Squadcast Summary (2015-02-21) - All The Pictures Edition!

[Wahgineer]

Those landing gear, though. That will make building planes more interesting!

[Bloody_looser]

Well, looks like new aero will finally make stock aerobreaking possible.

[Liowen]

I know I will be transferring my .90 save in order to have something to fall back on if the 1.0 is either unstable or just not fun, since some rockets tend to wobble still the new sheering effect might make it more annoying. Wheels are nice if you like planes, would love to see some rover love but doubtful that will happen. Kerbals are asexual.....and that is all I will say on that.

Things that should be in this next version; CLOUDS to add life to the planets (Weather and such would be nice too but just some pillows in the sky is not too much to ask for), storage for rovers, fairing, useful nose cones with fuel, useful adapters that contain fuel, radial decouplers with built in sepratrons, some form of KAS would be nice to work in tandem with the resources, some form of KAC to slow warp down at nodes or events, storage containers to house science instruments (these could be setup on the ground to do readings), more/updated command pod/cans (the two man can especially), and docking ports that have their cross fuel setting set to disable by default .

That is just the short list for me of what is missing that should be in the 1.0 release, however if SQUAD will continue to do development after 1.0 to get these in it would be nice.

[John FX]

Isn't landing and taking off from Eve already hard enough?

It will be particularly hard now that the launch vehicle has to be aerodynamic as well as having about 11KDv...

I suspect a change to Eve will be forthcoming so it does not just end up 'that place from which nothing can return'

EDIT :

Every time that people ask for a slider/setting, I'd hope that people would realise that that's saying "please, Squad, multiply all of your testing efforts by (however many positions this new settings could take)" - for all that people argue for realism, reality, in terms of how much effort squad can expend in delivering this game, must at least be taken into account.

A slider is fairly easy to implement as it is a standard tweakable widget that changes a variable or two inside the code. It's not that much work at all when compared to implementing a new feature or part.

You should not worry about a new tweakable or menu setting taking all of SQUAD's time. It's not as bad as you think.

As for testing in QA, well that is what they are there for. I would not want the game crippled or restricted just so the QA team don't have so much to do. I want the game to be as good and flexible as possible so the largest audience possible can enjoy it.

The QA team could always be expanded if they find the work too arduous. I'm sure there were many more applicants than positions last time a call was put out for new QA members...

TL:DR I don't want the game restricted due to fear of delay. Delay the game then give us the wonderful thing you have made with all the bells and whistles still attached.

Edited February 22, 2015 by John FX

[BudgetHedgehog]

To be fair though, a fair amount of dV to Eve orbit is required because of the soupodynamics. How much do you need to reach Eve orbit stock? About 10km/s? Knock that back to at a rough guess 8km/s and if you take off from the highest peak and you're looking at something not a lot bigger than a Kerbin launcher (say 6km/s?), except you'll need higher TWR. Granted, I havent done an Eve ascent with FAR yet, but the numbers shouldn't be too far wrong.

The the hard part will be making a lander that falls pointing up and stays pointing up during ascent.

[Sidereus]

To be fair though, a fair amount of dV to Eve orbit is required because of the soupodynamics. How much do you need to reach Eve orbit stock? About 10km/s? Knock that back to at a rough guess 8km/s and if you take off from the highest peak and you're looking at something not a lot bigger than a Kerbin launcher (say 6km/s?), except you'll need higher TWR. Granted, I havent done an Eve ascent with FAR yet, but the numbers shouldn't be too far wrong.

The the hard part will be making a lander that falls pointing up and stays pointing up during ascent.

Currently it's ~11.5km/s to get off Eve.

I think being able to mine resources will help a lot with that. It makes it much easier when you don't have to bring all that fuel with you....

Edited February 22, 2015 by Sidereus

[Jouni]

7.5 km/s should be enough for a sea level Eve landing.

[yardpup01]

To be fair though, a fair amount of dV to Eve orbit is required because of the soupodynamics. How much do you need to reach Eve orbit stock? About 10km/s? Knock that back to at a rough guess 8km/s and if you take off from the highest peak and you're looking at something not a lot bigger than a Kerbin launcher (say 6km/s?), except you'll need higher TWR. Granted, I havent done an Eve ascent with FAR yet, but the numbers shouldn't be too far wrong.

