Jump to content

Squadcast Summary (24/01/2015) - The Valentina Edition

BudgetHedgehog

By BudgetHedgehog
in KSP1 Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

LABHOUSE

LABHOUSE

Posted
Posted

I just hope the "you forgot ___" and seeing if your plane will fly before flying it are debug menu features. I hope by barn being back as in it being back somewhere on kerbin (I don't even want it there), why do kerbals need barns? they don't have other life on kerbin aside from folding trees and cacti. I say realism is best. The game IS and/or SHOULD BE ​a simulator, with the only unrealistic aspect being the kerbal aliens having a different body form than us (well I guess they are aliens after all...).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkyRender

SkyRender

Posted
Posted
I just hope the "you forgot ___" and seeing if your plane will fly before flying it are debug menu features. I hope by barn being back as in it being back somewhere on kerbin (I don't even want it there), why do kerbals need barns? they don't have other life on kerbin aside from folding trees and cacti. I say realism is best. The game IS and/or SHOULD BE ​a simulator, with the only unrealistic aspect being the kerbal aliens having a different body form than us (well I guess they are aliens after all...).

The Engineer's Report is almost certainly going to be an extension of the existing mass/width/height/part count widget. HarvesteR more or less said as much in his blog post. And the aerodynamic preview is definitely not going to be always-on, much like center of lift/mass/thrust indicators are not always-on. It would make building your craft much more difficult if it weren't possible to toggle.

As for the realism argument, I am firmly on the "it's a game" side of the argument. Because it is. And as a game, it needs its own identity. Kerbals should not "have" to be perfect human expies, and really never have been. Their space program starting out of a converted farm is perfectly fitting for the mythos the game has already assembled for them from the text in-game and the various animations SQUAD has released. Complaining that the game does not mirror human space flight perfectly kind of misses the point that that was never really a goal anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkyRender

SkyRender

Posted
Posted
Well, if we want to scream un-realism over the barn, I think we're forgetting about the deep space refueling :P

Also, complaining about the barn is silly since this was a thing that happened in real life:

Albert_II_V2_launch.jpg

The 1940s space programs were not pretty, but they sure taught us a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dryer_lint

dryer_lint

Posted
Posted

Also, people think the barn is making fun of Kerbals and their cowboy-ness or whatever, but if anything, it just shows perseverance. A bunch of wannabe astronauts took over an old farm and built it up into a massive space center, eventually (for some players) establishing bases on other planets and conquering the solar system?

Those are some pretty cool cowboys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
metl

metl

Posted
Posted

Man I wish I was able to have time to listen to the squadcasts. Always so much information and I thank the OP for posting these. This explains so much more after reading the latest article posted. if they can pull all of this off and roll it all into a 1.0 release, hell ya! I'm now going to go tinker with Karbonite to get a feel for the resource system. Hell, I might even play with NEAR (seems closer to what they are aiming for than FAR.)

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, and as far as "trailer park rocket" :

pict42.jpg

80's :)

http://cryptome.org/eyeball/nuclear-silos/nuclear-silos.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
basic.syntax

basic.syntax

Posted
Posted

@Nikola7007 - Absolutely. "From these humble beginnings, sprang all that followed." I think some people stressed too hard on some graphical shortcomings in the "barn" preview pictures. Even what we have, is not that bad given the amount of time I don't spend, minutely examining every seam and object in the new KSC tiers... I spend my time trying to build better rockets and space planes, and treat mass, parts, and size limits of the early career mode tiers as an interesting puzzle to solve.

The "barn" level will be another of many homages and references to our world's space program history, that are sprinkled throughout KSP. I don't think it will take too much effort to upgrade out of the new "barn" in career mode. Rhetorical question: How long did the average player stick with the first tier, in a .90 career game? Rebalancing for 4 tiers should make the new first upgrade require less "grinding" than .90 with 3 tiers. (1/4 vs 1/3)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captain Sierra

Captain Sierra

Posted
Posted

Roverdude, if you're helping them stuff Regolith into stock (or something like that) what can you tell us to expect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bill Phil

Bill Phil

Posted
Posted

Procedural fairings? The ones that shape themselves based on the payload shape? Please no. It's no longer a gameplay mechanic if you aren't limited in payload size, relatively. Unless the payloads follow a specific pattern, like, thd farthest distance plus a little bit as the main "cylinder", and the cone at the top which has a length relative to the payload, and the bottom adapter would need to be resized. Basically, a fairing template(s?) that resizes based on payload size would be acceptable, but nothing that looks like a lightbulb, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Northstar1989

Northstar1989

Posted
Posted
I'm excited to hear about the wings and fairings.

