|
EL OH EL primadonna modders are everywhere
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
Spookydonut posted:The logical conclusion is to add wheels to your lander and do horizontal take off. Didn't somebody build a Munar lander that served as its own gantry with wheels and whatnot using Kerbal Robotics? I think they might have used it in the Kerbal Countdown contest, too. SPEAKING OF WHICH, how did that turn out?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Parts I would like to see in the game: -A doodad that helps to right tipped over landers. Native it is just a 1.25m part that can extend teleoscopic poles outward or something. -Specialized landing legs that 'grip' the surface and resist horizontal motion on the ground. -Heat resistant tiles that can be placed to protect vulnerable components from heat damage during takeoff or landing. -A specialized radiator/coolant system that uses coolant. Gets 'consumed' like ablatives do, but unlike them can be stored in tanks and transferred around. Requires an engineer to operate. -Engineering bays which hold 1 or 2 engineers. These bays enhance the engineers own abilities, reduce power consumption of all onboard systems by a percentage, improve solar panel and RTG efficiency, and store a little bit of every resource type. They'd be great for space stations , mining rigs and/or colonies. -Articulating wings, and wings that can fold completely into the fuselage part they are a part of.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
I'd actually love to build a horizontally oriented, wide lander so that it would more easily land on its rear end where it lands, but without fairings its aerodynamic features in launch would be... questionable. I'm thinking something like two lander cans attached side by side. Maybe use the inline cockpit instead?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Bucnasti posted:I killed Jeb. I'm running into the same problem, fellow Jeb assassin! Does anyone know the best way to get around having bill jump into every rocket?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Maybe some kind of 'sled runner' attachment that would allow you to slide forward? Give it really high impact tolerance? It would be so much fun to land on minmus, val or eeloo by belly landing and sliding a few kilometers to a stop. Then you could take off by accelerating again and ramping off a hill!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
RoverDude posted:RE the latter - correct, no rocket parts. You want to build rocket X, and it gives you a breakdown of all of the stuff you have to assemble to make it,
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Splicer posted:How abstract is the stuff? Are we talking "you need x polymers, y metals, and z electronics" or "x of metal A, y of metal B, z of polymer W, and a mark II control panel"? Probably more the former than the latter, but TBD
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Shai-Hulud posted:Oh for fucks sake. Keep it up, and you'll eventually have your whole crew of kerbonauts on the Mun and no money to hire new ones. This poo poo right here, is what makles KSP great.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Luneshot posted:I really wish we had Lagrangian points, even with no other 3-body effects modeled. I know that's not feasible, but I'd love to have a station at Kerbin-Mun L2 or an observation satellite at Kerbin-Sun L1, or Trojan asteroids at L4 and L5. I just read up about the Lagrangian point (I barely understand the concept so far) and am wondering, why is it not feasible? Is it just current game mechanics preventing it or are there other issues?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Dalael posted:I just read up about the Lagrangian point (I barely understand the concept so far) and am wondering, why is it not feasible? Is it just current game mechanics preventing it or are there other issues? In KSP you're only ever affected by the gravity of the body that you're currently inside the Sphere of Influence of. You can't have Lagrange Points because you need to be affected by the gravity of multiple bodies for it to work.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
If you over RCS your ships like me, there's a surprising amount of dV in there. I got greedy biome hopping the other night and left myself about 150dV short of an orbit, but I was able to circularize on RCS and then bring my mother ship down to the lander's orbit.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Dalael posted:I just read up about the Lagrangian point (I barely understand the concept so far) and am wondering, why is it not feasible? Is it just current game mechanics preventing it or are there other issues? Lagrange points are points in space where two or more gravity wells cancel eachother out, which is impossible to model in 1-body physics. You could fake it by putting a virtual sphere of influence where the points should be, but it wouldn't be really crappy from a gameplay perspective.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Dalael posted:I just read up about the Lagrangian point (I barely understand the concept so far) and am wondering, why is it not feasible? Is it just current game mechanics preventing it or are there other issues?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Is there any way to build surface stations without unlocking rover parts? How do you get the different pieces together? I've never built a surface station before, so I only have a slight idea of what to do, does anyone have a link to a tutorial that shows some techniques?