The the hard part will be making a lander that falls pointing up and stays pointing up during ascent.

The real challenge to an eve ascent now with the fixed ISP-thrust relation is having enough thrust to lift off at eve surface pressure.

[RocketPilot573]

The real challenge to an eve ascent now with the fixed ISP-thrust relation is having enough thrust to lift off at eve surface pressure.

Shouldn't the Aerospikes still have (nearly) full thrust?

[Yellowburn10]

Shouldn't the Aerospikes still have (nearly) full thrust?

I believe there is an equation to figure that out, but I'm not smart enough to know what it is. And anyways, all the engines are getting a rebalance, including the aero spike, so there's no way to know for sure.

[Renegrade]

7.5 km/s should be enough for a sea level Eve landing.

Ouch.

The cost to get from landed at sea level to 100k on Eve without the presence of any atmosphere at all is about 3,582.6 or thereabouts. 7.5k is a bit more than double that :S I guess Eve is still.. EVEil?

(the numbers are 2,381.9 and 3300-3500 for Kerbin to 70km for comparison)

[keeper]

Nice to meet valentina, and nice looking resources thing.

cant say i'm overly excited for the new aero thing, but i'm sure it'll be great

[Ikaneko]

Nice to see the old assets are all in; it's as if the first resources debacle never happened!!!

Still, those new landing gears are smokin'!! Credit to Porkjet for this!!

[cpast]

I believe there is an equation to figure that out, but I'm not smart enough to know what it is. And anyways, all the engines are getting a rebalance, including the aero spike, so there's no way to know for sure.

The equation is "Aerospike vacuum ISP is about equal to aerospike sea-level ISP, so the aerospike thrust is approximately the same in atmo and in vacuum." The whole *point* of an aerospike engine is that its performance doesn't vary that much with pressure.

[RocketPilot573]

The equation is "Aerospike vacuum ISP is about equal to aerospike sea-level ISP, so the aerospike thrust is approximately the same in atmo and in vacuum." The whole *point* of an aerospike engine is that its performance doesn't vary that much with pressure.

...which is why I hope they don't nerf it (again). I can understand why the 48-7S is OP, but the aerospike needs a reason to exist!

[GeorgeG]

A big issue with the old/current landing gear is the need to get them mounted dead-perfectly at 90 degrees, or else the plane will veer itself off the runway. When attaching gear onto non-flat surfaces, that is a big issue.

Adjustable Landing Gear has solved that, plus much much more. It can automatically set the wheels at 90 degrees. But I often take part in challenges, so can't use it when the challenge requires "stock" parts.

If the new stock gear has the same old problem being so finicky, then it's not trying to fix the biggest problem with the old gear. Otherwise, except for challenges, I'll stick to ALG and "tweakscale" for the best, most fun, and most logical/realistic way to use landing gear in the game.

- GeorgeG

[Wanderfound]

Those little wheels look a lot like prop plane gear to me. Now we just need some stock props...

[Laie]

[leaving Eve] will be particularly hard now that the launch vehicle has to be aerodynamic as well as having about 11KDv...

Most of the insane dV is due to the current atmo. I expect that landers/lifters will become a lot smaller with the new aerodynamics. What's currently good for an ascent from the highest peaks will probably suffice for sea level in the future.

Landing is simple right now and may well become more challenging. I've heard reports from FAR users about how difficult it is to land a rocket tail first.

[7499275]

Can't say I'm a huge fan of the way scanned resources look. Still prefer the old Kethane hex tiles.

[Laie]

I can understand why the 48-7S is OP, but the aerospike needs a reason to exist!

Compared to current engines, it's quite underwhelming really. TWR only slightly better than a Poodle (much worse than anything else), and the (near-)constant ISP needs an Eve launch to make up for the low TWR. On Kerbin, Aerospikes just can't compete even if you want to build an SSTO.

[Mister Spock]

I'd also like to know if the new landing gear will include some means of ensuring that the wheel touches the ground at a 90 degree angle. If not, I guess I'll be trying the Adjustable Landing Gear mod too.