|
Velius posted:Hm. With FAR enabled I'm having all my rockets tilt like crazy on launch. I'm still in the early tech tree stages, trying to make a Munar orbiter, and I'm not sure what I can do since I lack the control wheel modules. Even using Jeb as a pilot and using SAS it's not cutting it. Any suggestions for control surface use/placement or something? There's a built-in reaction wheel on the Command Pod Mk1, and the LV-T30 engine has an alternator that will provide electricity for the reaction wheel as long as the engine is running. There's a bit of battery power in the command pod, but you'll use it up eventually, so keep an eye on how much power you've got left. Once you get to tier 3, you get an engine with gimballing (LV-T45) and winglets, both of which should help too. If that doesn't help, post a picture of your rocket so we can see if there's something obviously wrong with the design.
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 11:08 |
|
|
If it happens while you are making a big attitude adjustment then it is expected. Keep the rocket pointed within 5-10 degrees of prograde and it should be more stable. The stock takeoff where you can pitch over from vertical to 45 degrees in a few seconds mostly won't work with FAR.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
Apoffys posted:There's a built-in reaction wheel on the Command Pod Mk1, and the LV-T30 engine has an alternator that will provide electricity for the reaction wheel as long as the engine is running. There's a bit of battery power in the command pod, but you'll use it up eventually, so keep an eye on how much power you've got left. Once you get to tier 3, you get an engine with gimballing (LV-T45) and winglets, both of which should help too. Yeah, I'm not doing anything too crazy. Probably it's just rockets that are too tall - my Munar Orbiter is a Command Pod Mk. 1, 400 fuel -> 909, two 800 fuel -> LV-T45, and then a triple stack of rocketmax solid boosters. I think the issue is that the piddling reaction wheels in the pod aren't enough for how tall the rocket is, and besides are way off the center of mass. I ended up putting three winglets on the solid boosters and that did the trick. The 30 part limit is pretty tricky for the more ambitious launchers, I have to say, especially before asparagus staging.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
I'm certainly no expert but from my experience playing with FAR recently: You might want to check how far your centre of lift is to your centre of mass in the VAB, this tends to be my problem with tall rockets and FAR. You should be able to place 2 (or 4) winglets closer to the centre of mass, this does make the rocket a little less manoeuvrable but should provide more stability. Edit: Also, make sure you enable fine controls (shift lock) and slowly ease your rocket as you ascend. You want to time it so you hit the 45degree mark and 10,000m simultaneously, then fully throttle up until you hit your desired Apo trying to keep your time to around the one minute mark. Vetitum fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Vetitum posted:I'm certainly no expert but from my experience playing with FAR recently: You want the CoL behind the CoM for increased stability. The further back, the more stable. Keeping the CoL near the CoM makes your rocket more maneuverable. Possibly too maneuverable, especially if the CoL ends up in front of the CoM.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Here's some Regolith theorycrafting (cross posted from KSP forums) to see if you find gentlegoons have any feedback  Essentially I am adding a few new mechanics to Regolith (more options - yay!) First, is depletion. Harvesters now have a depletion rate. This will result in a spot's abundance slowly reducing over time. This is expressed as a percentage loss, so every tick abundance drops by x% (these are generally very tiny). So while you cannot drop to zero, you can get stupidly small. Second, is harvest threshold. Harvesters will have a certain percentage at which point they will not work. This is mostly for drill differentiation. So a smaller drill might be more compact and have less of a depletion impact, while a larger one can drill deeper (work with lower abundance rates) but will also deplete that node over time. Third is scanner resolution. Currently scanners return a precise amount (i.e. 2.743% Karbonite). Scanner resolution will come in four flavors: Level 4 - Precise (2.743% - 5.267%) Level 3 - Nearest Percentage (3% - 5%) Level 2 - Biome Average (4%) Level 1 - Presence only (Y/N, no numbers) Default will be Precise (i.e. what SCANSat has today) but this will allow the API to support a variety of scanners at different tech levels, and even vary by resource. Scanner diversity for the win. Fourth is discovery. Scanners may be configured to not work at all until a biome is first explored on the ground. Once explored, scanners will display data for that biome. This is retroactive and not per resource - so if you add a new mod with a new resource, and explored that biome before, you will see the new resource unlocked. The gameplay goal is to really make resource harvesting feel more like exploration instead of just a probe and a time warp. This can be overridden by modders and combined with the other new features, so a use case might be one where a scanner only shows presence (yes/no) but unlocking via discovery is required to get access to more precise numbers. The default will be discovery required for everything unless explicitly overridden by a resource scanner. Anyway, thoughts and feedback are always appreciated
