|
Maxmaps posted:It's working so far! Funny, that's what I always say 5 seconds before the nosecone I detached earlier decides to reenact it's favorite scene from Gravity. I do hope it works out, though.
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 12:19 |
|
|
I'm hoping the mission system can make things that are realistic but tedious (such as setting up a GPS network or running supplies to a space station) into non-tedious challenges. For example, you have a mission to resupply your space station, and rather than doing it yourself every couple of weeks/months, you just have to do it once. If you have a flight that achieves all the mission goals (launch with >= X food/water/supplies/personnel, dock with target, target sustains no damage, land on Kerbin, no casualties) then the game calculates the total cost of the mission and just deducts that from your budget every time a supply mission needs to be run. As a reward, you get an 'operational space station' bonus which gives you periodic science/funding/whatever. And you can always manually re-do the mission with a different rocket design that costs less, and if successful will replace the existing cost of your supply missions in the budget. That way as you unlock lighter or cheaper or re-usable parts you have a reason to go back and re-run existing missions. This makes setting up extrakerrestrial colonies much more fun, since you just need to fly 2 missions. It also means you could setup easy fuel depots, if you had a mission to re-fuel an orbiting space station from the surface of mun/minums, you could have resource extraction and delivery to your orbiting fuel depot all automated. Just focus on the fun parts, building and flying the first rocket to Duna, Eve, or wherever.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
They must have really rushed to get this out, I found a typo.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Can we please not call them Girbals? Too close to gerbils. I suggest Kergals, sounds kind of like Kegels; much more appropriate.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Nth Doctor posted:I would make this a background in a heartbeat, but for the fact that the one on the right seems to be trying to look down her shirt. With apologies to the original artist: 
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Met posted:Some of the names are preset but are not accessible. I think those include some YouTube personalities. Now I'm going to have to keep killing kerbals until I find Scottsidiah Kermanley.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
I still like the crash survivors theory, explains why there is no evidence of civilization outside a few small encampments despite Kerbals having a highly advanced (if unrefined) level of technology. If Kerbals are trying to populate this strange, empty planet they find themselves on it makes sense that no women would be present in the VAB or available as Kerbonauts; both of which are very high risk occupations. After all, it is the number of women who limit the speed of population growth, not the number of men.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
DStecks posted:So Kerbals are the aliens from Galaxy Quest? That would explain aircraft coming later in the tech tree than rockets. Maybe none of the early episodes had traditional aircraft because of budget constraints.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
We just need a Duna Attacks! mod. The game periodically creates attack spacecraft on an intercept course for Kerbin, and you lose if they get inside the atmosphere, just like the current asteroid redirect mission. Instead of trying to latch on and grab the ship you have to 'ram' into it with your missile/probe/whatever, but once you get within a certain range the alien's ray-guns start heating up your ship's components so you'd better be coming in fast or you won't make it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
Phy posted:(How the hell Bill got into the hospital, when he was "lost" doing a lithobrake maneuver at 4000 m into the side of a Munar mountain, he's not telling.) I think we all know how.  Also explains why all the Kerbalnauts look alike.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Icon Of Sin posted:debris field Don't you mean 'used component holding area'?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
What's the currency going to be called? Kerbits, Duckerbs, Kesos?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
haveblue posted:bitkoins The only thing more volatile than a rocket!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
It was probably started from a 'realism' approach to rocket fuel, where Kethane was started from a gameplay approach. A multiple input approach fails becuase if you want to make rocket fuel on the Mun, either you have all the raw materials and you can (bottlenecked by the scarcest component), or you are missing 1 or more raw materials and you can't without setting up an interplanetary supply chain. I can't see a scenario where you have to import materials from multiple celestial bodies to make fuel being efficient or fun unless they add some kind of automated/repeatable mission system so you only have to fly the supply mission once to prove it can be done. If you discard that as an option, then each planet/moon has an amount of fuel based on the scarcest component, so you might as well just simplify it to 'Kethane'.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
A different approach would be to have several alternative engines/fuels that are less efficient than fuel/oxidizer but would be useful near their abundant source, like Interstellar's aluminum oxide rocket. So a mining rig produces Kryptotite on Minums, which can be used in a Turquoisia rocket, but landed on Eve will produce Argonium which is used in a Violetta rocket. This would mostly be useful for biome hopping science labs, so multiple biomes on other planets would need to be implemented first.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Falken posted:What, 12.33 years to decay into helium 3? That's the half-life, presumably you'd get it over time, but if it takes 12 years to turn half your tritium in H3 you're going to need a really big tank of it to get any kind of usable throughput.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
