|
 First manned Munar mission in 0.90, get all the way there and realize I had somehow rotated two of my pods so that their landing legs are facing inward. Jeb's retrograde SAS and a nice flat landing spot let me touchdown at 0.5 m/s and still stay upright!
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:02 |
|
|
 I'd forgotten how easy it is to land on Minmus. Landing Legs are just dead weight. Definitely easier going to Minmus first before attempting the Mun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Nevets posted:
I'm getting pretty good with manual landing anyway. My only bad landing was the first manned ship with Jeb (the center of mass was too high, so it tipped over), but I sent him a rescue probe and have had a couple of science probes land since then. I haven't even installed MechJeb in .90 and probably won't for a while.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Sometimes on Linux if I switch away from the window and go back, I can't interact with any menu items and I can't do quicksaves. This has only started happening as of 0.90, but fairly rarely. Is this known?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Apoffys posted:Is there a way to sort parts by which mod added them? Assuming the mod included a "company" as the manufacturer of the modded parts, you ought to be able to sort via that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Warbird posted:Assuming the mod included a "company" as the manufacturer of the modded parts, you ought to be able to sort via that. No such luck, very few mods seem to do that. That list is too crowded to find anything anyway, as there are so many companies making the stock parts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
I love RemoteTech, but it's really obnoxious how you have to grind an assload of science in Kerbin SOI just to unlock long range antennas so you can send missions to other planets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
The level-up system for Kerbals being linked to planets is kind of silly. You can't get past level 3 or so without leaving the Kerbin SOI, which is annoying for pilots. While the first time you visit a new body should certainly give the most XP, you should be able to level guys up with repeated launches so that you can use their later-level skills. I think that the pilot skills are a really good Smart rear end replacement for manned craft. I don't feel the need to have Mechjeb (as opposed to KER) installed since this is in the game, but it's a pain to level Jeb up enough to use all the functions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Legendary Ptarmigan posted:The level-up system for Kerbals being linked to planets is kind of silly. You can't get past level 3 or so without leaving the Kerbin SOI, which is annoying for pilots. While the first time you visit a new body should certainly give the most XP, you should be able to level guys up with repeated launches so that you can use their later-level skills. I think that the pilot skills are a really good Smart rear end replacement for manned craft. I don't feel the need to have Mechjeb (as opposed to KER) installed since this is in the game, but it's a pain to level Jeb up enough to use all the functions. Does the game keep track of other stats like dockings, first landing, etc? Things like that might give a background of XP that, while not as huge a jump as visiting and orbiting say, Duna for the first time, would still encourage using experienced crew for a variety of things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Are there any mods that help with navigating when your Kerbal is EVA? The EVA contracts are a big enough pain landing close enough, finding the individual spots by walking around is even more annoying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
Jewcoon posted:Are there any mods that help with navigating when your Kerbal is EVA? The EVA contracts are a big enough pain landing close enough, finding the individual spots by walking around is even more annoying. The vast majority of players seem to want me to decouple navigation from the NavBall, so I'm considering doing that, which would help in this situation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
The techtree as a whole needs looking at. You get jet engines in one, but landing gear and air intakes to make a proper plane are in another tree. With the new contracts for aerial surveys It would probably be a good idea to mash some of the plane requirements together.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
RoverDude, I was just noticing that USI does not show up under the manufactures filter. Then I realized, due to your modularity, I don't know where to really report this as it blankets all of your projects.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Okan170 posted:Does the game keep track of other stats like dockings, first landing, etc? Things like that might give a background of XP that, while not as huge a jump as visiting and orbiting say, Duna for the first time, would still encourage using experienced crew for a variety of things. I'm basing my opinion off of this wiki page. Your suggestion is good though. You should see incremental progress with each flight. I was really confused for a while because after the first landing Jeb didn't get any XP even though I completed several trips to low kerbin orbit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Okan170 posted:Does the game keep track of other stats like dockings, first landing, etc? Things like that might give a background of XP that, while not as huge a jump as visiting and orbiting say, Duna for the first time, would still encourage using experienced crew for a variety of things. Some XP for docking (and some docking-related contracts) would be great. As it is, there's practically nothing in the base game to encourage docking aside from the inherent size/weight limitations of what you can launch at any point. Docking is one of the hardest skills to learn and should have a proportional payoff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
There is a problem with contracts involving temperature scans on Gilly - one of my survey spots asks me to be above 6600 meters, but on Gilly that's considered deep space and won't allow temperature scans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
transparent idiom posted:RoverDude, It does for me, as the very topmost manufacturer. Edit: But holy poo poo do I miss PartCatalog's sorting. Leaps and bounds better than the stock system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Maxmaps posted:We have some cool traditional merch stuff being planned... And something insanely cool that we should be able to talk about some more once I'm back from vacation. Ottawa is lovely! Microtransactions for Funds confirmed. Pod Armor DLC incoming!