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Icedude posted:In KSP you're only ever affected by the gravity of the body that you're currently inside the Sphere of Influence of. You can't have Lagrange Points because you need to be affected by the gravity of multiple bodies for it to work. Collateral Damage posted:The game mechanics as designed do not support it. In KSP currently you are only affected by one gravity well at a time (1-body), which is why we have SOI change points where you for instance swap from being affected by Kerbin's gravity to being affected by Mun's gravity. Splicer posted:Lagrange points are caused by the interaction of the gravities of two bodies, e.g. Kerbin and the Mun, on a third body, e.g. a spaceship. However in KSP you're only ever affected by the gravity of the body you are orbiting, so no interaction. Thanks for the explanation. Is that something the KSP developers have in mind to fix one day or is this something they just can't add at this point? Can they change the 1 body physics?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
The problem with production chains is when a given resource only has a single use. It feels unnecessarily grindy. If however X resource can be put forward to make Y different things, that feels more like progression and leads to interesting choices. Really, as a gameplay mechanic, off-world shipyards should make the game more fun, and take away the grind that is launching disparate ships to later assemble them in orbit with lovely docking ports. It should open a new gameplay dynamic. I think being able to recycle already in-orbit crafts would also be an excellent intermediary mechanic that eventually leads rocket manufacture (and could also create a series of "recover X part in orbit for recycling" contracts). If setting up long, obnoxious production chains is less rewarding than just making a bigger rocket, what's the point?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:Is there any way to build surface stations without unlocking rover parts? How do you get the different pieces together? You'll have to do it in one big single piece, if possible. If you're on minmus, you can try docking parts of the station on top of each other.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Thanks for the explanation. Is that something the KSP developers have in mind to fix one day or is this something they just can't add at this point? Can they change the 1 body physics? No. Simulating n-body gravity gets complicated fast and isn't something that is easily time-accelerated. Also, the minor perturbations of other bodies is what causes orbits to decay. My understanding is that the appeal of lagrange points is that they help minimize the need for stationkeeping. With 2-body physics you can just put something in kerbo-stationary orbit and it stays there.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
The new aero model might be a little more difficult at times, but you can still get ridiculous things through the atmosphere. I just got this monstrosity to Minmus so it could land horizontally, and shuttle fuel from the mining operation to orbit. It only took a couple misfires before I got the ascent pinned down and the gimbals dialed in. At least try something before you write off an idea. Plain Jane rockets are boring. I call it the Elephant Beetle. It doesn't look as phallic when landed.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Are there any mods that let me launch from different planets/moons straight from VAB? Not something like EPL, where you do a bunch of hauling parts to a planet and setting up logistics, but straight up design ship in vab -> click launch button -> menu asks "Launch from where?" -> I blast off from Eve or whatever. I guess I could always hyperedit myself from the KSP launch pad to the surface of wherever, but that sounds a bit time consuming to figure out what coordinates to use.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
RoverDude posted:Probably more the former than the latter, but TBD From what I hear of your resource chain idea, it reminds me a lot of Space Engineers. Would you say there's a lot of similarity? Personally, I love when resource chains, logistics, etc, turn a giant puzzle to solve. I think that with a too-simple resource chain, the only challenge is found in launching and landing big unwieldy parts. Unimpressed posted:Is there any way to build surface stations without unlocking rover parts? How do you get the different pieces together? For bases on low-gravity worlds, you can also assemble it in space with docking ports and then carefully land it as one giant assembly.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
RoverDude posted:That's kinda where I was going for something more interesting. Meaning, not add complexity in the length of the chain, but add complexity on the potential diversity. Tanks are easy as hell to make. A science lab, not so much. I'd be 100% onboard an eve type thing where different things costs stuff, though might be hard to do with modded parts? Or do you have some space magic way to figure out what everything needs procedurally?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Realistically is there any point waiting and hoping for a version of KSP that can handle space stations and the like without dying on itself? When the very engine it's built on can't deal with it i mean, and the UNITY people aren't focusing on upgrading that part/can't figure it out afaik.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Not sure if anyone else here uses MechJeb+FAR, but since FAR updated today I figured MechJeb needed an updated MechJebFARExt. Seems to be working alright in the limited testing I've done so far. Still very sensitive to overcontrolled rockets (tweak down control surfaces if you have them).