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Depletion is probably a good idea, perhaps even total depletion. As it is, Karbonite concentration doesn't really matter because you can just timewarp until your tank is full. Whether it takes 2 hours or 2 days to fill up makes relatively little difference unless you're harvesting huge amounts of fuel. Harvest threshold is also a good idea, if it means you need to find a really good spot to mine if you've brought a tiny drill. Will there be a separate scanner for every level (like Scansat) or will it be one part that gradually unlocks its full potential (like Mechjeb)? I'd prefer the latter, there are already so many different parts. Edit: RoverDude posted:This can be overridden by modders and combined with the other new features, so a use case might be one where a scanner only shows presence (yes/no) but unlocking via discovery is required to get access to more precise numbers. Having to land and grab a soil sample in order to get accurate numbers sounds like a good idea, but having to do it just to get any information at all from your scanner sounds a bit tedious and unrealistic. Why should your orbital scanner suddenly go from giving you no useful info to giving you extremely accurate info just because you've visited the surface? Also, there are a lot of biomes and they often aren't connected geographically. Does it really make sense that landing on a slope on Minmus will let your scanner identify all the Karbonite on all the slopes? Maybe have the scanner give yes/no or very rough numbers (like you suggested modders could do) by default, and gradually increase accuracy depending on how many soil samples you've collected on that body (without tying it directly to biomes)? Apoffys fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
RoverDude posted:Here's some Regolith theorycrafting (cross posted from KSP forums) to see if you find gentlegoons have any feedback Depletion I believe was planned to be optional? If so that's fine, as I wouldn't be interested in using it. I rather like Regolith et al.'s tendency towards more realistic scale. It's weird that one piddly drilling operation could deplete resources on a planetary scale in a human timeframe. The different drill types are interesting ideas though I admit, I'm not sure how it would work with the KSP model. Because everything you use has to be shipped out from kerbin, and landed. In essence it's fiddly as hell to get alternate parts out there so I think that whatever drill works most often would be the most popular by far. The idea of differentiation is good but I'm not really sure how much gameplay it will add in the end. Scanner precision is also interesting though it would probably need to be coupled with say, altitude and size/mass variations too, where high altitude precise scanners are bulky and heavy, to encourage the use of less precise ones. Also, some method of setting up an alert for when you find a resource you want would be nice, maybe on biome transition you could set up the scanner to ping when it detects a concentration or something, and maybe list the name of the biome too because without SCANSAT it's really hard to tell from orbit exactly where you're picking up from. Also the orbital telescope scanner would be neat if you could point the lens at different areas to get different readings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
RoverDude posted:I would like to make Kethane the attractive option for non-hardcore players most of that seems interesting in an 'off by default' sort of way, but i think the scanner may be actually fun if it attenuated by distance rather than tech level. like by way of a for instance, a 50km munar orbit only returns presence/absence, 25km gets you average, 12km gets nearest and within 6km gets you decimals. this has the advantage of requiring various orbits and (in the majority of cases) actual ground exploration for significant figures as well as being accessible and intuitive to players who are still operating by feel. obviously the distances would vary per-planet and the addition of a system on top of the four tier plan is probably an unwelcome bit of work so feel free to dismiss it with or without gendered insults, however you see fit
