dock for boats

[Wjolcz]

7 hours ago, Grenartia said:

really never noticed half the stuff you've pointed out, and the other half either isn't a problem, or is an acceptable break from reality for the sake of gameplay.

I don't want to completely dereail this thread, but I have a feeling you've never tried to complete a career save. 

[322997am]

Again I beleive we don't really need a dock, we need a strip of water on the left of the runway leading up to the water. It is both for ditching planes and boat docks.

[Alshain]

I feel like boats are outside the scope of KSP.  The game already simulates a splashdown well enough, I don't think it needs to go any further with water than that.

[adsii1970]

Why not use an engineer and KAS and "create" a dock?

[Alshain]

5 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

Why not use an engineer and KAS and "create" a dock?

Or Kerbal Konstructs even.  To be honest, I'm a little surprised this isn't already in Kerbin-Side by now

Edited June 27, 2016 by Alshain

[Kerbart]

24 minutes ago, Alshain said:

I feel like boats are outside the scope of KSP.  The game already simulates a splashdown well enough, I don't think it needs to go any further with water than that.

One can argue that having a “fleet” (even if it is just one) of recovery vehicles available makes a splash-down so much more fun, and also gives you at target for the splashdown. A target to be more precise than “any place that is water,” to be precise.

LET IT BE KNOWN THAT THE FOLLOWING PART DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT ALSHAIN SAID. IT IS JUST AN ADDITION THAT REFLECTS MY OPINION. REPEAT: LET IT BE KNOWN THAT THE FOLLOWING PART DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT ALSHAIN SAID. IT IS JUST AN ADDITION THAT REFLECTS MY OPINION.

KSP supports space flight, atmospheric flight, driving on the surface. Recently buoyancy was added. I think it only makes sense to support water based vehicles. “We never did that in the past” is the same attitude that would have kept us out of space in the first place and it only has opened a whole new world of modding, crazy stock contraptions and KSP innovation. Having a quay and a launching ramp would be awesome, I think.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Kerbart

[klgraham1013]

On 6/25/2016 at 0:50 PM, Veeltch said:

Nope. This game is about rockets and doesn't have proper water physics.

I always wanted to take off from a carrier though, so if we got that instead it would be very cool.

It's a game about space exploration.  Which could, one day, include boats and subs.

Edited June 27, 2016 by klgraham1013

[adsii1970]

If you check the one thread, "what did you do in KSP today..." I have a variety of surface ships. What bothers me more is we can't even use KSC1 any more...

[Alshain]

Just now, Kerbart said:

One can argue that having a “fleet” (even if it is just one) of recovery vehicles available makes a splash-down so much more fun, and also gives you at target for the splashdown. A target to be more precise than “any place that is water,” to be precise.

KSP supports space flight, atmospheric flight, driving on the surface. Recently buoyancy was added. I think it only makes sense to support water based vehicles. “We never did that in the past” is the same attitude that would have kept us out of space in the first place and it only has opened a whole new world of modding, crazy stock contraptions and KSP innovation. Having a quay and a launching ramp would be awesome, I think.

Who are you quoting/replying to?  I never said anything about never doing anything in the past and I can't find anyone in the thread who did.  If your attempt is to stand up a strawman, you won't get me to attack it.

[Kerbart]

3 minutes ago, Alshain said:

Who are you quoting/replying to?  I never said anything about never doing anything in the past and I can't find anyone in the thread who did.  If your attempt is to stand up a strawman, you won't get me to attack it.

My apologies. I updated my post to reflect this. I hope you didn't take this vile, uncalled for attack, not just on you, but on your personality, no, on the entire KSP community as something that I would be doing regularly.

 

Will you forgive me?

 

Please?

[klgraham1013]

1 minute ago, Kerbart said:

Will you forgive me?

 

Please?

Only if you bring cookies. 

[Alshain]

11 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

My apologies. I updated my post to reflect this. I hope you didn't take this vile, uncalled for attack, not just on you, but on your personality, no, on the entire KSP community as something that I would be doing regularly.

 

Will you forgive me?

 

Please?

 

Lol, no worries.  I didn't think anything of it.  I wasn't sure if I was just missing some part of the conversation, but you quoted my post which was confusing.

