|
Platystemon posted:It isn’t hard to apply the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation manually. It’s tedious for many stages and revisions, but less tedious than flying a re‐fueling mission*. If for some reason Δv display was not available in‐game (through mods or otherwise), I would end up calculating it myself for most rockets. I had to do that once for a few stages of a rather weird rocket, since KER was having none of my design. It's one of those things I'm happy to have done once, but I don't plan on making a habit of it. That said, it might be interesting to make delta-V calculations interactive somehow. You could have the game do some of the work (e.g. calculating delta-V for a given stage), and have a place for you to list the result, but you'd be the one going through all the stages to get the values. Then the player who cares about delta-V has to do a little bit of work to confirm that their rocket will have enough fuel. That might be tedious too, but at least you wouldn't have to bust out an actual calculator. Making a good UI for something like that might actually be harder than just doing it for the user like KER, though...
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 11:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
Is there a trick to this Matched Orbit missions? I've done one successfully by winging it, and the "marginal error" seemed pretty friendly. The one I'm doing now? I'm within 50m of a AP/PE and dead on the inclination and it won't check it off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 13:09
|
|
|
robotsinmyhead posted:Is there a trick to this Matched Orbit missions? I've done one successfully by winging it, and the "marginal error" seemed pretty friendly. The one I'm doing now? I'm within 50m of a AP/PE and dead on the inclination and it won't check it off. Are you absolutely sure you're orbiting in the correct direction? Sometimes it'll chuck a clockwise orbit instead of the normal anticlockwise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 13:13
|
|
|
Edminster posted:Are you absolutely sure you're orbiting in the correct direction? Sometimes it'll chuck a clockwise orbit instead of the normal anticlockwise. Ugh. No, I'm not sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 13:22
|
|
|
Edminster posted:Before I waste a shitload of kesos, does anyone know if the MKS Science Lab counts the same as the Mobile Processing Lab for stock contracts? The contract just says Science Lab and the MKS implies that it's interchangeable but from what I've learned MKS is not the most reliable source. It will work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 13:39
|
|
|
Thanks! Managed to complete the contract for a Mun base only 50,000 Kesos in the hole. Most of that was from lithobraking one of the two drill platforms, but now I know how to precision land! I have to say that the weird lander leg things from MKS are actually a godsend because they act as huge part containers for KAS. I exclusively use the radial orange engines for descent now because I can rip them off once landed and shove them into the container, reducing partcount. There's only about forty total parts on my base and it's already in Yellowtime, so I need to be more vigilant about storing things like pipe endpoints and solar panels :/
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The thing about Δv figures is that “seat of pants” and “instant display” aren’t the only options. I actually did exactly that before KER existed, once, and then went "holy gently caress this is unbearably tedious" and stopped playing KSP to write a tool that would read .craft files and give me a dv readout automatically. KER or MJ, I forget which, came out shortly afterwards and obsoleted the project.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Not having ∆v in the building process, but having it be the key stat for manoeuvre nodes is a bit like having word count only show up in Word when you print. It's not a matter of options and “oh but you could do…” — it's a fundamental and laughable error of UI/UX design. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
No, it's fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
I remember waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back before the orbit maps you would have to punch your current flight info into a program someone made and it would show you your orbit
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
My hat is off. Well done on the update. It adds depth to the game and bodes well for your future endeavors. Ignore the blatant idiots, this is a work in progress, and no game is everybody's cup of tea. I hope to see some of the mods that make it fun and profitable to launch random things into space rolled into stock.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
I installed a few mods and now my camera seems to be locked at like, rooftop level in the middle of KSC and I can't click on anything. Anybody had this happen and know which mod is screwy? I just added Scansat, DMagic Orbital Science, KAS, Station Science, Universal Storage, and this ModuleManager dll.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I installed a few mods and now my camera seems to be locked at like, rooftop level in the middle of KSC and I can't click on anything. Anybody had this happen and know which mod is screwy? I just added Scansat, DMagic Orbital Science, KAS, Station Science, Universal Storage, and this ModuleManager dll. Something is crashing on loading KSC. Please pastebin your output_log.txt from KSP_data.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
eth0.n posted:Something is crashing on loading KSC. Please pastebin your output_log.txt from KSP_data. Here it is. http://pastebin.com/ZCYTf3uD
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Are you using the latest version of Module Manager? The mods that include the dll have an out of date version.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:It isn’t hard to apply the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation manually. Yes it is. Most people flee in terror at the very whisper of the word "logarithm". Now, most of those folks don't play KSP, but a very large chunk of the folks who do play KSP (and an even bigger chunk of the folks who don't play KSP but could be convinced to try it) don't want to do a dozen logarithms for every ship (one run of the rocket equation for each stage, 4+ stages, and then tweaking and re-doing). It's not hard in the sense that most people could learn to do it, but it's hard in the sense that most people aren't going to want to do it or derive pleasure from it. Platystemon posted:It’s tedious for many stages and revisions, but less tedious than flying a re‐fueling mission*.... Yeah, but it's a lot more tedious than "playing another game" for a fair few people. And I actually disagree - a lot of players would probably more enjoy grinding contracts or flying out refueling missions, simply because "flying rockets" is the part of the game that interests them, not "doing math".
