|
shortspecialbus posted:Yes, assuming you're using EVE numbers and not actually using Kerbin numbers like I did one time. I had mine set to Mun and wondered why my rockets crawled off the pad with a TWR of 5.
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 06:54 |
|
|
 Worked together an avatar. Anyone got any ideas for text?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
shortspecialbus posted:Yes, assuming you're using EVE numbers and not actually using Kerbin numbers like I did one time. Great, thanks. I've already landed a pair of ion propelled winged probes on Eve to mark the highest and second highest peaks. But now I'm contemplating turning a science lab into a rover and using it to also get science from the water. How viable is climbing the mountains with a fully equipped stock science lab roverand how much am I gonna regret it when I realize how long it will take?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Eh, I don't see any real benefit to fleshing that out into a "system", versus simply adding the pricetag to a listed subassembly. I already make notes on my subassembly boosters for what they're capable of (usually something like 50t/100k, meaning it can lift a 50 ton vehicle to a 100k circular orbit), and if you want them ranked, just start the name of it with the note so the alphabetical filter does the job for you. You probably wouldn't be amazed at how many people don't use subassemblies at all. I sort and comment mine much the same way as you but have some tech level info too. Having the budget implemented will really change the game up - IMO much for the better. Take all the time you need to get it right Squad, we don't need a KSP equivalent of the $20,000 hammer 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Ratzap posted:
Engines will be cheap, maybe $100. Struts will cost $500 each.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Ratzap posted:Take all the time you need to get it right Squad, we don't need a KSP equivalent of the $20,000 hammer Unless you add engines called the Hammer and Anvil.  Met posted:
Structural failure between [command pod name] and [engine stack name].
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Rapid Unplanned Disassembly
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Does anyone else a bug where manœuver nodes/conics are invisible after docking and won’t show up again till the game is restarted? I get it too, sometimes on completing a maneuver node. I usually just switch to space center and repilot the ship. Sets everything back in. I also get a weird one where i can't refocus on my ship after accidentally selecting Kerbin and need to mash tab to cycle through focuses.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Rapid Unplanned Disassembly Unscheduled Lithobrake
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
WHAT THE HELL?!?! Systems nominal?? This can't be right.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Met posted:
You are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today. ALTERNATELY Mission Control? I've got warning lights like a Christmas tree! I need to abort! Mission Control!! WHY ARE YOU LAUGHING??
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Met posted:
Regardless of text, it should link to Space Oddity. 'Cause that's a good song.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Met posted:
'Hey guys I'm not an engineer but shouldn't this thing be pointing up?'
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Forgot the parachutes again.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Ablative posted:Regardless of text, it should link to Space Oddity. 'Cause that's a good song. I sometimes think a couple lines from Starman while playing KSP. There's a starman waiting in the sky He'd like to come and meet us But he thinks he'd blow our minds There's a starman waiting in the sky He's told us not to blow it Cause he knows it's all worthwhile
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Met posted:I sometimes think a couple lines from Starman while playing KSP. Pushing through the atmosphere So many systems fryin' News had just come over We had five years left to fly in oddium fucked around with this message at 18:06 on May 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Met posted:I sometimes think a couple lines from Starman while playing KSP. The most KSP Bowie lyrics are "For here am I sitting in a tin can / High above the world..."
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Ratzap posted:You probably wouldn't be amazed at how many people don't use subassemblies at all. I sort and comment mine much the same way as you but have some tech level info too. I can't figure out the subassembly system for the life of me- every time I try to save something as a subassembly it just tells me that I can't. I'm trying to save things like landers or capsules as a subassembly but I can't seem to get it to work.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Luneshot posted:I can't figure out the subassembly system for the life of me- every time I try to save something as a subassembly it just tells me that I can't. I'm trying to save things like landers or capsules as a subassembly but I can't seem to get it to work. You can't save anything with the root node (capsule or probe core) as a subassembly. So when you want to build a rover or whatever, start with a capsule or core you don't plan on saving and create the attachment point you want the subassembly to latch onto (vertical or radial attachment) and then build it out from there. When you're ready to save it, detach it from that point (leaving the dummy attachment and the starting capsule) and drag it to the "Save assembly" area. A capsule or probe core CAN be part of a subassembly; it just can't be the root node/starting bit of the construction. Similarly, you can't start a new ship with a subassembly. OAquinas fucked around with this message at 18:12 on May 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Luneshot posted:I can't figure out the subassembly system for the life of me- every time I try to save something as a subassembly it just tells me that I can't. I'm trying to save things like landers or capsules as a subassembly but I can't seem to get it to work. It won't let you save "root node" parts, like the capsule or probe core you start out a new rocket with. You need to be able to attach the subassembly to another part with a single click. Like if you have a two part rocket with a capsule and a fuel tank, you can't save both parts in a subassembly. But if you pull the fuel tank off you can save that as a subassembly.