In response to the first part of that post though, recovery is not really in the scope of KSP either.  It's not saying we shouldn't do it because it we never have, it's saying we shouldn't do it because it's in a category outside the game design.  There are lots of things involved in a space program that the game doesn't involve itself in because doing so would dilute the experience and make things tedious.  In another thread I mentioned prop planes don't belong in the scope of KSP because they don't directly relate to space travel, however they have been used in research toward space travel, a very famous one affectionately known as the Vomit Comet was originally a prop plane.  Nevertheless, they extend outside the focus of the game, just like boats and subs.  That's where mods fill a perfect niche.

Jet planes exist because they do in fact have a more direct role in both early space travel and also potential near-future space travel (i.e. Skylon project) which is directly in the scope of the game.  Until such time as we find the need to launch a boat or submarine into space, they just don't fit in the scope.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Alshain

[Wjolcz]

16 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

It's a game about space exploration.  Which could, one day, include boats and subs.

Yeah, true. Space exploration includes a lot of things and subjects, but I want a finished game first.

[klgraham1013]

1 hour ago, Veeltch said:

Yeah, true. Space exploration includes a lot of things and subjects, but I want a finished game first.

Me too, my friend.  Me too.

[adsii1970]

On 6/23/2016 at 1:01 PM, Vaporized Steel said:

Actually a really cool idea.
I make boats from time to time and then just use the hyperedit mod to get it into the water.

What is this witchcraft you speak of??! Actually, I use Vessel Mover mod by @BahamutoD. It is an easy tool to use. One of the faithful followers of the mod actually provided a hack once the mod became unstable/unusable when 1.1.3 came out (here's a link to a patch that makes it work in 1.1.3).

Here's a few of what I have been working on for the last eight weeks...

 

 

 

 

I admit, it would be nice to have a dock, but I think it is better off built by us than Squad. I want a dock that also doubles as a refueling station (as is why each of my vessels have the hose mounts from KAS. I still think building the dock in SPH, then using KAS to have an engineer "bolt" it to Kerbin might be the best way to go...

 

[Brownhair2]

Yes please

[Blaarkies]

10 hours ago, Alshain said:

Jet planes exist because they do in fact have a more direct role in both early space travel and also potential near-future space travel (i.e. Skylon project) which is directly in the scope of the game.  Until such time as we find the need to launch a boat or submarine into space, they just don't fit in the scope.

All good, i agree with all that...except that the "J-90 "Goliath" Turbofan Engine" exists in game. Transporting Kerbals on kerbin itself is not any contract i have seen(a space shuttle could piggy-back it, but to where?). Why would you do science surveys on kerbin with a 200t plane...with a cargo ramp it could transport stuff on Laythe around, if we could build usable runways. 

Its cool because we like building massive over the top crafts in KSP, but the Goliath completely fails the going-to-space argument.
*note: I am not keen on having 10-15 boat/submarine parts(propellers that only work in water, etc.) added to the game, since they gets used less than the rover body part

[cfds]

Well, history teaches us that SQUAD will concentrate on fluff (like a space dock and submarine parts) and fixing the the career mode will be left to the community...

[klgraham1013]

14 hours ago, Alshain said:

Until such time as we find the need to launch a boat or submarine into space, they just don't fit in the scope.

We're already launching cars into space.  I don't think it's too hard to imagine boats and subs.  Even electric prop planes.   KSP already has 2 celestial bodies with oceans we can travel too.

I don't think it's as big a leap as you're implying. 

[Wjolcz]

4 hours ago, Blaarkies said:

All good, i agree with all that...except that the "J-90 "Goliath" Turbofan Engine" exists in game. Transporting Kerbals on kerbin itself is not any contract i have seen(a space shuttle could piggy-back it, but to where?). Why would you do science surveys on kerbin with a 200t plane...with a cargo ramp it could transport stuff on Laythe around, if we could build usable runways. 

Its cool because we like building massive over the top crafts in KSP, but the Goliath completely fails the going-to-space argument.
*note: I am not keen on having 10-15 boat/submarine parts(propellers that only work in water, etc.) added to the game, since they gets used less than the rover body part

I wasn't keen on having the Goliath in game once it was announced either, but here's a bunch of things:

Spoiler

 

You can't really do that with boats.

I also want to say I hate the mobile version of this forum. I wanted to put the pictures in a spoiler, but could do so with only one and also for some reason I can't include a picture of NASA's SOFIA telescope here, so you'll have to google it yourself.