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Fermented Tinal posted:Are you using the latest version of Module Manager? The mods that include the dll have an out of date version. I think so? I have version 2.5.6. It's working now, I removed the StationScience, KAS, BahaSP, Regolith, and CommunityResourcePack folders. It looks like those last two are part of the mods that add resources, which I don't have anyway. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
2.5.6 is out? I really need to install CKAN. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I think so? I have version 2.5.6. Would you mind trying again with StationScience? If there's a problem with it, I'd like to know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Well, at least you don't have to deal with THIS while docking normally... 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
I hate that the Kerbal Foundries tank tracks can only be launched from the L3 pad and runway. Is there a reason they're 51m long in the VAB?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
How are you supposed to cluster the stock ion engines?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:How are you supposed to cluster the stock ion engines? Cubic octagonal struts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
E: Answered my own question.
Fermented Tinal fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Early birthday present from a friend. Great looking and feels really solid. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
That's actually kinda awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Tippis posted:Not having ∆v in the building process, but having it be the key stat for manoeuvre nodes is a bit like having word count only show up in Word when you print. This is a great analogy. Obfuscating this value when it's used elsewhere is just throwing friction at the user. Speaking of design, the number and varieties of fonts, buttons, and display styles are really crying out for a pass at integration. Some of it is that they were added at different times and they reflect that, but it also seems to be a side-effect of the game/simulation conflict that seems to rage both here and on the forums. (Also saw a tweet today from CSS expert Eric Meyer on how typos in the tutorial were distracting him.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
I think the problem is more trying to find a good compromise between rocket science and fun and the devs have kinda missed the mark.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Fermented Tinal posted:I think the problem is more trying to find a good compromise between rocket science and fun and the devs have kinda missed the mark. One of the first Beta tasks is audiovisual unification of the game and we are also looking at improving some mechanics and parts that fail the fun vs realism test. E: not to say realism is the antithesis of fun, just that sometimes it can come at the expense of it. Example. Old ions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Zaran posted:Well, at least you don't have to deal with THIS while docking normally... I dunno, maybe you should dock away from switching between two bodies? That would really help. E: That is a loving reprehensible attempt at a dock, also. Spacman fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Maxmaps posted:One of the first Beta tasks is audiovisual unification of the game and we are also looking at improving some mechanics and parts that fail the fun vs realism test. I think one benefit of realism is that it can help make things more intuitive (or at least easier to look up). A good example is aerodynamics: a reasonably realistic aerodynamics system would make it easier to design an aerodynamic rocket, since everyone knows roughly what real rockets look like, and I think most people who'd want to play KSP have a vague idea of why. That said, I agree that something like FAR is probably too much. (I still wish the solution to ion engines were higher levels of time acceleration or something, since I think really long burn times makes for interesting planning; what do you do when a burn takes 1/4 of your orbital period? It's not the end of the world, though.) Avenging Dentist fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Our main directive for the aero overhaul is predictability. Planes and rockets that look aerodynamic should be aerodynamic. We probably can't do 100% realistic aerodynamics, but we can make them feel like it. And yeah, sorry, the engine gets really cranky when we mess with higher time acceleration or adding force during timewarp.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
...
Nostalgia4ColdWar fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Here's a real simple and rather unobtrusive idea for a delta-v readout. Replace the three white lines in the staging diagram with a number showing the amount of delta-v for that stage. Then have  or someone point at it and say "The higher this number is, the further you can go!" Hell, make the unit (Δv) clickable and linking to an explanation of what it means, just like I just did here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Maxmaps posted:Our main directive for the aero overhaul is predictability. Planes and rockets that look aerodynamic should be aerodynamic. We probably can't do 100% realistic aerodynamics, but we can make them feel like it. Cool. That's about all I could hope for! Maxmaps posted:And yeah, sorry, the engine gets really cranky when we mess with higher time acceleration or adding force during timewarp. Yeah, I'm not crying in my beer over it. I'm not sure there's a closed-form solution to orbital paths if you're under thrust, anyway (even if you ignore the per-part physics). It's just one of those things that'd be interesting to play with if it were technically feasible, but there are about a hundred other things that would make more sense to focus on developing. P.S. 0.90 is easily the most fun I've had in KSP since I started playing. Thanks for helping make a game I've shirked my responsibilities for!
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Maxmaps posted:Our main directive for the aero overhaul is predictability. Planes and rockets that look aerodynamic should be aerodynamic. We probably can't do 100% realistic aerodynamics, but we can make them feel like it. A simple thing - could you possibly widen and lengthen the runway, and perhaps add landing lights which align when you have a good approach? Maybe a North-East - South-West runway too? Doesn't need to be complex, but currently the plains around KSC is infinitely preferable for landing. I basically never use the runway at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Alternate solution: cover the plains with dangerous boulders. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Groetgaffel posted:Here's a real simple and rather unobtrusive idea for a delta-v readout. Not empty-quoting about how much I like this idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Jeb, Bill, and Bob on their way to Mun in my first attempt at an Apollo-style CSM/Lander combo. I'm not exactly sure if the lander has enough dV, but the CSM has enough to land and get back to Kerbin so worst-case I have to land that too. It helped that the 2nd stage of the rocket had almost enough dV to do the transfer burn, something I wasn't planning on. Loaded to the gills with crap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
50 Foot Ant posted:Oh, having a fuel monitor on the Map screen would be a huge help. I keep having to switch back and forth to check my fuel. There is a resources button in the top right somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 20:48
|
|