I'm a little dissapointed to hear the resource system is basically going to be the ridiculously heavy Karbonite. Hopefully the fans can keep Kethane working. Either that or hopefully Squad goes another direction with the weight so we can actually lift it off the surface without spending more fuel than it generates.

ISRU systems *SHOULD* be heavy. They're not meant to be hauled around everywhere you go (as many players have taken to in Kethane)- they're meant to be landed in place and used for permanent bases... Oh, and it's more realistic that way too, which gets bonus points with me...

I think it's MUCH too early to declare the next update as 1.0 though, and I think SQUAD should *REVERSE* that decision IMMEDIATELY. They need AT LEAST ONE update before 1.0 to test all the new features for bugs, logically- and there are so many long-standing bugs in KSP (wings flexing asymmetrically on the runway being one example- this is one reason so many spaceplanes end up in the ditch...) that there should probably also be a dedicated bug-fixing update too.

I'm used to the bugs, I've been playing with them for over a year now, but the *reviewers* will NOT be so kind with a game that's officially "released"...

Regards,

Northstar

Link to comment
Share on other sites
basic.syntax

basic.syntax

Posted
Posted

@Bill Phil - "It's no longer a gameplay mechanic if you aren't limited in payload size..." I think that is why Squad resisted the notion for a long time, I'm kind of surprised to hear of this, I thought fixed cargo bays and now Mk3 was going to be all we got for shielding payloads in the new Aero. I hope they will be fixed sizes, because Procedural removes part of the challenge of thinking about payload design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dakota2063

Dakota2063

Posted
Posted

I like the sounds that tier 0 will be the barns. It doesn't replace it, and satisfies a large group of KSP players that were left wondering where the barn was when .90 launched, only to find out that they were left out of the discussion when it came to that subject. I personally think it adds a bit of personality to the game, which is part of the charm of KSP and kerbals in general. Hell, even most of the parts hint at absurd origins, like junk on the road, so it does fit in. The current tier one also needs some love, as it's rather.... bland.

As far as being unrealistic. Are you sure we play the same game. Little green men, soupy atmosphere, exaggerated SAS and gyro stabalaization, Single sphere of influence physics, joints that wobble, even if the real life counterpart would have been welded down, only one point of attachment with out using space tape, space tape, infinite EVA fuel so long as you keep returning to the capsule, moving fuel around changes the center of mass, and allows for the shifting of the craft for small movement (Watch Scott Manely's video), paper machete in explosions. And the list can go on. It's certainly not realistic, but it is a simulation and having a barn, or a bunker, or any other silly thing in the game won't change that, and it is a great representation of orbital mechanics done more realistically outside of hard core simulators.

Final thoughts, Finally, less mods I'll have to install to play the way I want. (Off world resourcing.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Northstar1989

Northstar1989

Posted
Posted
As far as the KSP aerodynamic update goes, I wonder how close it is going to be relative to FAR/NEAR... I've been using FAR since 0.24.2 ... it is a must, but it makes it quite difficult with the existing tools (MechJeb, etc.) to predict landing spots with atmospheres. Looking forward to those development.

There's a mod called Atmospheric Trajectories that can predict landing spots through the atmosphere with FAR (you just have to tell it your intended Angle of Attack throughout the descent), and even provides a Nav Ball icon to help you land. It's one of the mods that I consider a *necessity* for stock KSP, and don't see why the devs haven't brought in yet... I suggest you check it out.

Regards,

Northstar

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cairan

Cairan

Posted
Posted
There's a mod called Atmospheric Trajectories that can predict landing spots through the atmosphere with FAR (you just have to tell it your intended Angle of Attack throughout the descent), and even provides a Nav Ball icon to help you land. It's one of the mods that I consider a *necessity* for stock KSP, and don't see why the devs haven't brought in yet... I suggest you check it out.

Regards,

Northstar

Well thanks for that info, I didn't know of this one! :)

Cheers! 8)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
basic.syntax

basic.syntax

Posted
Posted

Re-entry will be harder on wings, under the new lift model - quoting from the replies to HarvesteR's Aero change article:

Quote: Originally Posted by antbin Is there a reason that Squad is going straight to the realistic lift ~ velocity^2 ? In my FAR experience, this makes re-entry aerodynamic forces very very unforgiving. Is there a computational reason against some middle ground, like lift ~ velocity^1.5 ?

HarvesteR - 14th January 2015, 08:58

Yes, it is true that V² based lift will increase the likelihood of unplanned disassembly on re-entry. That's always been an effect I thought wasn't present enough. Aircraft should be able to break apart from aerodynamic overstress, and now it seems this will be a more frequently thought about design concern.

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...