[adsii1970]

5 hours ago, Blaarkies said:

All good, i agree with all that...except that the "J-90 "Goliath" Turbofan Engine" exists in game. Transporting Kerbals on kerbin itself is not any contract i have seen(a space shuttle could piggy-back it, but to where?). Why would you do science surveys on kerbin with a 200t plane...with a cargo ramp it could transport stuff on Laythe around, if we could build usable runways. 

Its cool because we like building massive over the top crafts in KSP, but the Goliath completely fails the going-to-space argument.
*note: I am not keen on having 10-15 boat/submarine parts(propellers that only work in water, etc.) added to the game, since they gets used less than the rover body part

Challenge accepted... This could actually be kind of fun. I normally do not do space planes, but to get one into space AND using the Goliath seems like a neat challenge.

However, I will say this - there are proper physics and aeronautical engineering, then there's the Kerbal way. And let's be completely honest here, the Kerbal way can be fun. Besides, electric and gas engine aircraft props can be used as propellers (or the correct term, screws) on ships and subs. Sure, they are a bit slower at a range of 1 to 7 meters per second (~2 knots to 13.5 knots OR ~2 miles per hour to about 15 miles per hour) which is close to being realistic. It just takes some trial and error to get the right length of blades, placement, etc. to get ships moving.

57 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

We're already launching cars into space.  I don't think it's too hard to imagine boats and subs.  Even electric prop planes.   KSP already has 2 celestial bodies with oceans we can travel too.

I don't think it's as big a leap as you're implying. 

Oh, and do not forget hamburgers! @NecroBones has made a mod (a long, long, time ago and still keeps it updated) called "Burger Mod" where one can launch a Whopper or Big Mac into space. Watch out, Dr. Evil, your Shoney's Big Boy is about to get company in orbit!

[Blaarkies]

27 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

Challenge accepted... This could actually be kind of fun. I normally do not do space planes, but to get one into space AND using the Goliath seems like a neat challenge.

Noo! Stahhp! Now everyone is going to send B52's into space using somehow only Goliath engines, patience, struts and hidden boosters...while cheering on "Remember who said this engine shouldn't go to space?" 

Screw the dock, we need properllers more, it is a kerbal solution. It is something for flight on Duna, and also something to make rovers on Eve float in a controlled direction

[adsii1970]

10 minutes ago, Blaarkies said:

Noo! Stahhp! Now everyone is going to send B52's into space using somehow only Goliath engines, patience, struts and hidden boosters...while cheering on "Remember who said this engine shouldn't go to space?" 

[edited by adsii1970 for relevant content]

Naw, I don't want to send the B-52's into space. Even though two of their band members have died, their older music still makes me want to keep them around. After all, Rock Lobster, Love Shack, Roam, and Channel Z were the type of songs that all it takes is just the mention of their name and you'll hear them in your head for the rest of the day.

Now, if you want to shoot Justin Bieber into space, I have a few targets in mind.  I think it is time we figure out how heat resistant those shuttle tiles actually were as we send him in a box to the sun...

[Alshain]

7 hours ago, Blaarkies said:

All good, i agree with all that...except that the "J-90 "Goliath" Turbofan Engine" exists in game. Transporting Kerbals on kerbin itself is not any contract i have seen(a space shuttle could piggy-back it, but to where?). Why would you do science surveys on kerbin with a 200t plane...with a cargo ramp it could transport stuff on Laythe around, if we could build usable runways. 

Its cool because we like building massive over the top crafts in KSP, but the Goliath completely fails the going-to-space argument.
*note: I am not keen on having 10-15 boat/submarine parts(propellers that only work in water, etc.) added to the game, since they gets used less than the rover body part

Well, I actually disagreed with adding that one too, but obviously I don't have that much influence

The Juno was also, questionable.  You do need something to train yourself on how to fly before  you jump into Turbo Ramjets and Rapiers , though the wheesley fit that role just fine before they started messing with it.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Alshain

[Wjolcz]

3 hours ago, Alshain said:

Well, I actually disagreed with adding that one too, but obviously I don't have that much influence

The Juno was also, questionable.  You do need something to train yourself on how to fly before  you jump into Turbo Ramjets and Rapiers , though the wheesley fit that role just fine before they started messing with it.

Juno is actually a pretty good engine for Laythe drones, since they don't have to have a fuselage of the size of Wheesley.