|
Wow, it's impossible to make a ship out of the 3 meter stuff. They're just way too heavy.
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 02:32 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 05:35 |
|
|
Srebrenica Surprise posted:I meant the internal view. IVA's are not in yet
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 02:33 |
|
|
Edit: NEvermind, new page posted.
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 02:37 |
|
|
haha  is smiling ear to ear after I launched straight up to 200k, exited and flew down to where I had decoupled my rocket, touched the tanks then flew back up and got back in as I passed around 350k or so
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 02:38 |
|
|
Silentman0 posted:Wow, it's impossible to make a ship out of the 3 meter stuff. They're just way too heavy. I have the same feeling. I launched a three fuel tank stack boosted by four solid boosters and got an elliptical orbit with a sliver of fuel left. No decouplers, just an ASAS attached to the top. I don't know how people are getting these things in orbit.
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 02:38 |
|
|
For OSX people, this is from the topic of the irc channel: "OSX updater has problems, we know about it and will be fixing it after weekend" So we're hosed until Monday at the earliest 
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 02:57 |
|
|
Bill Kerman rejects the creature comforts of your so-called "capsule".   
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 03:03 |
|
|
Silentman0 posted:Wow, it's impossible to make a ship out of the 3 meter stuff. They're just way too heavy. Yewah, I can't figure out a way to make it really fuel efficient enough for the return from the moon to be safe
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 03:07 |
|
|
Sputty posted:Yewah, I can't figure out a way to make it really fuel efficient enough for the return from the moon to be safe Maybe this is Silisko's "balance" coming through? Its a real shame about the mac version, I was really hoping to be able to play without boot camp. Kinda the worst timing if they're going to wait until monday.
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 03:14 |
|
|
Even though the patching servers are down I'm pretty happy because that probably means that this awesome game is popular enough that a bunch of people want the new patch enough to hammer those servers 
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 03:25 |
|
God I fucking love Diablo 3 gold, it even paid for this shitty title
|
The bugs in this version are pretty obnoxious. Aside from the new parts not behaving well, the explosion sound completely ignores your audio settings. I normally mute in-game audio so I can do other stuff.
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 03:27 |
|
|
Chainclaw posted:The bugs in this version are pretty obnoxious. Aside from the new parts not behaving well, the explosion sound completely ignores your audio settings. I normally mute in-game audio so I can do other stuff. Also the staging is totally hosed up when you build something, you have to rearrange them most of the time.
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 03:29 |
|
|
Okan170 posted:Maybe this is Silisko's "balance" coming through? Its a real shame about the mac version, I was really hoping to be able to play without boot camp. Kinda the worst timing if they're going to wait until monday. That might be it. His mod tended to make the game worse until other people were able to modify the settings. The game seems to be about doing multiple SRBs staged in succession again which is hilarious
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 03:30 |
|
|
Oh sweet, staging-jumble is back?
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 03:30 |
|
|
Chainclaw posted:The bugs in this version are pretty obnoxious. Aside from the new parts not behaving well, the explosion sound completely ignores your audio settings. I normally mute in-game audio so I can do other stuff. Uncle Jam posted:Also the staging is totally hosed up when you build something, you have to rearrange them most of the time. It sure is awesome how they stopped letting everyone download the test releases; their super-exclusive club of dedicated bug-finders sure knows their stuff!
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 03:43 |
|
|
^^ hardly the testing team's fault if the version is declared "release ready" with a lot of bugs still reported but unfixedSputty posted:Yewah, I can't figure out a way to make it really fuel efficient enough for the return from the moon to be safe I have a ship design here that's capable of both Mun and Minmus missions with fuel to spare. It is, if anything, slightly overengineered. E: it might have cameras stuck to it, though. If that's an issue I can upload a version without cameras. ToxicFrog fucked around with this message at Jul 21, 2012 around 03:47 |
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 03:45 |
|
|
Alehkhs posted:It sure is awesome how they stopped letting everyone download the test releases; their super-exclusive club of dedicated bug-finders sure knows their stuff! I haven't been able to build a ship that doesn't just explode on itself randomly, I'm giving up on this until the next patch. This isn't a "gently caress this game" post or anything, I'm assuming they'll have something up in the next couple days.