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Yeah, seconding the "data varies by distance, not tech" idea. At most, I'd make a small scanner you'd mount to a small probe that could get you hotspots but not refine it, and a larger one that could go on a ship/rover/large sat that would pinpoint things for your final landing. Edit: VV I like this for the large drills. Having large drills deplete their area quickly and have to be moved a bunch of times would suck, but having them possess an "effective radius" that could tap into nearby deposits would make them far more attractive. Small drills aren't nearly as much of a hassle to move around. OAquinas fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Depletion I believe was planned to be optional? If so that's fine, as I wouldn't be interested in using it. I rather like Regolith et al.'s tendency towards more realistic scale. It's weird that one piddly drilling operation could deplete resources on a planetary scale in a human timeframe. You wouldn't be depleting it on a planetary scale though, only on a local scale. If you're using a tiny drill, you probably can't access a very large area/deposit and would therefore quickly deplete the tiny deposit your drill can reach. Having large drills that can stay in place long-term and small drills for mobile mining drones that need to hop around often seems like a neat way of making sure there's a reason to ever use the larger drills. Apoffys fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Edminster posted:so feel free to dismiss it with or without gendered insults, however you see fit No worries, I dismiss anything you say pretty much out of habit  For the rest of the gang - all of the bits are optional, and free for mods to use or not use as they see fit. Basically a bunch of new tinker toys that can be changes, flipped on or off, extended, etc. - so if someone wants to make an easy or hardcore resource mod, they can do it all via cfg files and mix/match as they see fit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Apoffys posted:You wouldn't depleting it on a planetary scale though, only on a local scale. If you're using a tiny drill, you probably can't access a very large area/deposit and would therefore quickly deplete the tiny deposit your drill can reach. Having large drills that can stay in place long-term and small drills for mobile mining drones that need to hop around often seems like a neat way of making sure there's a reason to ever use the larger drills. Correct. The depletion nodes are very small. So unlike Kethane's draining of half a planet, you might drain a small area. So a small drill may make sense for a biome hopper where you can gobble up the high concentration surface stuff, where a larger drill will make sense for base operations where you need to get as much out of the spot as possible before depleting it (assuming depletion is enabled). Or, a planet myght have a very low threshold of something you need, so you have to pack a drill capable of exploiting it. Or you just leave all of the defaults off and it works as it does today. Either way, rock on. (edit) on a side note - altitude based resolution is totally possible. Either through just using the existing scanner altitude parameter, or if you were really clever, extend a mod to dynamically call the abundance check with different parameters based on altitude (i.e. SCANSat). RoverDude fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
So long as the depletion nodes are very small I think this has potential. The biggest enemy in this is going to be the same as it ever was - parts count. As roving or flying harvester vehicles will be required, "Honey Badger" hull sections with integrated drills (think the short cargo bay with a large tweakable ventral drill) and sections with built in pairs of landing legs would save parts here and there. Also, the ability to retrofit a Kontainer for a different cargo, maybe using EVA and some SpareParts, would allow vehicles some versatility. Likewise, making the drills tweakable variants per resource would allow for similar refitting in the field of drills as one operation draws to a close. For instance, this allows for sending out a Honey Badger cockpit, 4 large wheels, a reactor, a tweakable Kontainer either in or not in a cargo bay, and a ventral drill segment. Allowing for a scanner, ladder, KAS pipe attachment point and a life support storage unit you are able to create an efficient resource harvester for 10-12 parts depending on whether or not you use a ladder and a scanner. Making the reactor tweakable into a "Honey Badger Service Module" that also includes large batteries and life support for ground vehicles would further cut a part here. Another suggestion would be to create some truly monstrous drills, comparable to 10+ or even many more of the present units, in a large and heavy form factor. Anyone who wants to start up a truly large operation has the heavy lift to do it in a few giant pieces (again, reduced parts count).
