Jump to content

KSP2 Hype Train Thread

Whirligig Girl
 Share

Recommended Posts

JoeSchmuckatelli

JoeSchmuckatelli

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Oh look, scatterFdB7VQmXkAIXTxY?format=jpg&name=large

 

Upon further review... I really find this image comforting. 

It looks just like KSP... But better. 

... 

...although I am kinda done with everything being labeled 'Pre Alpha'. 

C'mon dudes - Alpha that shiz up already! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Singhnaut

Singhnaut

Posted
Posted

YEAAAAAAHAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

35 minutes ago, darthgently said:

No soup for you! -- The Soup Notzi (forum won't let me use the "nz" word, its a Seinfeld reference, not political fer Pity's sake)

hehe another Seinfeld fan. Kramer is the best:)

35 minutes ago, darthgently said:

No soup for you! -- The Soup Notzi (forum won't let me use the "nz" word, its a Seinfeld reference, not political fer Pity's sake)

jambalayaaaaaaaa

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JoeSchmuckatelli

JoeSchmuckatelli

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Rutabaga22 said:

Nothing changed!

 

 

@Pthigrivi - actually, if you look at the photo @The Aziz posted; the textures are quite a bit different.  The engine bells in the new render are matte, for one.  Also, the shrouds (I'm sure that's the wrong term) at the tops of the bells look like aluminum in his pic, vs cloth/ceramic in the new render.

 

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stephensan

Stephensan

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Oh look, scatterFdB7VQmXkAIXTxY?format=jpg&name=large

 

Am i the only one that thinks that this is connected to the KSP "Something more Mun Landing on the YouTube Ep's" clips, and saying they crashed landed? or am i reading between the lines.. they are within reason closely in size, shape, but however not in parts, the engine, and the solar panels are different.

 

Aswell as just seeing that, where would there RCS fuel be at, there isn't space/parts for it i see

 

  • Docking Port/Launch Escape System/Parashoot
  • Command pod
  • Heatshield
  • Stage decoupler
  • Solar
  • RCS ports
  • Fuel Tank
  • Poodle Engine
  • Landing Gear..

but where is the RCS fuel, that only means unless im insane that the fuel tank can be used both as the engine, and rcs fuel..

Edited by Stephensan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Aziz

The Aziz

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Stephensan said:

am i reading between the lines..

Probably. It's just a Funny Picture™ like tons of others we've seen in their social media, only now they switched to KSP2.

Also, the command pod holds a tiny amount of monoprop.

Edited by The Aziz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MechBFP

MechBFP

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Stephensan said:

Am i the only one that thinks that this is connected to the KSP "Something more Mun Landing on the YouTube Ep's" clips, and saying they crashed landed? or am i reading between the lines.. they are within reason closely in size, shape, but however not in parts, the engine, and the solar panels are different.

 

Aswell as just seeing that, where would there RCS fuel be at, there isn't space/parts for it i see

 

  • Docking Port/Launch Escape System/Parashoot
  • Command pod
  • Heatshield
  • Stage decoupler
  • Solar
  • RCS ports
  • Fuel Tank
  • Poodle Engine
  • Landing Gear..

but where is the RCS fuel, that only means unless im insane that the fuel tank can be used both as the engine, and rcs fuel..

The real explanation is that no one uses RSC so neither does the person who took the screenshot. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ahres

Ahres

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, Strawberry said:

It is interesting how the scatter and color of the mun is different from what we've seen before, I think this is a biome we havent seen yet?

I bet you're right, Strawberry.

When I saw it, environmentally, it didn't look much more impressive than KSP1 in my opinion. But maybe this is an area covered with ejecta. Of course, if that's the case, should there be rocks visible? Or should there at least be ejecta on top of the rocks? Idk, something about this screenshot is just a letdown for me. To be fair, the graphics seem to be dialed back. The shadows are very undefined. But, man, has anyone seen a picture of our own moon where the rocks and the rest of the surface have such a difference in color? No me gusta. Or should I say, "on em atsug"? (@Pthigrivi)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Strawberry

Strawberry

Posted
Posted (edited)

I have a feeling that the Mun and Minmus pictures were from playtesting, which may mean theyre ramping up playtesting which is exciting The recent picture also shows mark 2, which is latter on in the tech tree, which may mean we may be getting over these weeks highlights of a whole playtest.

Edited by Strawberry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pthigrivi

Pthigrivi

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Strawberry said:

I have a feeling that the Mun and Minmus pictures were from playtesting, which may mean theyre ramping up playtesting which is exciting The recent picture also shows mark 2, which is latter on in the tech tree, which may mean we may be getting over these weeks highlights of a whole playtest.

Id still like to see more cosmetic, foreground scatter. Seems like if there was an opacity gradient that smoothed out the cutoff point things would look more natural close-up and your mind would paint it into the far-ground? No I only slightly know what Im talking about. 

Edited by Pthigrivi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
poopslayer78

poopslayer78

Posted
Posted
On 9/20/2022 at 2:25 PM, Alexoff said:

Imagine how fun it would be if, at a high level of development in KSP2, enemy red tomatoes' starships flew into our system...

2023 is going to be an amazing year for space games:

  1. KSP2
  2. Dyson Sphere Program Dark Fog Update
  3. Homeworld 3

...oh baby

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rutabaga22

Rutabaga22

Posted
Posted
On 9/20/2022 at 3:03 AM, Stephensan said:

Aswell as just seeing that, where would there RCS fuel be at, there isn't space/parts for it i see

 

This is just speculation(Like most of the thread), but what if the reason there isn't an rcs tank is because we will have the ability to have a mix of LFO and MP in one tank. Or something like the service tanks of RP-1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stephensan

Stephensan

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Rutabaga22 said:

This is just speculation(Like most of the thread), but what if the reason there isn't an rcs tank is because we will have the ability to have a mix of LFO and MP in one tank. Or something like the service tanks of RP-1.

what was i was pointing at

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SciMan

SciMan

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 9/20/2022 at 3:03 AM, Stephensan said:

but where is the RCS fuel, that only means unless im insane that the fuel tank can be used both as the engine, and rcs fuel..

Easy. All capsules probably still have small monopropellant tanks (they might have even increased the capacity of the monopropellant tanks because that reduces part count).

If that's still the same-old Mk1-3 capsule that I think it is, then it should store 30 units of monopropellant.

If you're really good at rendezvous and docking, that's way more than you technically "need" to dock probably 1 or 2 times.

I generally don't put that much monopropellant on my craft. The RCS is only used for docking and OCCASIONALLY to prevent an extremely seriously sideways landing attitude from becoming a landing that flipped on its side.

As for what happened to this particular lander, I can only imagine that since the terrain is relatively flat that they tried to contact the ground while still having some significant sideways velocity (my estimates are in the range of 3-5 m/s horizontal velocity at touchdown). This then caused the classic "flip over and oh crap shut off the engines" response, when they should have seen that they were tilting sideways when they touched, mashed "full throttle" while the craft still had the engines pointing "sort of down" engaged the RCS and corrected attitude to pointing up again, cut throttle, point retrograde, and tried for landing again.
EDIT: This would have resulted in them likely having an "eventful but largely successful" landing
EDIT 2: I know that this is the right thing to do because I've had a very similar situation happen to me on more than one occasion.
It's a lot like landing on an aircraft carrier. If you miss the arresting cable, you don't cut throttle. You go to FULL AFTERBURNER as quickly as the engines can do that, because you're not gonna be able to stop, your only choice is to go around and try again.

Edited by SciMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...