Show and Tell - Creating New Parts

[Francois424]

You knw we're all looking at these parts and going : "I like what I see".

I'll tell you, I like what I hear as well. 
If these soundtracks present in some of KSP2 videos are in the game in shape or form, we're in for a real treat...
For those of us that never get enough in-game musical scores.

[cubinator]

10 minutes ago, Francois424 said:

You knw we're all looking at these parts and going : "I like what I see".

I'll tell you, I like what I hear as well. 
If these soundtracks present in some of KSP2 videos are in the game in shape or form, we're in for a real treat...
For those of us that never get enough in-game musical scores.

I definitely agree. I wonder if they would implement dynamic music like in Pikmin 2? That would be fantastic!

[Superbdul1]

Oh man I can't wait for KSP2

 

[darthgently]

On 6/12/2021 at 12:48 PM, Dfthu said:

If i had to guess it looks more "modern' and "sci-fi" compared to regular turbines. Plus I think they're more efficient IRL

 

Vertical turbines are far less efficient, but probably more transportable

[K^2]

4 hours ago, darthgently said:

Vertical turbines are far less efficient, but probably more transportable

That depends on your measure of efficiency. In terms of wind energy converted, sure. But if you're not even capturing most of the available wind, that's not a terribly useful metric. In a lot of contexts, what matters is efficiency per area of footprint, and vertical turbines can have a lot more wind cross section for the same footprint. Especially, when available space is limited. This is why you'll see a lot more vertical turbines in urban settings than conventional type.

It also just makes sense for a game where you are building on a grid. You need to make a lot of room around a conventional wind turbine. For a vertical one, you just have to make room for the base. Would it really be the best choice for colony power generation? Probably not. But it really makes sense for a game like KSP.

[darthgently]

3 hours ago, K^2 said:

That depends on your measure of efficiency. In terms of wind energy converted, sure. But if you're not even capturing most of the available wind, that's not a terribly useful metric. In a lot of contexts, what matters is efficiency per area of footprint, and vertical turbines can have a lot more wind cross section for the same footprint. Especially, when available space is limited. This is why you'll see a lot more vertical turbines in urban settings than conventional type.

It also just makes sense for a game where you are building on a grid. You need to make a lot of room around a conventional wind turbine. For a vertical one, you just have to make room for the base. Would it really be the best choice for colony power generation? Probably not. But it really makes sense for a game like KSP.

So efficient in land use, but inefficient in actual energy conversion engineering terms.  Once landed, availability of real estate in KSP is rarely an issue; more of a first world problem.  The thinner the atmo, the thinner the argument for verticals would become also.  I'll stick with my original evaluation that the verticals would be easier to transport and still give the actual energy conversion efficiency prize to HAWTs.  But probably most importantly, in a high stakes mission to another world, consistent and dependable power with as few moving parts as possible wins.  And it isn't VAWTs or HAWTs, as you hint at.   The transportation dv costs vs the dependable energy received efficiency would completely dwarf real estate use efficiency in interplanetary scenarios.  I could definitely see these combined with batteries for deployed science transmitters where they only have to transmit periodically and can store up power in between and perhaps for the experiments themselves.  But they are basically "nighttime solar collectors" further down the solar foodchain; which has niches depending a lot on application and location.  I'm not trying to rain on renewable advocacy; just calling it as I see it.  In the long run, advocating for efficiency is a unifying goal

[Pthigrivi]

28 minutes ago, darthgently said:

So efficient in land use, but inefficient in actual energy conversion engineering terms.  Once landed, availability of real estate in KSP is rarely an issue; more of a first world problem.  The thinner the atmo, the thinner the argument for verticals would become also.  I'll stick with my original evaluation that the verticals would be easier to transport and still give the actual energy conversion efficiency prize to HAWTs.  But probably most importantly, in a high stakes mission to another world, consistent and dependable power with as few moving parts as possible wins.  And it isn't VAWTs or HAWTs, as you hint at.   The transportation dv costs vs the dependable energy received efficiency would completely dwarf real estate use efficiency in interplanetary scenarios.  I could definitely see these combined with batteries for deployed science transmitters where they only have to transmit periodically and can store up power in between and perhaps for the experiments themselves.  But they are basically "nighttime solar collectors" further down the solar foodchain; which has niches depending a lot on application and location.  I'm not trying to rain on renewable advocacy; just calling it as I see it.  In the long run, advocating for efficiency is a unifying goal

True, but the nice thing is Kerbal is a game and they can sort of make the power outputs what they want for game balance rather than hyper-realism. I suspect the leading reasons they used a VAWT is that it looks cool and doesn't require the game to implement wind directionality. 