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:You can't save anything with the root node (capsule or probe core) as a subassembly. So when you want to build a rover or whatever, start with a capsule or core you don't plan on saving and create the attachment point you want the subassembly to latch onto (vertical or radial attachment) and then build it out from there. When you're ready to save it, detach it from that point (leaving the dummy attachment and the starting capsule) and drag it to the "Save assembly" area. You don't even have to start with a capsule or probe core. Any part that supports both stack and surface attachment can be started with. If I know I'm planning to make a subassembly, I'll start building with a cubic octagonal strut. If I wind up deciding later that the thing I built needs to be a subassembly, I'll use the Selectroot mod.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
If you're building a lander to store as a subassembly, I recommend starting with the docking port, because you'll only be attaching stuff to one node. Starting with a capsule risks that there's stuff you'll want to put on top of it, but if you build down from the clampotron you're always good.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Arkitektbmw posted:Hey guys, I loving love the Goddard logo clip at the end. 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
DStecks posted:I already make notes on my subassembly boosters for what they're capable of (usually something like 50t/100k, meaning it can lift a 50 ton vehicle to a 100k circular orbit), and if you want them ranked, just start the name of it with the note so the alphabetical filter does the job for you. Ratzap posted:You probably wouldn't be amazed at how many people don't use subassemblies at all. I sort and comment mine much the same way as you but have some tech level info too. The fact that you guys are making notes because you want to save data that the game doesn't currently have a "system" for seems like more evidence that developing launch vehicles separately would be a good thing. After budgets are introduced, I think having "development" costs for building the rocket and substantially cheaper "production" costs when copying from subassemblies would make building the payload more interesting. Should you try and make your lander/probe lighter so your booster from 5 tech trees ago can launch it or invest cash into a new, bigger booster? Much like the real world I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Karki posted:The fact that you guys are making notes because you want to save data that the game doesn't currently have a "system" for seems like more evidence that developing launch vehicles separately would be a good thing. I know right. And do you want to pay the (hopefully very high) price for NERVAs or do the mission on the cheap with chemical rockets. Done right the economy implementation can lead to a much richer game-play experience. I am excited in a "please don't disappoint me horribly" kind of way.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Geemer posted:Great, thanks. I've already landed a pair of ion propelled winged probes on Eve to mark the highest and second highest peaks. Eve currently doesn't have Biomes, so there's no extra science from going to the water. Also, climbing mountains in huge gravity on Eve is going to be very difficult unless you use winches from KAS or something to drag yourself up slowly. It'll be hard to get enough torque and stay stable, I fear. Maybe I'm wrong, I dunno. xzzy posted:It won't let you save "root node" parts, like the capsule or probe core you start out a new rocket with. You need to be able to attach the subassembly to another part with a single click. That's not entirely true - it just needs to have an open attachment on the root node. I made a lander once, leaving the top uncovered, and was able to use it as a subassembly to throw in my Katurn V rocket as the LEM. I just had to remember to put a clampotron on and then attach the subassembly. Worked great. Edit: I am still using subassembly manager mod for the part scrolling, maybe that made it possible, I dunno. I think I'm using the stock subassembly management stuff. On that note, Squad - please add part scrolling so I can scroll the wheel to go through multiple pages of parts like I can do in Subassembly Manager mod. I don't think that's in stock yet. ssb fucked around with this message at 21:00 on May 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Ratzap posted:I know right. And do you want to pay the (hopefully very high) price for NERVAs or do the mission on the cheap with chemical rockets. Done right the economy implementation can lead to a much richer game-play experience. I am excited in a "please don't disappoint me horribly" kind of way. We are pumped about balancing the economy too. We're okay with the first release being maybe a little lenient but we still want to provide a balanced experience. Even if the prospect of getting it all perfectly balanced has us all staring at the mountain to climb and going 'Fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu...'