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:So long as the depletion nodes are very small I think this has potential. The biggest enemy in this is going to be the same as it ever was - parts count. As roving or flying harvester vehicles will be required, "Honey Badger" hull sections with integrated drills (think the short cargo bay with a large tweakable ventral drill) and sections with built in pairs of landing legs would save parts here and there. Also, the ability to retrofit a Kontainer for a different cargo, maybe using EVA and some SpareParts, would allow vehicles some versatility. Likewise, making the drills tweakable variants per resource would allow for similar refitting in the field of drills as one operation draws to a close. Yeah I am seeing a lot of multi-drill rigs. So IMO the right answer is.. bigger drills But also make some appropriate incentives to go small or go large based on the mission.Also, you can still have multi-resource drills like you do today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
RoverDude posted:Yeah I am seeing a lot of multi-drill rigs. So IMO the right answer is.. bigger drills Yeah, I guess what I'd like to see would be the ability to be able to swap between "sets" of resources like right now we have water/minerals and ore/substrate or the other way, I can't remember.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:Yeah, I guess what I'd like to see would be the ability to be able to swap between "sets" of resources like right now we have water/minerals and ore/substrate or the other way, I can't remember. Yeah, that would be something in the individual mods, not Regolith.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
RoverDude posted:Yeah, that would be something in the individual mods, not Regolith. Ah yeah true, just thinking about how to make these individual mods (many of them yours) actually fun to use with this new framework. I think you're right then that on the Regolith side proper the key is to make the depletion nodes much smaller than Kethane did them. I think that if you provided some support for super-concentrated but extremely local areas that would not be visible from space you would encourage ground exploration more than driving around for hours looking for concentration numbers to go up. These concentrations might even be marked by ground objects like the procedural easter eggs Arsonide was working on at one point for Fine Print. A system like this would allow for mods to contribute all kinds of procedural rocks and geysers and everything else. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
It really is a wonder we don't have a procedural phallic plugin
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Do the people using the colony mods and EPL/remotetech and stuff do it in career or creative? Seems like you wouldnt be able to afford launching some of this stuff up.
queeb fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
queeb posted:Do the people using the colony mods and EPL and stuff do it in career or creative? Seems like you wouldnt be able to afford launching some of this stuff up. I'm doing it in career. It's honestly pretty easy to bank ludicrous amounts of money if you take the right contracts and focus on building cheap and reusable spacecraft (I make mad cash on visual survey/temperature scan/atmospheric scan contracts in Kerbin's atmosphere with a 100% reusable plane that ends up costing about 2,000 funds per launch); I also never actually start building a station or outpost until I have a contract for it, so I'm always getting paid at least a bit for anything I build. e: Same goes for RemoteTech; I got lucky this run through and had three Geostationary Orbit satellite contracts that allowed me to get my initial RT network up and get paid for it too. Even when you don't, a satellite launch isn't particularly expensive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:I'm doing it in career. It's honestly pretty easy to bank ludicrous amounts of money if you take the right contracts and focus on building cheap and reusable spacecraft (I make mad cash on visual survey/temperature scan/atmospheric scan contracts in Kerbin's atmosphere with a 100% reusable plane that ends up costing about 2,000 funds per launch); I also never actually start building a station or outpost until I have a contract for it, so I'm always getting paid at least a bit for anything I build. Yeah. Career shifts your thinking to paying for the ship before you launch it. My favorite so far is combining "build a solar station" and "put a satellite in orbit" contracts--launch a manned ship with a probe core, get into the sat orbit, eject all kerbals, On the way back it parks in Minmus orbit and will become the hub of my orbital gas station. Really, the 30 part/140 tonne limit is hurting me more than the funds issue at this point. OAquinas fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:Ah yeah true, just thinking about how to make these individual mods (many of them yours) actually fun to use with this new framework. I think you're right then that on the Regolith side proper the key is to make the depletion nodes much smaller