 

Edited June 16, 2021 by Pthigrivi

[TLTay]

48 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

True, but the nice thing is Kerbal is a game and they can sort of make the power outputs what they want for game balance rather than hyper-realism. I suspect the leading reasons they used a VAWT is that it looks cool and doesn't require the game to implement wind directionality. 

 

Collision avoidance on takeoff and landing is easier if you don't have to factor for where the blades will be. Less moving parts to break is a factor in space, also less variability in destruction animation required for this vs a standard turbine. 

[K^2]

4 hours ago, TLTay said:

Collision avoidance on takeoff and landing is easier if you don't have to factor for where the blades will be. Less moving parts to break is a factor in space, also less variability in destruction animation required for this vs a standard turbine. 

V Speeds - KSP Edition.

• V_X - Best angle of climb. Take off at that speed to avoid structures, terrain, or tall trees at the end of the runway.
• V_Y - Best rate of climb. Take off at that speed if there are no obstacles and you just want to gain altitude as rapidly as possible.
• V_Z - Best time to climb. Take off at that speed to pass between blades of the wind turbine at the end of the runway. (Note: Varies with departure time. Consult your terminal charts.)

[Dr. Kerbal]

On 6/15/2021 at 4:19 AM, Superbdul1 said:

Oh man I can't wait for KSP2

 

I can relate! And GREAT SCOTT! KSP2 is going to be a 

MASTERPEICE! 

[TLTay]

Also, these turbines could be packed together, put upsidedown, sideways on buildings, you could stack them in 3d... put them underneath an elevated runway... under the colony housing... so many possibilities! Wonder if i can put them underwater for tidal power?

[mcwaffles2003]

On 6/13/2021 at 9:38 AM, Nate Simpson said:

Keep in mind that resource extraction is a big part of colony gameplay, and once you're making stuff at colonies you're not limited to just landers. These are very heavy, but you can side-mount them on wheeled vehicles that you build close to an area of interest. Or, yes, some of the later engines do make the sort of thrust needed to fly these around. We did place a stack attach node at the top so that one of these could be suspended beneath the center of a stack.

It's intended we scan for resources after we start a colony? I thought it would be scan for resources first to find a good spot to establish a colony. Or is there possibly a lighter more compact version that offers less accuracy or only shows surface content for prospecting from an interplanetary probe?

Edited June 16, 2021 by mcwaffles2003

[TLTay]

57 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

It's intended we scan for resources after we start a colony? I thought it would be scan for resources first to find a good spot to establish a colony. Or is there possibly a lighter more compact version that offers less accuracy or only shows surface content for prospecting from an interplanetary probe?

I'm sure we will get the full suite of orbital sensors, but we would just be guessing where deep subterranean deposits are from what we can deduce from space. Somebody has to get down there and get dirty to find lots of goodies deep down. The deep scanner looks to me like one of those devices that hits the ground really hard and listens for the echo response. Who knows, maybe we will get a coring drill too? I'm excited about prospecting just as much as colonizing, so it's all good to me. 

[mcwaffles2003]

3 hours ago, TLTay said:

I'm sure we will get the full suite of orbital sensors, but we would just be guessing where deep subterranean deposits are from what we can deduce from space. Somebody has to get down there and get dirty to find lots of goodies deep down. The deep scanner looks to me like one of those devices that hits the ground really hard and listens for the echo response. Who knows, maybe we will get a coring drill too? I'm excited about prospecting just as much as colonizing, so it's all good to me. 

Hoping so, the way he worded it I felt prospecting will be made to come after colonization but I'm probably misinterpreting what Nate said. It makes sense that a deep scan would require a heavier/larger ground operation instead of orbital scans and shallow surface drilling samples.

