|
I think it would be really, really neat if Kerbals had career progressions. You could have pilots, engineers, scientists, rich tourists and corrupt politicians all as potential riders for a flight. It could give a lot more reason to carry more Kerbals to space which increases difficulty level (which is a good thing IMO).
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
Agreed on Kerbal career progression. I've been kicking an idea in my head, and it's already been party stated - have skills which Kerbals can improve, and a limited number of career slots per Kerbal, so there's a reason not just to make Jeb, Bill and Bob the SuperKerbals who know everything. So a three-man crew to the Mun could be: Mikey Kerman - Launch Piloting, Orbital Piloting, Atmospheric Landing Nellie Kerman - Lander Piloting, Planetary Science! Buzzie Kerman - Planetary Science!, Orbital Science! And then it runs rather Apollo style, with Mikey handling ascent, insertion and return, Nellie getting the lander down to the Mun, and Buzzie running all the experiments. Admittedly this may get too RPG for KSP as it is now, since most things are done directly by the player anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
Nalesh posted:Another way would be make the plane cheap enough and dump that when you drop the cargo. Or use the Flight Manager for Reusable Stages mod. Drop the rover, land the plane safely, then backstep and land the rover safely as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
Random things kerbals could get better at over time/repeated missions (in no particular order): EVA handling. Walking on planets in a space suit. Jump height, walking speed, falling stability. Fewer freak outs in the Iva portraits (improving courage). Improved processing speed in the mobile lab. Better sample returns. Ability to hold more than one return sample. Fixing broken items (no longer available by default). Some broken items could be jerry rigged, but not fixed all the way (solar panels, batteries, antenna, engines?) (yeah, engines should break now, from overheating or impact damage, kerbals can fix them (with the right perks) and get partial thrust back) EVA navball becomes available. Better crew reports. Sending an experienced kerbal to an already visited location would yield new science from that location. Reputation bumps for both using the same kerbal, and having a large pool of trained kerbals. Hiring and training new kerbals costs more than just training existing kerbals for a new mission.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
ToxicFrog posted:then backstep 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Platonicsolid posted:Agreed on Kerbal career progression. I've been kicking an idea in my head, and it's already been party stated - have skills which Kerbals can improve, and a limited number of career slots per Kerbal, so there's a reason not just to make Jeb, Bill and Bob the SuperKerbals who know everything. So a three-man crew to the Mun could be: You don't specify what bonuses or hinderences using or not using the right Kerbal even does... and even if you did, it just doesn't seem like a fun thing to micromanage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Thesoro posted:100% agreed that Stupidity should be a positive attribute, prized and encouraged in all Kerbals. I don't know what the in-game manifestation would be, but it might be things like ignoring safety regulations, forgetting that you already had a surface sample and grabbing another (i.e. your Deep Pockets perk), sneaking some copper and potassium into the fuel supply to make the exhaust glow in pretty colors. Honestly I think you could blag using Stupidity the same way you'd use Intelligence. Kerbal science runs on not understanding how it can't work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Tenebrais posted:Honestly I think you could blag using Stupidity the same way you'd use Intelligence. Kerbal science runs on not understanding how it can't work. : "There is a knack, or rather, an art to orbiting. Orbiting is the art of throwing yourself at Kerbin and missing."
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Sort of like Orks. Their tech works through sheer collective force of stupidity, but once they're smart enough to realize "hey, none of these wires go anywhere" the entire rocket falls apart.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
FredMSloniker posted:I'm pretty sure use of that part is only authorized if Jeb blows up the sun or something. Makes sense the Kerbals would have an Omega-13 device.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Makes sense the Kerbals would have an Omega-13 device. Of course they have one, you hold F9 to activate it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
 "Any landing you can walk away from, right Wehrcas?" "We're missing an entire wing, Caloly!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Nervous question! I just set up maneuver nodes for a bunch of my ships. If I close the game, will I lose those nodes? I'm using Kerbal Alarm Clock, if that matters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:Nervous question! I just set up maneuver nodes for a bunch of my ships. If I close the game, will I lose those nodes? I'm using Kerbal Alarm Clock, if that matters. The nodes should stick with the ship, as long as you didn't have to revert to an autosave for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Is anyone else having graphical issues with shadows since .25? I've got z-order issues and flickering.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Is there an easy way to get the default skybox texture?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
So far as I'm aware, you don't have to do anything in order to get the default skybox texture; that's what a default is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Makes sense the Kerbals would have an Omega-13 device. Not the joke I was making.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
DopeGhoti posted:So far as I'm aware, you don't have to do anything in order to get the default skybox texture; that's what a default is. Maybe he wants the textures to use for something elsE?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Spookydonut posted:Maybe he wants the textures to use for something elsE? Bingo. I wanted to take the skymap, and make a star chart, complete with constellations. I found it funny that for the theme of KSP, there's very little emphasis on astronomy outside the kerbol system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
EpicPhoton posted:Bingo. I wanted to take the skymap, and make a star chart, complete with constellations. I found it funny that for the theme of KSP, there's very little emphasis on astronomy outside the kerbol system. What's the point if you can't
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
Roflex posted:What's the point if you can't
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
