|
Current Kerbal status: Working on the second version of the lightyear ship; idly right-clicking on things in the VAB and whaaaaaaaat you can change the colour of the illuminator lights? My cargo bay is WAY cooler now. 
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 09:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
endolithic posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 10:53
|
|
Adorable! 
|
Met posted:Eyelashes are a little weird because I thought Kerbals didn't have eyelids. Kommando posted:Cool. I was hoping shed have the haircut in the fan art but great work Maxmaps and Squad. So good shes an orange suit. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 11:39
|
|
|
Met posted:Eyelashes are a little weird because I thought Kerbals didn't have eyelids. Those are her eyebrows.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Those are her eyebrows. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
They're quite obviously eyelashes. Squad confirmed misogynists
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Iridium posted:
My daughter is super excited and already asking when she can see Valentina in game. It's tough to explain development cycles to a four year old.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I know of a number of "fans" who are going to be hilariously angry that she's getting one Oh boo hoo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I know of a number of "fans" who are going to be hilariously angry that she's getting one Yeah this gif totally still fits.  I too am predicting explosions of hate over the orange suit because people are terrible 
Turbo Fondant fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Feb 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Nth Doctor posted:My daughter is super excited and already asking when she can see Valentina in game. It's tough to explain development cycles to a four year old. It's cool as all hell, honestly, that despite all the noise and cynicism of the Web, a young girl somewhere is completely fired up by female Kerbals. Squad ought to be proud.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
My questions is whether or not she'll usurp Bill or Bob. What will her job be? Will she be on the splash screen? What order will she be in in the roster? So many controversial questions! Seeing her I see that Squad is doing this correctly, so I'm sure all will be well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:My questions is whether or not she'll usurp Bill or Bob. What will her job be? Will she be on the splash screen? What order will she be in in the roster? The mysterious "fourth job" If there was a fourth specialization, what could it be?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Mistle posted:If there was a fourth specialization, what could it be? Navigator- if on board, improves maneuver planner somehow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
IIRC Max said that Val is a pilot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Navigator- if on board, improves maneuver planner somehow. That would be cool, at higher levels they can lay in a node to intercept/rendezvous with a target automatically like m***j**
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Mistle posted:The mysterious "fourth job" Secretary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Mistle posted:The mysterious "fourth job"
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Hell yeah, she looks awesome. Can't wait to Also, I have a question about using FAR. I installed it recently because I figured I should try to get used to a more realistic aero model ahead of 1.0 but I have to say its a lot more frustrating and a lot less fun to fly planes. I just had a really annoying session of reloading and retrying the same landing attempt for like an hour and a half, something that I could nail like 80% of the time in stock. That along with my planes literally disintegrating if I don't feather my turns just exactly right has got me thinking that the only way FAR actually works is if you install aero parts mods that have things like air brakes and wings that aren't made of poorly glued together triangles. Am I wrong here? Do people fly planes with stock parts using FAR? I've been avoiding parts packs up to this point (with the exception of Proc Fairings) and limiting mods to QoL and visual enhancements; can anyone recommend a light pack of plane parts that plays nice with stock career mode and FAR? I only see stuff like B9 that has waaaaaaay too much stuff that I don't want or a bunch of sci-fi Homeworld/Macross looking poo poo. Or maybe there's a way to reduce airspeed for landing with stock parts without tanking into a flat spin for no apparent reason and I'm just an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Jeb, Bill, and Bob, as the original 3 Kerbalnauts have Orange suits on their portrait view in the bottom right corner. All the new randomly generated Kerbals have silver ones (Everyone has silver when walking around). Basically, in a way, the orange suit marks her as an equal of the original 3. Naturally some jackasses might actually get upset about it, though the mere idea someone would boggles my mind.