than Kethane did them. This just makes me want a tiberium resource, slowly replenishing if you don't remove all of it, deadly to kerbals 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Yeah. Career shifts your thinking to paying for the ship before you launch it. My favorite so far is combining "build a solar station" and "put a satellite in orbit" contracts--launch a manned ship with a probe core, get into the sat orbit, eject all kerbals, FYI, the station contracts stipulate the stations must be capable of supporting x number of Kerbals. Doesn't say anything about Kerbals actually being on board. I just sent up empty stations with a probe core. Which frankly sucks, because I feel no sense of satisfaction on doing a mission like that. I usually just delete them on completion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:FYI, the station contracts stipulate the stations must be capable of supporting x number of Kerbals. Doesn't say anything about Kerbals actually being on board. I just sent up empty stations with a probe core. True, but with the XP system I see it as a cheap way to get my kerbals to Lvl 2, and then once it's parked in Minmus I just have a partybus dock and take them home.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:True, but with the XP system I see it as a cheap way to get my kerbals to Lvl 2, and then once it's parked in Minmus I just have a partybus dock and take them home. Ah that's a good idea, I haven't gotten around to farming XP yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:FYI, the station contracts stipulate the stations must be capable of supporting x number of Kerbals. Doesn't say anything about Kerbals actually being on board. I just sent up empty stations with a probe core. I only do station contracts if I actually do want to put a manned station somewhere, because doing it just to farm the creds is boring. I got a contract for a station in Kerbin orbit, for example, and used it to set up an orbital science lab for doing Station Science experiments, while my station-in-Minmus-orbit contract is going to serve as the core for an orbital refueling base, and my surface-outpost-on-Minmus contract will let me set up basic infrastructure for a Karbonite mining operation. Get creative, kill multiple birds with one stone. e: Also, yeah, manned missions are useful for getting your Kerbals some flight-time so they can gain XP and level up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Bunch of newbie questions on mod interactions: Does MechJeb ascent guidance work at all with FAR? I've tried a lot of settings combinations, but it just hasn't handled a launch in atmosphere successfully for me yet. Can anyone explain how the "resonant orbit" feature in MechJeb is used? I wanted to do a triple-satellite launch and have a 2/3rds resonant orbit with my target satellite orbit, so the launcher could deploy one satellite at each apoapsis and achieve a (roughly) even triangle of coverage. But so far I have not gotten it to create nodes that make any sense for what I'm trying to accomplish. Also, is it cheaper to use a triple-satellite launch vehicle (I'm using an upside-down tri-coupler), or do three separate single-satellite ones? I'm not really sure if combining payloads into a single launch saves you money or costs more. Clearly a combined payload can use fewer disposable parts than three separate launches, but I'm not sure if fuel costs scale positively or negatively compared to overall weight increases. Lastly, I'm having a hell of a time getting my booster rockets to not collide with my main ship, or each-other, after separation. I've tried using separatrons and other separation rockets, but they don't seem to always fire reliably, and when they do they aren't accomplishing much. This is mainly a problem on first stage boosters in the lower atmosphere. In the upper atmosphere, separations behave more or less the way I would expect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
FuSchnick posted:
Multi-sat single launch definitely is cheaper, assuming the satellites are relatively small and don't have too dissimilar an orbit (the retrograde near-polar geosync sat might warrant its own launch...). The big expenditure for any launch is the first 4500 dv to get orbit; having to only do that once is a nice savings (though most satellites are fairly cheap to toss up, esp if you use stage recovery or similar mods). For booster collision, there's a mod that fixes some stock bugs--which includes radial decoupler force (or lack thereof). You could also try sticking on a few separatrons, making sure they don't point directly at your central stack. Another trick is to attach a small girder to your decoupler and attach the booster to the end of the girder to give it extra clearance; may need to strut it a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