[Superbdul1]

8 hours ago, Dr. Kerbal said:

And GREAT SCOTT!

Pun intended, of course?

[Pthigrivi]

50 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Hoping so, the way he worded it I felt prospecting will be made to come after colonization but I'm probably misinterpreting what Nate said. It makes sense that a deep scan would require a heavier/larger ground operation instead of orbital scans and shallow surface drilling samples.

It could also be that some resources like ore are easily collected from the surface, but others like uranium need deeper drill rigs.  This might be too much to wish for but maybe from an orbital scan players know the general vicinity where these rarer resources can be found and could start a base in that area, but if they wanted the best output they would need to scan more deeply and build a nearby mining outpost and then set up surface trucking with the milkrun system. 

Edited June 17, 2021 by Pthigrivi

[mcwaffles2003]

18 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

It could also be that some resources like ore are easily collected from the surface, but others like uranium need deeper drill rigs.  This might be too much to wish for but maybe from an orbital scan players know the general vicinity where these rarer resources can be found and could start a base in that area, but if they wanted the best output they could  build a nearby mining outpost and set up surface trucking with the milkrun system. 

That's a fair way of looking at it. Where my speculations diverge is is around the question of "Will the resources be limitless?" If they are limitless then I would agree that most likely rarer resources will be deeper. Though, if resources are limited then I will assume surface deposits will just be fairly quickly exhaustible and deep drilling will be needed to find more sustainable caches of whatever resource you are extracting and rare resources might not be reserved for only deep deposits.

That said, how will we be discovering these resources? Will we be making prospecting rovers and driving over the whole surface of the celestial body we're on looking for them or will there be signatures viewable from orbit hinting at where these deposits potentially are? If the latter is the case, and I hope it is, then maybe some deposit signatures could be duds to make prospecting a little less linear feeling, similar to prospecting in Elite Dangerous with the pulse wave analyzer.

Edited June 17, 2021 by mcwaffles2003

[Dr. Kerbal]

36 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

It could also be that some resources like ore are easily collected from the surface, but others like uranium need deeper drill rigs.  This might be too much to wish for but maybe from an orbital scan players know the general vicinity where these rarer resources can be found and could start a base in that area, but if they wanted the best output they would need to scan more deeply and build a nearby mining outpost and then set up surface trucking with the milkrun system. 

This makes exploring and roving worthwhile. 

[The Aziz]

Friendly reminder that S&T won't appear this week. Carry on.

[Guest]

On 6/13/2021 at 10:15 AM, Nate Simpson said:

Deformable terrain is beyond scope at release (edge cases abound, especially when you consider multiplayer). This is our best solution at the moment, but could be an interesting area of experimentation going forward. It sure would be cool!

what if you built soil instead? It could be like some kind of part where you can make some fake terrain to make it more flat. Probably might run into the same problem

[PlutoISaPlanet]

I realy want to see those Joolian clouds. They were teased! But alas, it has been months.

 

[Yellowburn10]

I'm getting a big "Space Engineers" vibe from some of these new parts. Not that I'm complaining, they look amazing!

[[email protected]]

This is great!!!  I can't wait for release!  I'm thinking if a hammer and a feather fall at the same rate on Mun, then surely both a thermal generator and a wind turbine will produce equal power -all things being equivalent, of course.

[Awfulwaffle]

I for one am quite happy I can use roads. When I saw the colony VAB the first thing I thought is that I want launch/landing pads away from it. I don’t feel like scorching my kerbals using the launch pad on top is the best thing for my colony. I want to role my rockets to the launch pads instead.

[TLTay]

1 hour ago, Awfulwaffle said:

I for one am quite happy I can use roads. When I saw the colony VAB the first thing I thought is that I want launch/landing pads away from it. I don’t feel like scorching my kerbals using the launch pad on top is the best thing for my colony. I want to role my rockets to the launch pads instead.

I was kind of thinking the same thing. Launching right next to fuel tanks and landing 20 tons of explosive right next to housing is too Kerbal for me. I'm gonna at least need some blast walls or something...