Galaga Galaxian fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Feb 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
They also mentioned a resource collection subsystem coming soon, maybe the new job is exploration?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Hell yeah, she looks awesome. Can't wait to I only use stock parts. If your plane is hard to fly, it's a design issue. Are you using the colour coded coefficients analyser? Post a picture of your plane with centre of lift and centre of mass shown and we'll be able to help. Also, specifically, what is the plane doing that is making it impossible to land?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Hell yeah, she looks awesome. Can't wait to Funnily enough, once I got the hang of using it, I've found FARplanes are so much more fun to fly than stock planes. I even seek out aerial survey contracts, and I don't mind "aerial survey on the opposite side of Kerbin" ones. What speed and altitude are you at when your planes are disintegrating? Typically that happens if you pull hard-g turns near sea level at mach 1 or something, which real planes (or the squishy meat sacks inside) have trouble with. Flatspins can be mitigated by making bigger vertical stabilizers and adding a slight dihedral to your wings. (Angle the wings slightly upward). Too-small vertical stabilizers and rudders are a very common problem. The in-flight FAR menu gives some flight assistance options that will help stabilize your craft slightly and lessen the risk of pulling your plane into a stall. Other than that, use the aeroviz tool to see which wings are stalling first, which you can use as a guide to improve the plane or changing flight habits. Stock parts + FAR is absolutely possible, and the new SpacePlane+ parts make it even easier to make nice wings in stock. Other than that, probably the best mod to add for more aero parts is B9's procedural wings. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/104966-0-90-B9-Aerospace-Procedural-Parts-0-33-Updated-07-02-15 . They're easier to manipulate than the previous procedural wings and they can hold internal fuel tanks. Finally, the common advice to building planes in FAR is "make it look more like an existing plane." In stock almost anything will fly, but FAR's higher fidelity means you really have to know what you're doing to get unconventional designs to fly, but it also means that importing real-life designs work even better than in stock. Things like flaps, spoilers, canards, and even leading-edge slats work as the do in real life for the same reasons they work in real life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
maniacdevnull posted:They also mentioned a resource collection subsystem coming soon, maybe the new job is exploration? Space Geologist/Prospector? That'd be cool, though potentially under the umbrella of "Scientist".
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Does anyone have a good mod for 0.9 that will give me delta-v? I'm not really interested in calculating orbits and such but something ismple that will tell me dv would be perfect.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Kerbal Engineer should work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Right I need some help, I'm trying to explain why going into orbit with kerbin is more efficient with a 45 degree burn past 10km but my friend insists a straight 90 degree burn is better because "gravity drops off pretty quickly", I'm pretty sure I am right but not how to prove it? Also a lot of this in relation to gettign to the mun, he claims his way is far better for making it to the moon safely despite the significantly higher margin for error and way shorter launch window. Kea fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Feb 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Splode posted:I only use stock parts. If your plane is hard to fly, it's a design issue. Are you using the colour coded coefficients analyser? Post a picture of your plane with centre of lift and centre of mass shown and we'll be able to help. Also, specifically, what is the plane doing that is making it impossible to land? I haven't tried to learn what the graphs all mean because I want to play a fun video game not study undergrad aerodynamics. The specific problem with landings is not being able to bleed off enough speed to touch down without bouncing back up. Applying wheel brakes at that speed causes the plane to become unbalanced and flip. I'm coming in with no engine, bank left and right to slow forward speed at approach and flare up just before touchdown and even then I'm at like 120-150m/s. At that speed, the entire coast isn't long enough to slow down even if I could keep my wheels in contact with the ground. Is there some way to do air braking with stock parts that I'm not aware of? Here's a couple of my designs that fly:   This one's ugly and dumb but I was trying to use single wing parts to minimize the chance for disintegration. This is also the one I couldn't land.  Psawhn posted:What speed and altitude are you at when your planes are disintegrating? Typically that happens if you pull hard-g turns near sea level at mach 1 or something, which real planes (or the squishy meat sacks inside) have trouble with. Pretty low, usually about 2k up after takeoff when I'm making a turn. I want to say I'm usually at about 200-250 m/s at that point and I have no idea what speed mach 1 is in this game. Psawhn posted:Stock parts + FAR is absolutely possible, and the new SpacePlane+ parts make it even easier to make nice wings in stock. Other than that, probably the best mod to add for more aero parts is B9's procedural wings. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/104966-0-90-B9-Aerospace-Procedural-Parts-0-33-Updated-07-02-15 . They're easier to manipulate than the previous procedural wings and they can hold internal fuel tanks. I'll keep trying with stock, I'm sure there's something I'm not doing / building right. I've seen the "make it look like a real plane" a lot and tried to do that but I don't know what a real plane looks like in any detail more granular than general silhouette.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
