Jump to content

The shared .23 release features news thread.

Tidus Klein

By Tidus Klein
in KSP1 Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

roosterr

roosterr

Posted
Posted
Just realised, think of it: Shuttle. Reduce thrust on specific engine. Balencing.

Bingo.

I am surprised I had to read this far in before anyone mentioned this. I see this as the best use of the throttle limiting. Not just for shuttle type balance, but so you can arrange your motors for fuel consumption and better steering. I often will lock gimbals on some and add smaller engines to vector thrust and arrange them in inner/outer configs with asparagus staging. Often the engines used for guidance dont need to be full throttled, or sometimes they need to be the most throttled, leaving the bigger ones throttled back to conserve fuel.

I always wanted this feature and Squad delivered. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Yargnit

Yargnit

Posted
Posted

Saves work fine from everything I've seen, mods are hit and miss (more-so than 0.22), but getting the major modders the opportunity to ensure compatibility prior to release is becoming more of an effort. Of course depending on their schedules that doesn't mean they will have necessarily been able to make tweaks in time, and compatibility cannot be guaranteed as a last minute fix could always break something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sjwt

sjwt

Posted
Posted
It would be the sensible thing, yes, but after more than a decade in gaming I can say that developers more often than not chose to go the non-sensible path.

SRB's do indeed work correctly, by limiting thrust the burn time is increased.. Whos up for Stock SRB only to the Mun and back??

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scotius

Scotius

Posted
Posted
SRB's do indeed work correctly, by limiting thrust the burn time is increased.. Whos up for Stock SRB only to the Mun and back??

Too late :D Scott Manley already did it, back in 0.18 i think. Video is on YT somewhere - it's worth watching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lazarus1024

lazarus1024

Posted
Posted
Something big mentioned earlier was the optimizations. Slightly apples to oranges, but a mention of a player running 20 fps with a 400 part ship, going to 40 fps with a 700 part ship.

Space Stations for the win!

If true, that would probably be huge. I run around 20-30fps on my i5-3317u laptop and HD4000 graphics with 200-300 part ships. I don't need a big boost in the part count, but slightly smoother would be nice with those ships sizes (and I am sure I'd build a big space station at some point).

Also that might well mean it could get smaller ships to run smoothly on my tablet (T100, getting it for Christmas, no idea how well or if it could possibly run KSP with no add-ons. I am guessing yes, but very slowly. At least with .22)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eric S

Eric S

Posted
Posted
While this is good to see. The only bad part is. At least by the looks of it is we will still need to spam air intakes.

From what I understand, a lot of the OP-ness people are seeing in the RAPIER engine is actually one or more changes in the basic game that will affect stock jet/turbojet engines as well. It does sound like there might be less benefit from spamming air intakes, though that wasn't specifically the purpose. Chief among the possible changes that would make a jet seem stronger is the fact that resources are properly pooled, so if a jet engine needs X intake air, it can take some of that air from one intake, more from another intake, etc. Previously, for each engine tick, the engine needed to get all of its intake air from a single intake.

As for the science changes:

I'm not sure how they interact, and I'm sure they do, but transmitted and returned science appear to have different diminishing returns. Do one of either, and you'll have most of the science you can get from that experiment in that location using that method. So repeat transmissions are mostly dead. Not a big deal to me, I had already stopped using them.

Furthermore, unless you have a lab module you can use to reset the experiment, the goo and materials science parts can only be used once (used as in you transmit or take the results, I'm pretty sure you can reset it if you discard the results). While I considered this change possible, I wasn't expecting this, and it's going to have a serious impact on some of my missions. I'll deal with it.

The science lab, in addition to letting you reset those two experiments, basically reduce transmission losses. If you'll be returning the results, it appears to provide no increase in the science.

An EVA'ed kerbal can take the results from an experiment and store the results in a capsule. This allows for full science return from landers that are discarded before the rest of the craft returns. Small catch, it seems that multiple experiments of the same type don't store together, though I'm not sure if this is one-experiment-type only, or one experiment-type-per-biome. If it's one-experiment-type-per-biome, that will increase the difference in science returns between manned and unmanned missions.

I didn't see any of the changes, but one of the streamers also said that the devs had rebalanced the research amounts of the various experiments, possibly to make up for the reduced returns that the other changes will cause, possibly just to change the speed that players could go through the research tree.

Finally, Minmus got biomes, eight of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lazarus1024

lazarus1024

Posted
Posted

I am deffinitely the most excited about all of the science changes.

Minmus with Biomes, is pretty huge to me. I am guessing no "re-map" of the place like the Mun got though? Kind of a pitty. It could be cool to see those going hand-in-hand.

At any rate, I know it is WAY early, but any talk about how the other planets and moons are going to go? Are the devs thinking they might be looking at just mapping a planet or moon per release? Or try to do a bunch at once in a future release? Not expand biome maps any further then Kerbin/mun/minmus?

Also, Rapier type engine is cool. If we are looking at adding new engines though, can we please have another radial engine? We have the "big" effectively rockomax size engines, the tiny barely bigger than probe sized radials and the itty bitty probe sized radials. It would be nice to have something akin to the LV-909.

IMHO, the Rockomax Mk55 seems light and low powered for its visual size (120 thrust). I feel like it should be more like 200-300 thrust and weigh in around 1.5-2t and then have an inbetweener that is visually sized between the Mk55 and the Rockomax 24-77 with thrust in the 50-80 range and weight around .6-.8t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Liowen

Liowen

Posted
Posted (edited)
If I click the link to view the stream it shows me an image, but if I repet it shows me the same one, right now I see what looks like a shuttle on top of a cargo plane of sorts,

What are they doing in there?

Hmm I am on the feed right now and it shows it being offline, unless I am on the wrong one for some reason... Got the right feed now derp

Edited by Liowen
Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...