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Maxmaps posted:We are pumped about balancing the economy too. We're okay with the first release being maybe a little lenient but we still want to provide a balanced experience. Even if the prospect of getting it all perfectly balanced has us all staring at the mountain to climb and going 'Fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu...' It's going to be an ongoing process, I'm sure. Also, when in doubt, like if you're all split between two things, implement both and have a toggle upon save creation, like you do between sandbox and career. Also please read my above thing about scroll wheel and parts pages. Edit: VVVVV Oh, good point. I don't know why I didn't think of that. That's probably not nearly enough science to make a horrific rover trip nearly worth it, though. ssb fucked around with this message at 21:04 on May 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
shortspecialbus posted:Eve currently doesn't have Biomes, so there's no extra science from going to the water. It's the same biome, but floating counts as a different situation from landed so you can get extra science. Laythe is the same way.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
As far as economy goes, I hope you keep it open to modding. You guys are as a rule very friendly to modders. But in this instance I would love to see ways added to make money through industrial efforts such as kethane and maybe some vague mineral mining. In particular I'd love to have a reason to return large and sometimes heavy payloads back to Kerbin safely to cash in on them. It would provide a neat challenge I think.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
shortspecialbus posted:Also please read my above thing about scroll wheel and parts pages. A big list of improvements to the editor are in the plan, things like that included.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Met posted:
Frightened by Alien Ping Pong Game
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Max, while you're reading the thread, could you please confirm that in .24 using the mousewheel for tweaking maneuvers is symmetric between scrolling up and down? Because right now it's just like dragging except a little less of a pain. "Little more, little more, teensy bit more. drat, overshot! Better scroll the other way a bit-- Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck" It gets really bad when trying to do interplanetary intercepts.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Maxmaps posted:Even if the prospect of getting it all perfectly balanced has us all staring at the mountain to climb and going 'Fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu...' Really glad to hear you say that. Given that everything you've been doing so far has been functionality, it would be easy to think that's all you've got to do. But balance is the truly hard part.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
shortspecialbus posted:On that note, Squad - please add part scrolling so I can scroll the wheel to go through multiple pages of parts like I can do in Subassembly Manager mod. I don't think that's in stock yet. I'm down with this as long as scrolling the part list doesn't also move the camera as you scroll like it does in the tracking center.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:I'm down with this as long as scrolling the part list doesn't also move the camera as you scroll like it does in the tracking center. It does that in the VAB now with Part Catalog (I was mistaken - I'm not using Subassembly config, I'm using Part Catalog. Big difference) and it's only minorly annoying. It doesn't move it much at all with their implementation. And yeah, Part Catalog, not Subassembly Manager. Oops.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Maxmaps posted:A big list of improvements to the editor are in the plan, things like that included. Is one of the improvements to have a flipped-over [bi/tri/quad]-coupler attach itself to all the parts of a corresponding coupler ?? (e.g.  )
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
oddium posted:Is one of the improvements to have a flipped-over [bi/tri/quad]-coupler attach itself to all the parts of a corresponding coupler ?? I’d like that too, but in case you didn’t know, the workaround at the moment is to use docking ports.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
My KSP won't load since I updated Linux to 14.04  Not a drat clue why. Time to flatten and reinstall I think. It'd probably be faster than rebooting into Windows 8 and loading KSP on the WD green drive. lubuntu is nice on an SSD. Once the computer gets past booting / boot menu it's up and ready to use in a few seconds. KSP loads go from "coffee break" to just kind of long. On topic, I thought the reason we can't do many -> one relationships with parts is that KSP uses a tree structure. It would also explain why some things like docking ports can be the parent object of a new craft. I'm guessing that it was the easiest way to allow ships with parts attached by docking ports to actually function, given that those subassemblies are technically a docked craft already. I can also see how it would allow unions like the 3 -> 1 with docking ports but not with normal parts. Now someone chips in and says "YOU ARE SO drat WRONG LOLOL NEWB!!!" in so many words. If it comes to that, I've been playing KSP since the initial release, so nyeeehh. If I'm wrong though, poo poo happens. It's just the way it appears to work to me.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 06:54 |
|
|
Hey, Maxmaps, if you still care about feedback on the new modding platform... - curse.com is wet dogshit, but many people have told you that already - curseforge.com is actually pretty nice, and I prefer it to Spaceport just because the files you download have sensible names, although the fact that the color scheme is half pure white and half pure black means there's no combination of colour inversion settings that will make it stop being eyefucking in some respect - all the discussion about how the Curse client makes everything better is totally irrelevant to me because it apparently only works on windows On the plus side, if you can consistently get modders to post their stuff there and not just on the forums, my check-for-KSP-mod-updates script is going to be a lot simpler now. Right now it scrapes the forums and tries to infer release dates/version numbers from the thread title and contents of the OP, which is not super reliable. General_Failure posted:My KSP won't load since I updated Linux to 14.04 Run it from the command line and report what it says (and pastebin KSP.log somewhere) and maybe someone can help you? quote:On topic, I thought the reason we can't do many -> one relationships with parts is that KSP uses a tree structure. It would also explain why some things like docking ports can be the parent object of a new craft. I'm guessing that it was the easiest way to allow ships with parts attached by docking ports to actually function, given that those subassemblies are technically a docked craft already. I can also see how it would allow unions like the 3 -> 1 with docking ports but not with normal parts. The editor can only do tree structures, but the behaviour of multiple docking ports indicates that the game proper handles arbitrary part graphs just fine. ToxicFrog fucked around with this message at 00:21 on May 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 00:14
|
|