I haven't learnt what the graphs or coefficients mean either, but if you press the simulator button they all turn green or red. Red bad. Anyway your problem is easier than that. Add some control surfaces somewhere, right click on them and make them air brakes. I recommend sticking two flush to the fuselage, so they pop up when you hit b If things aren't symmetrical it will cause torque though, so you'll have to gently caress around with it in all likelihood.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
You do have to work to bleed off speed in FAR if you get going fast enough. A long glide in from the East at low altitude (1-2km) is usually called for to get down to <100m/s for landing. The airbrake thing might help too, as well as general fiddling with flap and spoiler settings on your various control surfaces (and matching action groups). As far as disintegration goes, Mach 1 is ~300m/s. At low altitudes a hard turn can bust you up even below that speed, but at least for me it was something I pretty quickly got a feel for avoiding. If you open the FAR info panel it'll show you when you're experiencing high dynamic pressure, which is usually a sign to go easy on the turns. Craft design is probably a factor here too, but I don't know enough to give any real advice on that point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
The forums reaction to Val is not quite the dumpsterfire that I envisioned it might be, though I didn't get through the whole thing. Hooray! Need to give my poor space station something to do. My last try at Station Science didn't quite do much for me, I wonder what I'm missing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Kea posted:Right I need some help, I'm trying to explain why going into orbit with kerbin is more efficient with a 45 degree burn past 10km but my friend insists a straight 90 degree burn is better because "gravity drops off pretty quickly", I'm pretty sure I am right but not how to prove it? Every second you're burning directly away from a planet is wasting fuel. The way I think about it is that thrusting straight up at exactly 1.00 TWR just hovers you in place, which is obviously a 100% waste of fuel. Thus, if you thrust straight up at 2.00 TWR, that's a 50% waste of fuel, and so on. It's most efficient to always and only burn prograde or retrograde at periapsis or apoapsis, and you should only do otherwise for little concessions like "getting clear of the atmosphere" or "clearing those Mun mountains and not crashing" or "making rendezvous with the rescue ship." Plus, SOIs are defined such that it's the point at which gravity is equal for the two bodies. So, you have to go all the way out past Minmus for the gravity exerted by Kerbin to be lessened enough that the sun's gravity is 50% of the force being exerted. Other than that, gravity doesn't really drop off that fast. In low Kerbin orbit, gravity is pretty much just as strong as it is on the surface, so you're probably not going fast enough for gravity drop-off to be a major factor. (I'm pretty sure you can use the Gravioli Detector in-game to "experimentally" prove this, too, as it directly measures the strength of gravity at that altitude.) It takes really small bodies -- and I'm talking Gilly sized -- for a direct ascent to be not much less efficient than proper orbital maneuvers. 800peepee51doodoo posted:I haven't tried to learn what the graphs all mean because I want to play a fun video game not study undergrad aerodynamics. The specific problem with landings is not being able to bleed off enough speed to touch down without bouncing back up. Applying wheel brakes at that speed causes the plane to become unbalanced and flip. I'm coming in with no engine, bank left and right to slow forward speed at approach and flare up just before touchdown and even then I'm at like 120-150m/s. At that speed, the entire coast isn't long enough to slow down even if I could keep my wheels in contact with the ground. Is there some way to do air braking with stock parts that I'm not aware of? Speeds in m/s are deceptively fast compared to common real-life measures. 200-250 m/s is actually about Mach 0.7-0.8 or so, or 720-900 kph. If you're landing at 120 m/s, you're really landing at ~430 kph (~270 mph). Like Supraluminal said, open up the FAR window in flight. It'll tell you your Mach speed and tell you if there's high dynamic pressure or high AoAs or stalling. There's also a button to change the navball speed to be something more intuitive than m/s. As for "make it look more plane," Yeah, just general sillhouette is good enough, as it's the size/placement of wings that have the biggest affect. None of your planes are a conventional design, though -- by which I mean main wing near COG, tailplane at the back, and an optional canard at the front. So, for example, more like a WW2 fighter or modern commercial plane. Big delta wings like the French Mirage or the Space Shuttle actually have stability drawbacks. Like Splode said, right-click on a control surface to change its options. You can disable unwanted pitch/yaw/roll inputs so ailerons only roll and rudders only yaw. You can also set up dedicated control surfaces as