FuSchnick posted:Does MechJeb ascent guidance work at all with FAR? I've tried a lot of settings combinations, but it just hasn't handled a launch in atmosphere successfully for me yet. Yes and no. There was a plug-in floating around (google it) that made it work with NEAR and another for FAR, so in that sense, no it doesn't work stock. However, I rarely have problems without the plug-in. Keep alpha below 5 degrees, keep CG ahead of CL in atmosphere (this means trimming tanks), change the ascent profile if you want to min-max some, and it generally works fine. If you're using multiple stacked tanks, it uses the top first shifting CG aft and making the rocket unstable. Transfer fuel from bottom to top to counter this. Even better, stop fuel/ox flow in the top tank in the stage stack before lift-off and re-enable it when you need it, but that's fiddly. FuSchnick posted:Lastly, I'm having a hell of a time getting my booster rockets to not collide with my main ship, or each-other, after separation. I've tried using separatrons and other separation rockets, but they don't seem to always fire reliably, and when they do they aren't accomplishing much. This is mainly a problem on first stage boosters in the lower atmosphere. In the upper atmosphere, separations behave more or less the way I would expect. Try starting the next engine stage before booster separation. It doesn't fix it 100%, but it generally works. It'll push the remaining stack clear of the (now decelerating) boosters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Having played with the Trajectories mod, I now feel this should be made stock. The only thing I would add to it is some form of labeling to let new players know what aerobraking is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Nalesh posted:This just makes me want a tiberium resource, slowly replenishing if you don't remove all of it, deadly to kerbals Kommand and Konquer: Tiberian Kerbol
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
RTS where you must engineer solutions for resource extraction and unit transit? I'd play that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Which frankly sucks, because I feel no sense of satisfaction on doing a mission like that. I usually just delete them on completion. There needs to be a OMB Demolitions contract where you deorbit space stations into specific areas of planets/moons. MIR wasn't deleted, it was sent hurtling into the atmosphere like a viking funeral. Space Aeronautical Circle of Life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Trivia posted:Having played with the Trajectories mod, I now feel this should be made stock. Agreed 100%.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
KSP modding really confuses me sometimes, I'm running into an out of memory a few hours in, so I look at what mods I'm not using and noticed I haven't really used KAX, I remove it and the game doesn't want to load, it's literally just a part pack with no dll. Loads fine if I add it again. Though I really love this satellite launcher I've made, really shallow trajectory, just needs a 50d/v bump from the ion engine to complete the orbit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 07:04
|
|
|
RoverDude posted:Yeah I am seeing a lot of multi-drill rigs. So IMO the right answer is.. bigger drills I can't speak for anyone else but I do it for symmetry. Really I'd love to do a small rig with a drill that comes out the middle. e: Unrelated, but recently I was messing with the Kerbal Foundries repulsors. the test vehicle slowly turned into a goofy aeroplane. I then learned a hard lesson. A Mk.1 lander can oriented vertically (ie like it would be on a rocket) is a baaaad thing for a plane. I'm amazed I managed to fly something with controls so whacked at all. General_Failure fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Jan 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
RoverDude posted:Yeah I am seeing a lot of multi-drill rigs. So IMO the right answer is.. bigger drills Until you make a drill that can pierce the heavens, you haven't made a big enough drill.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
General_Failure posted:e: Unrelated, but recently I was messing with the Kerbal Foundries repulsors. the test vehicle slowly turned into a goofy aeroplane. I then learned a hard lesson. A Mk.1 lander can oriented vertically (ie like it would be on a rocket) is a baaaad thing for a plane. I'm amazed I managed to fly something with controls so whacked at all. Wouldn't that make A and D control roll and Q and E yaw? W and S are still pitch. That would make it kinda like other plane games with keyboard controls. Only problems I see is brain-finger mapping confusion with default KSP, and navball prograde marker often being out of sight. Confusion being the dangerous bit. edit: a docking port or probe core can be used to adjust your "Control from Here" for orientation purposes. Corky Romanovsky fucked around with this message at 08:20 on Jan 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 11:08 |
|
|
Palicgofueniczekt posted:Wouldn't that make A and D control roll and Q and E yaw? W and S are still pitch. That would make it kinda like other plane games with keyboard controls. Only problems I see is brain-finger mapping confusion with default KSP, and navball prograde marker often being out of sight. Confusion being the dangerous bit. Try it. ...then turn on SAS.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 10:14
|
|