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
Fishstick posted:The techtree as a whole needs looking at. You get jet engines in one, but landing gear and air intakes to make a proper plane are in another tree. With the new contracts for aerial surveys It would probably be a good idea to mash some of the plane requirements together. There should probably be a single "basic planes" node with the mark 1 cockpit and fuselage, basic engine, basic intake, landing gear, and one type of wing. Right now it's easy to unlock a huge number of plane parts without being able to actually build a working plane (that's functionally different from a horizontal rocket).
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
Spookydonut posted:Given Roverdude seems to change the way it works every other version, any attempts at documentation so far have been fruitless. Oh the dust is finally starting to settle  Just took a few releases to knock the kinks out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
transparent idiom posted:RoverDude, No worries, all of the new stuff includes Agency data for USI. The problem is I had given all of my parts names that helped them sort better - but stock sorts by title, not name so bits are kinda ahoo. I am *considering* setting up multiple agencies, but then that causes a whole new set of problems. What would be awesome is if we could provide the player, as part of our mods, the data for a new custom category.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Apoffys posted:No such luck, very few mods seem to do that. That list is too crowded to find anything anyway, as there are so many companies making the stock parts. You can add your own tags and sort by that, so that's one way if you're up for manually doing it once. I would be very surprised if there wasn't a mod already in existence or coming into existence in the near future that may add that functionality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Arsonide posted:The vast majority of players seem to want me to decouple navigation from the NavBall, so I'm considering doing that, which would help in this situation. While you're looking at the thread, I have a complaint/request regarding the new visual survey contracts. In particular, I find the mix of widely-dispersed above alt/below alt/landed EVA requirements in a single contract kind of un-fun, especially in the early game when we have limited tools available. I end up just shooting a cheap ICBM at each site, rather than trying to build a craft that can handle the whole contract in one flight. I liked that the old Fine Print contracts were designed to be a cohesive mission within a single regime (high/low altitude, ground). Making it possible to build a proper jet aircraft early in the tech tree would also help make these contracts more fun early on, but the basic jet engine isn't very compatible with the 19km+ altitude survey points. (Not that rocket assist can't overcome that limitation of course.) Requiring manned craft (due to crew report/EVA triggers) is also a mixed bag. I suppose it makes it more challenging but it also kind of reduces the range of options we have. I haven't gotten any more elaborate surveys yet (i.e. instrument measurements) so maybe that's only a factor in the very beginning, I dunno. I just know I had a blast designing that probe carrier I posted a while back to do aerial surveys with orbital drops, and I hope there's still a place for that kind of thing. Guess I'll find out!
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
Tenebrais posted:Here's my understanding of it. Thanks, that helps a great deal.  New UKS question: is there any reason to ever use inflatable storage modules for TAC Life Support supplies, given that the actual TAC LS containers have three times the mass, but take up a tiny fraction of the space and hold seventy times as much? I think the UKS<->TAC LS integration may have a few balance issues.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
ToxicFrog posted:Thanks, that helps a great deal. I think Taranis Elsu used a freaking bag of holding on some of those.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
Is there a way to set the “control from” object in the editor? I have a probe that defaults to a radial Mechjeb module rather than the probe core.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
RoverDude posted:I think Taranis Elsu used a freaking bag of holding on some of those. Bug report: you can't inflate the ISM in the VAB to see how it looks the way you can other parts. If I'm reading the part.cfg correctly, it may actually have 1000x the storage that it says it does in the VAB? Going by the source it looks like that's what the inflatedMultiplier does. So that does actually make it competitive with the TAC LS packages; it takes up more space, but also holds more (once inflated) and masses less empty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Arsonide posted:The vast majority of players seem to want me to decouple navigation from the NavBall, so I'm considering doing that, which would help in this situation. I'm not so sure decoupling entirely is the right solution so much as adding visual indicators (like the Karbonite hotspots) for the specific areas in question. I know for a few of the missions I've flown I would have been way more stressed had I been tabbing back and forth between map view and actual flight to ensure I was on-course.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Ok, one more UKS question before I go to bed: are there any plans to add six-way OKS hub connectors, and if not, is there a mod that adds them? I'm reduced to riveting radial attachment points with docking ports on them to the 4-way hubs and weeping quietly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
Supraluminal posted:While you're looking at the thread, I have a complaint/request regarding the new visual survey contracts. In particular, I find the mix of widely-dispersed above alt/below alt/landed EVA requirements in a single contract kind of un-fun, especially in the early game when we have limited tools available. I end up just shooting a cheap ICBM at each site, rather than trying to build a craft that can handle the whole contract in one flight. I liked that the old Fine Print contracts were designed to be a cohesive mission within a single regime (high/low altitude, ground). Regarding your second concern, there is definitely still a place for that, just not in the visual surveys. There is more than one kind of survey, and visual surveys heavily lean on crew, rather than sensors. Your first concern is something I've been pondering. I like the variety, personally. I like the idea of a player looking at a mission and deciding what he needs to build to accomplish it. If say, that mission were on Duna, he'd probably build a large dropship of some kind that could facilitate flying vehicles that deploy rovers or something, OR send multiple vessels all at once - it's up to him. Also, keep in mind that the contracts can actually spawn occasionally all in one flight band, as it's random. It has been mentioned before though, so I've been considering a hybrid solution of some kind, like weighting them towards a specific altitude, or perhaps limiting them to two neighboring altitudes (low altitude/ground, low altitude/high altitude). Edminster posted:I'm not so sure decoupling entirely is the right solution so much as adding visual indicators (like the Karbonite hotspots) for the specific areas in question. I know for a few of the missions I've flown I would have been way more stressed had I been tabbing back and forth between map view and actual flight to ensure I was on-course. This is what I meant, moving the indicator into the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
