The Mun, repurposed.

[Rune]

If you are playing career mode correctly and without cheats you should be back and forth to the moon 15 times or have a really good rover with a sci lab.

My last run through career mode normal difficulty I landed about 35 times on the Mun. It was about 60% of the science required to finish the tech tree.

I have two nodes left, and I launched to the moon exactly 1 time. Landed three, though, and fed the data to a science module in-situ, and another one back at LKO. That should net me about 5000 more science when it finishes its research, I think it will be enough... if the remaining data from High over Munar and High over Minmus doesn't get them unlocked first. Haven't bothered to launch a mission yet.

Rune. So... you are not doing things efficiently. Which is fine, BTW.

[ComradeWolfe]

Minmus exists because it does.

This sounds like something from one of the early Kerbal philisophers... Kerboclese or Kerbistotle.

[samstarman5]

This sounds like something from one of the early Kerbal philisophers... Kerboclese or Kerbistotle.

Klato

[tater]

Oh well...

Creativity is not that limited by technical characteristics.

Here's "The Longest Life", by Mimmo Rubino

Non-argument. Would KSP be improved if the airless worlds were just as detailed terrain wise as the Mun, yes or no?

That game (snake) is actually pretty fancy. My go-to old game is netkack. In a vt102 window.

[Whackjob]

The mun is a fun place to land really big things that have no business being there. Or anywhere.

[cantab]

Regarding the asteroids, it's been discussed before that a class E would not remotely threaten Kerbin. At most it would be similar to the Chelyabinsk meteor. So there's no need to keep deflecting them. The real "Asteroid Redirect Mission" is about grabbing a rock to study more than about protecting Earth from impacts.

[Megadeath]

Klato

Ah, but surely you've read René Deskerb? How can we really know it exists, when you can't demonstrate that you do? Maybe it's all just in our heads, or some kinda computer simulation.

[Plume & Akakak]

Creativity is not that limited by technical characteristics.

Here's "The Longest Life", by Mimmo Rubino.

Non-argument. Would KSP be improved if the airless worlds were just as detailed terrain wise as the Mun, yes or no?

That game (snake) is actually pretty fancy. My go-to old game is netkack. In a vt102 window.

Nope, I wouldn't call it an improvement. That would simply be "more angles". Just like you can add pixels between pixels indefinitely. It's quite a vain rush in my opinion. I just take KSP's setting as it is.

It seems I have to add that the link I shared is a video made by artist Mimmo Rubino in 2004, using the Snake game on a Nokia mobile phone. I think it's a good example that you can get interesting and creative things out of a limited, or graphically dull tool.

[tater]

You'd be wrong. Aside from looking better, which is secondary, it would create more complex terrain to have to navigate. That's the point of the terrain, to present novel situations to land on, nothing more. Heck, ideally the scatter would have colliders for the same reason.

BTW, that video does exactly nothing for me, I watched about 15 seconds of it---9 minutes would be against the Geneva convention to show it to POWs.

[Captain Sierra]

Procedural cratering only really translates to flat terrain being flat, but not level, at the lander scale. Honestly, if I were to do planetary terrain from scratch, I'd shrink the current heightmaps by about 0.5%, and make up the diameter difference with a procedural voxel layer. (I've played too much space engineers, and am mildly addicted to deformable terrain) 1) possibility for player impact craters, 2) a much higher 'resolution' to work with in terms of terrain detail. You could then make something that affects the lander scale or at least the base scale.

But, I will ask those who want it, IRL how fine is the variability of terrain in terms of affecting landers? Is it the actual terrain shape, slope, or ground scatter that is the main problem?

[Plume & Akakak]

Nope, I wouldn't call it an improvement. That would simply be "more angles". Just like you can add pixels between pixels indefinitely. It's quite a vain rush in my opinion. I just take KSP's setting as it is.