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Dongattack posted:Realistically is there any point waiting and hoping for a version of KSP that can handle space stations and the like without dying on itself? When the very engine it's built on can't deal with it i mean, and the UNITY people aren't focusing on upgrading that part/can't figure it out afaik. KSP can handle space stations just fine. The problem with sandbox games like this is that people increase the complexity of their builds until the engine can't handle it, then complain. If the game is optimised for more parts, the process is repeated but now the complaint is that the game can't handle 200 part stations rather than 150 part stations.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
junidog posted:Are there any mods that let me launch from different planets/moons straight from VAB? Not something like EPL, where you do a bunch of hauling parts to a planet and setting up logistics, but straight up design ship in vab -> click launch button -> menu asks "Launch from where?" -> I blast off from Eve or whatever. I guess I could always hyperedit myself from the KSP launch pad to the surface of wherever, but that sounds a bit time consuming to figure out what coordinates to use. There's Kerbal Konstructs and the various config packs for it like Kerbinside, but they only let you add new launch sites to Kerbin itself, AFAICT, not to other bodies. Unless and until EPL is updated (or someone writes a replacement for it, a day that cannot come soon enough), your only options are to HyperEdit stuff into place, or to launch the parts from Kerbin and assemble them at their destination using KIS.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
Jet Jaguar posted:Didn't somebody build a Munar lander that served as its own gantry with wheels and whatnot using Kerbal Robotics? I think they might have used it in the Kerbal Countdown contest, too.  I actually managed to launch it with FAR and DRE without fairings, because I wasn't using Proc Fairings yet then and KW's weren't big enough without making the rocket unnecessarily big to match.http://imgur.com/a/FOViO
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
slogula posted:No. Simulating n-body gravity gets complicated fast and isn't something that is easily time-accelerated. Also, the minor perturbations of other bodies is what causes orbits to decay. My understanding is that the appeal of lagrange points is that they help minimize the need for stationkeeping. With 2-body physics you can just put something in kerbo-stationary orbit and it stays there. Orbital decay is also caused by lumpy gravitational fields, because planets and moons are generally not uniform in shape or density. Would a pseudo-n-body system (planets and moons on rails) have an analytical solution, allowing for easy timewarp?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
While you can't reuse previously launched satellites, I just realized if you have multiple accepted contracts before you launch then the same satellite can hit as many orbits as the delta-v allows. I got two Mun satellite contracts complete with a single satellite and if I had a relatively low equatorial Kerbin contract I could have picked it up on the way as well.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
Once you get to the big money contracts all the smaller ones seem pointless. I just did a big 3 contract (fly by mun, minimus and duna) with a $43,000 rocket and pocketed $555,000. At that point the parts testing contracts should just go away.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
I've done a few Munar flybys now, as well as setting up a cool polar probe like halfway between Kerbal and the Mun. Speaking of polar probes, I thought I'd be hot poo poo and, while on a simple tourist orbit mission, also bring along a orbital scanner probe, which I could leave behind in orbit. So after a couple of failed rockets because having two giant scanners sticking out the top of your rocket fucks the aerodynamics a bit awkward, I managed to successfully complete the mission, hooray! I go back to my probe and find out that it needs to be on a polar orbit, not a standard one, gently caress! Luckily, I'd kind of overfuelled my ship, and the decoupling had thrown it off the equator somehow (or I hosed up the takeoff, I can't recall) so the rocket segment had just enough fuel to change the inclination into a polar orbit, a true victory for Kerbalkind. Next step, scanning the Mun! Is there a reason why my scanner only gave land data, incidentally? Do I need a different type of scanner for ocean and atmo data?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
Regarding off-world launching, I'd like to see something as simple as this: Spacedock/launchpad parts can construct vessels with mass up to the part's mass, and launching from them costs extra (cost multiplier based on location). That's it. No fiddly resources at all, no mining. It's just all abstracted. I don't see the point of that stuff. What I do see the point of is, once you've demonstrated you can deliver a certain mass somewhere, being able to jump to just having a new, similarly massed craft there. Once I'm done updating Station Science, I might look into hacking EPL to do this. Looks like it's fully open licensed.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
JB50 posted:Once you get to the big money contracts all the smaller ones seem pointless. testing contracts are easily the worst part of early career mode if you don't want to exploit things like the different ksp biomes i'd love it if they required you to do something like build a rocket with X number of parts that reaches a velocity of X m/s instead of just putting a specific part onto a rocket and pressing the spacebar at the right time
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
eth0.n posted:Regarding off-world launching, I'd like to see something as simple as this: Sounds awesome, and a barebones system like that would be a good starting point for anyone who wants to add back in resource mining or other dependencies.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Maybe I just suck at video games but the new aero model just makes ascent too much of a pain in the rear end to be fun. I can get to orbit eventually, most of the time, but I don't want to have to revert to tweak my rocket/ascent profile 5 times before I get to orbit. I can do an ascent just fine in Realism Overhaul too.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
stuart scott posted:Maybe I just suck at video games but the new aero model just makes ascent too much of a pain in the rear end to be fun. I can get to orbit eventually, most of the time, but I don't want to have to revert to tweak my rocket/ascent profile 5 times before I get to orbit. I can do an ascent just fine in Realism Overhaul too. At what point of your ascent are you having problems, and how fast are you going?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
Below 10k, and probably too fast. But I do make an effort to stay below terminal velocity.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
How hard are you turning? like if you go above like 5% aoa you're probably turning too hard.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
Tip over about 5 degrees right after launch and try to follow surface prograde, pretty much.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 04:18
|
|