shortspecialbus posted:What on earth would I do with that in KSP?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Platonicsolid posted:Identify landing spots with kethane and ore. This would be great if it was in the vanilla game and they made science less biome based and more feature based. Scans could reveal 'large rocks' 'dark spots' 'crater walls' 'slightly darker spots', etc. and you would want to find a place with as many within walking / roving distance as you could to maximize your science per landing. Especially if the prestige system works on diminishing returns, so you'd end up with just as much prestige after 3 good trips to the Mun as 5 OK trips would bring, but spending less money overall.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
With the steam sale scheduled to begin this week, I think Squad is aiming for 0.24 to coincide with KSP's daily deal coming up. So anytime between tomorrow and July 2nd.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
Yeah, one big thing holding back KSP is the inability to due unfocused burns. Even if there were some big restrictions like only being able to do it in Kerbol SOI, it would still make small ion probes much easier to do, and setting up satellite constellations less boring. Even if it didn't guarantee the burn would be perfectly accurate all you'd have to do is time accelerate to the end and then make any minor corrections manually, rather than watch your ship shake itself apart under 3x physical time acceleration or babysit it at normal speed over a 15 minute burn.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Keiya posted:"The bombs bursting in air" is part of our national anthem down here. Just because the bombs used to be rockets doesn't make it less American! You know the Star Spangled Banner actually has a verse about rockets, right? And it's just before the one you quoted?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
Falken posted:How about a realistic mode where you have a blank cheque to start with, but I really wish we'd found something useful on Mars, like oil or helium or middle class jobs.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
No, see, if we found middle class jobs on Mars we would have a reason to go back all the time so we could dig some up and ship them back to Earth. Once we've topped off the US strategic reserves the government can have the treasury issue j-bills drawn on the jobs to raise funds and the labor department can begin awarding the jobs themselves to the most eloquently written grant proposals that come companies run by Senatorial relatives. Before long we'd have enough good jobs that only the lazy, dug addicted, uneducated, indigent, illegal, mentally handicapped, felonious, or otherwise not-our-fault-you-can't-find-a-jobistic wouldn't be employed.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
 Coming soon to a computer near you!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Basscop posted:
No such thing as too many boosters, but there is such a thing as too few struts! Make that thing look like a geodesic dome.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
What about random temporary part failures, where the experience of the Kerbal reduces the time the part is unusable or less effective. Ideally there would be an 'imminent failure' warning that would popup a few seconds before the incident, and then the part would fail/degrade in a random fashion, with total failures being very rare. So an engine might lose half it's thrust, generate twice it's heat, burn fuel at twice the normal rate, cut out completely, be locked at the current throttle setting, or some other kind of failure. No hardware rich combustions, no rapid unplanned dissasemblies, and nothing permanently damaged. But you might miss a maneuver node when your fuel pipes jam for a minute right before your burn, and every takeoff and landing now contains the possibility of death if one of your rcs thrusters jams in the 'on' position, or you main engine starts overheating more than it's designed too.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Maxmaps posted:Oh, Jesus. Just keep repeating to yourself: "There is no such thing as bad publicity."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
I've always thought that with a system that lets you translate from place to place without changing your velocity you could use intermediary gravity wells to change both speed and direction, or your current gravity well to increase/decrease your velocity to change your orbit, as detailed in this highly technical mspaint drawing:
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
General_Failure posted:So if I used an Alcubierre drive or similar, what's to stop me from doing a normal burn out to kerbol SOI, then using the drive to hop into a planet's SOI, hurtle back out to Kerbol SOI and repeat until the ship's non driven velocity hits plaid? I think you can get to any velocity you wanted by just warping to a point where the sun is between you and your desired vector, falling towards the sun for a while, then warp backwards to your starting position, fall some more, repeat until you are going fast enough, then just warp sideways/past the sun/sideways again to get on your vector from the other side. A final warp to the edge of the solar system and you could be launching simple interstellar probes at relativistic speeds.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Tippis posted:Space elevator. No, I have no idea how you'd work around the simulation range — that's for you to figure out. This would be a really cool addition once .90 comes out and we get upgradeable KSC buildings. Presumably the space elevator would just be an upgrade to the launch pad that would setup the spawn point for new rockets to be 5000 km above the surface. Just don't forget to rotate the rocket pointed due east and put on a couple launch stability enhancers before your exit the VAB. Don't know if the engine could handle a five thousand kilometer tall building, though. Nevets fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Nov 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 12:19 |
|
|
Arsonide posted:Indeed, one of my top requests right now is progression contracts that build on each other. I've pondered the best way to approach the issue for a while now. There are certain hurdles to implementing stuff like that. Not just technical hurdles but design hurdles as well. I suppose you could add a 'dummy' part to the requirements for the first vehicle, and have it able to set an 'id' variable in the VAB. So the contracts would be something like: A. Put a vehicle in ABC orbit of planet 123. Include parts X, Y, Z, and a Fine Print ID Module set to frequency !@#. B. Launch a vehicle and dock it to a ship with a Fine Print ID Module set to frequency !@#.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 22:23
|
|