It seems I have to add that the link I shared is a video made by artist Mimmo Rubino in 2004, using the Snake game on a Nokia mobile phone. I think it's a good example that you can get interesting and creative things out of a limited, or graphically dull tool.

You'd be wrong. Aside from looking better, which is secondary, it would create more complex terrain to have to navigate. That's the point of the terrain, to present novel situations to land on, nothing more. Heck, ideally the scatter would have colliders for the same reason.

BTW, that video does exactly nothing for me, I watched about 15 seconds of it---9 minutes would be against the Geneva convention to show it to POWs.

Well I certainly trust the professionalism of the many curators who showed this guy's work internationally.

This conversation is getting really embarrassing, I think I'll leave you here, hoping you may consider adding a few more nuances to your set of coloured pencils.

... and scatter colliders aren't mandatory. : )

Happy sandbox-ing !

Edited July 19, 2015 by Plume & Akakak
typo

[tater]

Well I certainly trust the professionalism of the many curators who showed this guy's work internationally.

I don't care about anyone else's opinion regarding art, really. I've hung around with enough art people to know they can't even do math. I decide what art I like based upon actually liking it, not being told what is hip by people with an interest in changing what is hot constantly to increase values.

This conversation is getting really embarrassing, I think I'll leave you here, hoping you may consider adding a few more nuances to your set of coloured pencils.

... and scatter colliders aren't mandatory. : )

http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/958478KSPasterotree03.jpg

Happy sandbox-ing !

Embarrassing for you, maybe. You said that austere is better, which means that you presumably think that simplifying the KSP terrain from what the extant Kerbol system is would be an improvement--or certainly the Mun, which has more complex cratering that other worlds. HarvesteR: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/entries/667-Procedural-Craters

On-topic, the Mun is the least boring of the current non-kerbin worlds, contrary to OP's claim it is the most boring.

Your image above shows a decent screenshot composition (and a mod that adds colliders to scatter?). KSP is not about screen shots, it's about flying spacecraft. I'm far more concerned with what landing operations are like than what kind of screenshot I might compose (particularly in stock). If stock allowed large masses on trees, that would be a physics failure (physics should trump looks in KSP, too).

The tools players have to work with in "sandbox" are not landscapes, but parts. The creativity shown by the landscape in KSP belongs entirely to the devs. You can make interesting craft regardless of the terrain---and if architecture is a model for this, the best includes the site, and if every site is identical, then architecture loses this constraint. My own real house would be rather boring without the mountain it is bermed into, and the boulders that are both inside and outside the house.

For my creativity with terrain I'd need a model where I could crater bodies myself (or otherwise modify terrain).

[Plume & Akakak]

[...]

Jesus. Christ. Farewell, sir peremptory.

[Xyphos]

Guys, you're going off topic and doing a lot of in-fighting. I suggest you shake hands and apologize to each other, or I'll have to ask a Moderator to step in.

Regarding the asteroids, it's been discussed before that a class E would not remotely threaten Kerbin. At most it would be similar to the Chelyabinsk meteor. So there's no need to keep deflecting them. The real "Asteroid Redirect Mission" is about grabbing a rock to study more than about protecting Earth from impacts.

Right, I've seen Class E's explode at ~25kM during atmospheric entry, but since we don't have Class F or Class G asteroids, it's still fun to pretend.

It would be interesting to have to redirect such goliaths; IIRC, Class G would have a it's own miniscule gravitational field.

[sal_vager]

Guys, you're going off topic and doing a lot of in-fighting. I suggest you shake hands and apologize to each other, or I'll have to ask a Moderator to step in.

We're watching, and Xyplos is correct, the thread has been splitting into two for the last few pages but is still largely on-topic, so please put aside your differences and keep to the topic of the thread, thank you.

[Sheppard]

Yeah, I play career, but Minmus is too ugly to bother with much for me, and I also play with LS, so I wait for more distant stuff until I can manage the logistics.

With Better Atmospheres Mod: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/77523-0-23-5-Better-Atmospheres-V4-April-23rd-2014