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 03:48 |
|
|
Chainclaw posted:The bugs in this version are pretty obnoxious. Aside from the new parts not behaving well, the explosion sound completely ignores your audio settings. I normally mute in-game audio so I can do other stuff. On the bright side, it runs a lot better it feels like! Got it working in windows, at least. EVAs are also pretty kickass.
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 03:48 |
|
|
Sputty posted:That might be it. His mod tended to make the game worse until other people were able to modify the settings. One thing I rather enjoyed about the original balance was that it made your first orbit pretty straightforward and let you have the freedom to explore different ways of accomplishing different goals. While difficulty has been always a factor, once you know how things work, in the past its been a pretty gradual buildup as you tried different and more ambitious things.
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 03:51 |
|
|
^^ You say "pretty straightforward", it took me 20 rockets just to leave atmosphere and 34 to reach orbit back in the day. Chainclaw posted:I haven't been able to build a ship that doesn't just explode on itself randomly, I'm giving up on this until the next patch. This isn't a "gently caress this game" post or anything, I'm assuming they'll have something up in the next couple days. One of the big performance improvements they made in this version was disabling internal collisions. The problem with this is that the rocket no longer has internal collisions bracing it. On top of that, the new parts are really heavy. End result: super wobbly rockets. I recommend a shitload of struts.
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 03:53 |
|
|
ToxicFrog posted:^^ hardly the testing team's fault if the version is declared "release ready" with a lot of bugs still reported but unfixed Your ship is pretty nice, but it's hilarious what crazy design you have to make now to launch something. I guess it'll be better when they make some better transition parts and some better variety. Right now it's like taking an Apollo service module and S-IVB and then strapping all kinds of crazy smaller rockets because they forgot to make larger stages.
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 03:54 |
|
|
Cojawfee posted:If I want to use ASAS on the larger parts, I have to put it between the capsule and the parachute. This just ends up with the ASAS ripping off and floating to safety while the capsule plummets to the ground. What has KSP taught you? If it doesn't work, just add more till it does.  (and struts!) It landed safely at 6.2m/s, thats with SAS ASAS and three RCS units. All you do is select the 3-way adaptor, flip it upside down with W/S and connect it upside down!
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 03:56 |
|
|
Actually, I like the new balance. Maybe it's because I habitually put a lot of struts on and overengineer things. Anyway, it seems ASAS has a bug where it wants to rotate your ship constantly. It's pretty annoying.
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 04:06 |
|
|
T-man posted:Actually, I like the new balance. Maybe it's because I habitually put a lot of struts on and overengineer things. Try hitting Alt-X to re-center controls. I've made that mistake before.
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 04:15 |
|
|
Srebrenica Surprise posted:Jump-offs in EVA mode appear to be shift-space, if anyone was wondering. You can combine this with WASD for a directional push off. Silentman0 posted:Wow, it's impossible to make a ship out of the 3 meter stuff. They're just way too heavy. Haven't really run into problems in that regard. v  vEDIT: You know what is annoying though? Being unable to accelerate time during reentry... Alehkhs fucked around with this message at Jul 21, 2012 around 04:24 |
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 04:19 |
|
|
I really wish there was a small flat rocket for a short boost to knock large engine segments away during a stage separation. It would make fuel line shared atmosphere stages a lot safer.