Just had my first major hardmode disaster. Had a Mun lander that didn't quite have enough delta-v to make it back to Kerbin. Hastily put together a rescue ship, sent it to rendezvous with the lander in Mun orbit, EVA'd the lander crew over to the rescue vessel...and then they all died on the way back to Kerbin, because in my haste I had forgotten to put solar panels or additional batteries on the rescue vessel.  They all froze to death a few hours after the batteries died, when the last of the heat radiated away. Lost the whole crew and the rescue pilot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 09:51
|
|
|
Arsonide, what is the possibility of say a branching station contract? I think someone mentioned it in the thread. For instance, you put up a core station segment first, and then a second contract asks you to give room for another 4 crew, and then another for x amount of power generation, one for a cupola, one for x amount of monopropellant... Basically, giving a legitimate reason other than "It's awesome" to build a station.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
Falken posted:Arsonide, what is the possibility of say a branching station contract? I think someone mentioned it in the thread. For instance, you put up a core station segment first, and then a second contract asks you to give room for another 4 crew, and then another for x amount of power generation, one for a cupola, one for x amount of monopropellant... And make those stations already put up seem more purposeful. You could perhaps also have low effort "supply"/"change crew" missions to a station. Best would be if there was a way to have passengers not under your control that you would have to send to and from stations/bases. Of course they wouldn't be able to ride in cockpit seats or give control authority of a craft, and killing them would fail their asociated contract (and give massive reputation losses.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 10:38
|
|
|
ToxicFrog posted:Ok, one more UKS question before I go to bed: are there any plans to add six-way OKS hub connectors, and if not, is there a mod that adds them? I'm reduced to riveting radial attachment points with docking ports on them to the 4-way hubs and weeping quietly. There's a stock part that does that, the HubMax. You get it at the end of the tech tree, under Metamaterials. As far as I can tell the purpose of the 4-way hubs is so you can arrange space stations before you get that far, while not making the part totally useless by just letting you do it 6-way anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 11:03
|
|
|
nielsm posted:And make those stations already put up seem more purposeful. Mission Controller Extended mod has/had those sort of contracts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 11:33
|
|
|
Falken posted:Arsonide, what is the possibility of say a branching station contract? Basically, giving a legitimate reason other than "It's awesome" to build a station. But...but it is awesome. You're awesome! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 11:59
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:Just had my first major hardmode disaster. Had a Mun lander that didn't quite have enough delta-v to make it back to Kerbin. Hastily put together a rescue ship, sent it to rendezvous with the lander in Mun orbit, EVA'd the lander crew over to the rescue vessel...and then they all died on the way back to Kerbin, because in my haste I had forgotten to put solar panels or additional batteries on the rescue vessel. I've done this halfway to Minmus. And then I sent up a huge orbital base and forgot to put on a docking port as the contract specified. I took a break after that, I get wayyy to casual after a couple dozen hours just playing KSP.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 13:07
|
|
|
Falken posted:Arsonide, what is the possibility of say a branching station contract? I think someone mentioned it in the thread. For instance, you put up a core station segment first, and then a second contract asks you to give room for another 4 crew, and then another for x amount of power generation, one for a cupola, one for x amount of monopropellant... I mentioned this before, but I'll re-iterate. I get a contract to build a station with x properties in solar orbit. I do it, reap a bunch of science, and then simply delete the station from the map, because it has no conceivable purpose now or later. Stations and bases just become a quick mission that I can launch ready-made (and empty, they require crew capacity from what I've seen, not crew) craft and then toss em in the trash after. This is the opposite of what I want, I want more reasons to build things and keep them around. Having NPC Kerbals/craft/bases might be the way to do this, but I suspect that is a long way off. Gaining XP from docking seems like a very good idea too which ties into this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
I want better station contracts, too, but it’s worth noting that in the mean time, many contracts actually can be fulfilled by expanding a station. Specifically, when you dock a new ship with an old station, and the game considers the entire apparatus a new craft—completing the contract based on the features of the combined vessel. If the contract calls for ten‐Kerbal capacity and you have a six‐Kerbal station in orbit already, launch a dock a hitchhiker module and you’ll satisfy the contract.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:02 |
|
|
Platystemon posted:I want better station contracts, too, but it’s worth noting that in the mean time, many contracts actually can be fulfilled by expanding a station. I tried that and couldn't get it working. I had an old station with 5 kerbal capacity (hitchhiker can + cupola), and a new contract called for a similar station but with a research lab. So I tried docking a brand new research lab to the old station, but it wasn't getting accepted as a new station.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 14:28
|
|