EpicPhoton posted:Bingo. I wanted to take the skymap, and make a star chart, complete with constellations. I found it funny that for the theme of KSP, there's very little emphasis on astronomy outside the kerbol system. Constellations would be good if you could only really make them out in the atmosphere. In space they would just blend into the other thousand stars you can see.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
I've noticed that NEAR and Procedural wings behave a bit strangely. On quickload or just jump to ship, any vessel I am in focus with that has procwings will undergo rapid unplanned disassembly and then begin to float off camera. FAR does not have this issue. e: Is it wrong that I immediately think of Kerbal when I see this clip? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6D3x5TNKRg Falken fucked around with this message at 08:01 on Oct 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
Falken posted:e: Is it wrong that I immediately think of Kerbal when I see this clip? Annoyed Rodney Kerman: "All of your primaries - and most of your secondaries - have been incinerated." Unrelated, I'm really liking BoxSat and Stockalike Esthetics for making rovers.    It lands itself using monoprop jump jets, courtesy of Universal Storage tanks, with about 1km of dV, and scoots around pretty consistently at 20m/s. Fun to drive and quite capable! I'll probably need something else for Minmus, though it might work on the Mun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 11:00
|
|
|
Just put a single ion engine upside down somewhere and it should scoot around on minmus just fine
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 11:39
|
|
|
heh, this kind of stuff is pretty much why I mod. Because people do preposterous things with the tinker toys: http://imgur.com/a/pgZGL
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 12:27
|
|
|
RoverDude posted:heh, this kind of stuff is pretty much why I mod. Because people do preposterous things with the tinker toys: And because the parts are designed to be massive it doesn't take a massive part count to make something like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
I played this ages ago and got bored relatively fast. Now I'm having a seriously great time. I'm not even sure what's changed since I originally played, but it's gone from "eh" to "this is loving awesome". I have no idea what I'm doing.  But this dude made it home with the 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
Met posted:Constellations would be good if you could only really make them out in the atmosphere. In space they would just blend into the other thousand stars you can see. It's always bothered me that the night sky on Kerbin is completely indistinguishable from deep space. No brighter sky near the horizon at night, no airglow, nothing. I can't distinguish the horizon from sky half the time because it's all black. At least a deep blue tinge would be nice. Also more astronomy would be totally awesome. I replaced my skybox with a ridiculously high res real-life one so that I could spot all my favorite constellations and stuff while flying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
I'm sure all the fancy stuff like that will be considered closer to 1.0
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
Met posted:I'm sure all the fancy stuff like that will be considered closer to 1.0 Pretty much. Mechanics and content are priority over aesthetics til we're closer to 1.0.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I played this ages ago and got bored relatively fast. Now I'm having a seriously great time. I'm not even sure what's changed since I originally played, but it's gone from "eh" to "this is loving awesome". Hah, nice! I did my first manned mun landing lastnight with a similarly tall lander, except my leg struts weren't extended wide with the lattice box things. Woooo that took a few tries to land without toppling over.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I have no idea what I'm doing. Hey, good job. It looks good, even if you did go a bit overboard with the batteries and solar panels  (they're massless though, so doesn't matter.)Here's a brief overview of my first attempt at landing at the Mun from last year. I think this was played on 0.22.  A nice Kerbinrise to start us off.  "So you just point it retrograde and thrust, eh? I can do that!"  Note to past me - kill horizontal velocity completely. Also, bring more fuel. At least it didn't land on the capsule exit. Had to send Jeb on a rescue mission, but that landing went significantly better for them (except for a brief cameo of the Hell Kraken when Wilbro jumped off from the capsule and sunk through the surface into darkness )
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Maxmaps posted:Pretty much. Mechanics and content are priority over aesthetics til we're closer to 1.0. What I hate the most about KSP is that with every little update I start thinking of more and more unecessary and awesome stuff 
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
sckye posted:Hey, good job. It looks good, even if you did go a bit overboard with the batteries and solar panels I ran out of batteries on the way once. My Mun landing progress, once I figured out launch, orbit, transfer, went something like: Smash into the Mun a couple of times. Tip over a few times, unable to return. Don't tip over but run out of fuel before I can transfer back to Kerbin. Lander is now taller and significantly heavier, so smash in again, then tip over a few more times. gently caress up and try landing on the dark side. Smash in. Install spotlights. Run out of batteries and just orbit in an endless giant ellipse. Forget Mun has mountains, smash into the side of one before I've really controlled my descent properly. Do everything mostly right. Tip over anyway, but very very gently. Widen lander. Successful landing and return. Now I've got probes on Minmus too. Landing there was so much easier, but there's got to be a better way to actually get there.  "Tip over anyway, but very very gently" Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Oct 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Christ. You should never need that many batteries. You know you can turn then off, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
After running out, I didn't know how many I'd end up needing. I didn't know what overkill looked like either, so I put them on every space I hadn't filled with solar panels. It worked, and now I know I don't need to do it again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure radial batteries don't add any actual mass to the craft and are pretty cheap anyway. My craft looked pretty similar to that but was ridiculously difficult to land on Mun and forced me to do my a complete redesign of my entire craft and was actually pretty interesting to have to consider an entirely different usage scenario and build a craft appropriately, worked first time and every time since. (that I didn't slam sideways into a mountain)
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
Zurui posted:Christ. You should never need that many batteries. You know you can turn then off, right? Not many people other than extreme veterans know this trick
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 01:32
|
|