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 04:32 |
|
|
Do you guys know what to use to edit the part models? I have zero skill at modelling and want to throw together a basic 3M ASAS, SAS and RCS. I'm trying to basically make a simple cylinder and wrap it with the textures from the small versions, but I have no clue what I'm doing. Right now I've jury-rigged them by stealing the decoupler mesh/texture but changing the parts.cfg, but it's ugly and confusing to look at because it's just a stack of decouplers that aren't really decouplers. Sputty posted:I really wish there was a small flat rocket for a short boost to knock large engine segments away during a stage separation. It would make fuel line shared atmosphere stages a lot safer. That's not too hard to do. Just change an engine into a light, solid fuel booster with low thrust and put it on backwards. It won't be pretty but it would get the job done. I really really wish I had the slightest skill for the modelling. I need to find someone to model all the parts I would like to code. Enigma fucked around with this message at Jul 21, 2012 around 04:38 |
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 04:34 |
|
|
I spent way too much time getting this monster to fly. But it put the Three on the Mun.  Next stop, Minmus, with something more sane.
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 04:47 |
|
|
The 3 meter parts are exactly in line with the 1 meter parts in terms of fuel and thrust per weight. I don't see how they're too heavy. e: The 3 m engine causes a lot of wobble. I think the thrust vectoring is screwy. e2: Yup, it has exactly the same problems that made Silisko edition unplayable for me: Wobbly thrust vectoring and controls that are so sensitive it's nigh-impossible to fly a small craft with a joystick. Elukka fucked around with this message at Jul 21, 2012 around 04:57 |
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 04:51 |
|
|
So how long until someone recreates Project Excelsior? A 30km skydive sounds right up Jeb's alley. 
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 04:54 |
|
|
Alehkhs posted:Haven't really run into problems in that regard. v At the very least, it's hard as poo poo getting all three of them into an orbit with the tried-and-true "one liquid fuel rocket with a decent amount of fuel with 3 or more solid rockets attached to it" method. It just seems like they're too heavy, or the rockets straight-up aren't strong enough to lift their own weight.
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 04:55 |
|
|
What I want to know is why they won't let me use an additional command module as a part... why can't I build a one-kerbal lander on top of my three-kerbal rocket? Sure, there's no actual docking support, but I'd just have the one kerbal EVA it between the two modules.
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 05:04 |
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:So how long until someone recreates Project Excelsior? A 30km skydive sounds right up Jeb's alley. A few more months. They've already done a jump at 70,000 feet, working their way up to beat Joseph Kittinger.
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 05:10 |
|
|
Silentman0 posted:At the very least, it's hard as poo poo getting all three of them into an orbit with the tried-and-true "one liquid fuel rocket with a decent amount of fuel with 3 or more solid rockets attached to it" method. It just seems like they're too heavy, or the rockets straight-up aren't strong enough to lift their own weight.
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 05:12 |
|
|
I can probably help you with your modeling problems. Blender is actually very easy to use, it's the writing cfg files that is tedious. Decouplers can have their explosive force adjusted in the cfg file. Try setting it to something like 22 for each large 1m fuel tank you need to push away from your main stack
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 05:21 |
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:A few more months. They've already done a jump at 70,000 feet, working their way up to beat Joseph Kittinger. I meant in KSP, but yeah I'm looking forward to that, if only for the camera footage from the freefall.
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 05:38 |
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:So how long until someone recreates Project Excelsior? A 30km skydive sounds right up Jeb's alley. As soon as we can put parachutes on kerbals.
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 05:45 |
|
|
You've got a jetpack, surely you can slow down enough at the end.
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 05:46 |
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:I meant in KSP, but yeah I'm looking forward to that, if only for the camera footage from the freefall. Oh...well duh. Because I thought... well duh 
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 05:52 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 05:35 |
|
|
Having played around more, I rather appreciate how difficult it is to lift things, especially since the balance of the 1M parts is nearly the same. The one thing I wish there were more of is more 3M equivalents of 1M parts. Between the SAS Module, the ASAS Module and the RCS Fuel Tank, its a little awkward to match things up for the new size. I wonder if the 3M equivalents would be a little flatter, lending themselves to a fatter but more compact design.
|
| # ? Jul 21, 2012 05:54 |
|
