorite community, a public service announcement (I have recently broken up with Imgur because of the hypocrisy and self-righteousness that I hope to never see in my new lover, the KSP forum). Many of you suggest or bring up excellent ideas and speculation about complex topics, with minimal research. I understand this, and do this sometimes myself, as it is an effective way to initiate conversation about something you either wish to know more about, or see implemented into the game (or has been already). While initiating conversation with a lack of knowledge due to incomplete research is a minor fiend, this leads to another problem: for others to debunk these ideas in full, while also either with a limited knowledge of the matter, or limited research on the matter. The fact that you simply have heard about a phenomenon does not mean that it is always the case. Galaxies and start systems form in BILLIONS of ways, maybe trillions. Please don't null someone's idea right from the start because YOU don't know about something, or whether or not it is feasible in the whole Universe (key concept: the Universe is large as balls). Contrary, simply because you have NOT heard of one phenomenon, does not mean it is wrong or impossible either. That's like saying CO2, for example, is NEVER a reactive gas, because it's predominantly inert. Under the right conditions, anything in our universe may be possible WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE HEARD OF IT OR THE CURRENT RESEARCH THINKS/KNOWS IT IS POSSIBLE (or not). Please offer reasonable discussion instead, about why you THINK the idea/phenomenon is improbable, since you are likely not an expert on the topic (if you are... prove it?). Be a little less ambivalent. Like any development in science, and has been the case thousands of times in the past, many previously "impossible" ideas have proved to be, in fact, the way things are. Some of these things include: the earth being round, the ability for humans to move faster than 50 mph without exploding, and evolution). Be a little bit more amiable in your discussions, because by shutting down someone else's idea, you are hindering the forward-moving nature of scientific discovery, as well as even the development of the game itself. If TL;DR, don't be a know it all douche. You'll never see me personally respond to any topic about space with absolute certainty, just hopeful speculation, but if you want to talk proteins and biochemistry, get at me. Horndog, out.

Did they talk anymore about how thrust could be changed, or was is just the brief snippet from Yarg? My thinking is that this will be far more useful for SRBs than for liquid engines. No more worrying about blowing past terminal velocity. If we can tweak max thrust in flight I can see it being useful for liquid engines too, though. You could use it for offsetting a mass imbalance, or for making landing a bit easier (no more fiddling around with the throttle at 5% trying to come in for a soft landing).

That's me in the bottom right stall in the second image! That's really flattering, thanks! Remember, any convention has got to have speakers! Have someone represent Kurt or Scott doing a talk!

[offtopic]Talk about some necro-posting[/offtopic] I love building stations, just for the challenge of it. I usually start with a 'command module' that I place into the desired orbit (usually 300x300). After that I'll send up a tug, followed by every piece that I've pre-planned on my doodles at work. I keep lights and solar panels to a minimum to help mitigate lag.