flaps and spoilers. Spoilers are really just airbrakes. Set them up on the fuselage so they pop out when deployed. If you're using vertical spoilers as airbrakes and they're both popping out in the same direction (giving you bad yaw problems), try rotating them ever so slightly, 5 degrees or less, such that there's an "up" side and KSP won't be confused. I've found that vertical airbrakes need a really high setting for "Flap/Spoiler Deflect" - you can go up past 40 or 50 degrees with those. You can also put spoilers on the main wings, but be sure to balance them out with either other spoilers set to negative deflection or flaps so it doesn't make you pitch up uncontrollably. Flaps will also let you land at lower speeds by lowering the speed at which you stall, but they add a little extra drag, too. Put them on the trailing edges of your main wings. However, the extra lift they generate usually causes a downward pitching moment which has to be corrected for by extra up-elevator or up-canard, so you can't really put flaps on a pure delta wing like your second craft. If you stick a flap on the front of your main wing it becomes a leading-edge slat, which also does good things for trying to fly at low speeds when deployed. Finally, if you don't have the spaceplane hangar upgraded enough to let you edit custom action groups on the number keys, you can still set up the controls for flaps/spoilers in FAR settings from the main space center screen. Psawhn fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Feb 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
I like how pessimistic some of you are, especially re Valentina.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Palicgofueniczekt posted:I like how pessimistic some of you are, especially re Valentina. I honestly can't wait for them to be added, all the naysayers will shut up, people will move on with their lives, and the game can go back to being about space and super excited little green I don't get why this had to become such a huge deal in the first place. I guess most of us were like "great, that's cool" and moved on, while some turbospergs decided it was their jihad to keep KSP pure or something. I'd just like to go back to the days when it was Kerbal Space Program instead of Kerbal Gender Politics Program. Please don't misunderstand me, I am absolutely for the addition of female kerbals, especially if my future offspring is a girl. I love space exploration and the technology surrounding it, and anything that makes it more accessible to the masses is great in my book. HOTDOG fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Feb 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
Palicgofueniczekt posted:I like how pessimistic some of you are, especially re Valentina. I'm kidding of course, I'm looking forward towards female Kerbals!
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
I braced myself for the worst considering the current climate and nothing has happened so far, so consider me really happy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
Ughhhhh I'm having constant crashes from bumping up against the 32-bit memory-limit even after converting everything to DDS, but each and every mod I'm running is precious and I can't bring myself to delete any of them Actually, Maxmaps, have there been any talks on Squad's side to improve the way mods are handled? Modders have done a lot to try and make handling large numbers of mods more tolerable - PartsCatalog, reduced-texture packs, Active Texture Management, and DDS Loader - but ultimately they're just trying to work around limitations in KSP itself. Increasing the memory limit might not be possible, but what about approaching it from the other end and squeezing things down better to fit within the limit we're stuck with? With a number of better-looking new parts coming from Squad and x64 being a bust, it looks like the memory problem is just going to get worse in the foreseeable future, not better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
Use a Linux.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
Shittiest post I've seen on the subject. To paraphrase: "I once had a random Kerbal with the name Mildred, therefore female Kerbals already existed, and thus Squad shouldn't be adding them, because it'll turn off gamergaters. Who cares about a small minority of children? Also, I copied Mildred into a new save, and didn't change the name, therefore I couldn't possibly be sexist." Dumb as hell, but given that it's the worst I've seen (by a pretty wide margin), the reaction has been quite good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Ughhhhh I'm having constant crashes from bumping up against the 32-bit memory-limit even after converting everything to DDS, but each and every mod I'm running is precious and I can't bring myself to delete any of them Have you tried the force opengl option? I went from crashing every other launch to not running out of memory once since I made the change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 08:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
Lansdowne posted:Have you tried the force opengl option? I went from crashing every other launch to not running out of memory once since I made the change. I did in 0.25, and it didn't really work out too well. It fixed the memory issues, but the graphical side-effects impacted gameplay in some pretty major ways, such as making it nearly impossible to land on or do anything on any non-Kerbin body because the surfaces of every planet and moon except Kerbin were a featureless pitch-black that might as well have been invisible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 08:34
|
|