Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jocan2003]

Man are we really 1st april? Otherwise i hope its all a joke..

[BigD145]

Ispil's comment seemed to imply that these where going to be there forever, at all times.

No. This is not the case. Go to twitch.tv/ksptv and watch the Maxmaps Friday hour. The last two Friday's cover the plans, which are upgradeable buildings. All of them will have multiple stages of growth and modernization. Max is the person that tells the community what Squad is up to.

[Krevsin]

Well, it wouldn't be the first time Squad rethought a feature due to the large amount of complaints they received (kerbal EXP for instance).

[BigD145]

The buildings are going to be very flexible in how you destroy and rebuild them. You can go back to cheaper tiers if you're low on funds. They've thought out how they work. XP wasn't well thought out.

[Krevsin]

I meant more along the lines of their aesthetic.

[PTTG??]

I don't even care if they're made of wood. Just so long as the models are on par with the current models.

[LoSboccacc]

I don't even care if they're made of wood. Just so long as the models are on par with the current models.

the roofs lack rear faces so you can see trough looking from botton, and the Bac9 analysis of their geometry doesn't hint at them being anything close to what he did for the current vab.

[nogoodnames]

I managed to get my SpaceShipOne replica to an altitude of 92 km, which is about 20 km lower than the highest altitude the real one achieved. Unfortunately the lead ballast I'm using to keep the craft balanced can't be transferred or dumped with TAC fuel balancer, so during reentry the craft goes into a nosedive and burns up. The only solution I can see which wouldn't necessitate completely redesigning the craft would be to switch back to a mono-propellant ballast, which would cut its delta-v in half. I think this is as far as I can go while still keeping the SS1 design.

Also I still can't figure out what is wrong with remote tech. I thought it was just a terrain issue, but even when the map shows a connection with the ground, it's in grey instead of green and doesn't allow for remote control. The Realism Overhaul says the probe cores are not supported, so maybe it disables your ability to control them through remote tech? I might just have to mod them to work as they do in stock, which would be a shame.

Edit: Updating RO seems to have fixed it, yay!

[alway]

Speaking of which, I recently created a version of Virgin Galactic craft as well. Using FAR for better aerodynamics, infernal robotics for the feathering.
https://imgur.com/a/yyoP8
Like the real one, it drops from a carrier mothership. Unlike the real one, the carrier mothership does not fly home, since multitasking airplanes isn't something that can happen in ksp. It also drops at up to 1200m/s; well above what the real one drops at.

The version in those images are a slightly earlier version than the really successful one; I removed the forwardmost wing surface and inserted an advanced control just behind the cockpit. Before doing that, the one pictures would flip out of control. After doing it, it flew surprisingly well, with even the feathering acting exactly as intended.

My final flight with that better version had an apoapse of 120km, with a forward velocity of 2000m/s; enough to put it down on the far side of the planet. It then did an unpowered gliding descent, using the feathering to speed up or slow down as necessary. It touched down at a nifty 120m/s, entirely in control. Though unfortunately it didn't survive the landing, as it was landing on a hill at night, and so naturally tipped on its side and exploded. All in all, FAR handled the feathering mechanism quite nicely.

And yes, like the real one, if feathered while the engines are on, it rapidly flips around backward.

[Vattic]

Sounds like they are listening to feedback on the low tech buildings. Wonder what we'll end up with.

[lastverb]

IMO they should drop that building b****t update and do 1 version release with some mod features implemented into core (they are fixing their game, and i mean it's all out there):
1) FAR - that's obvious, atmosphere mechanics are stupid in base game.
2) Procedural fairings - FAR can't exists without it
3) Crew manifest - no comment
4) Kerbal Engineer Redux - really? no info about the craft while designing it?
5) KAS - no comment

Optional (with possibility to turn on/off in campaign difficulty settings, due to changing difficulty of the game):
1) TAC life support - obvious
2) RemoteTech - adds depth to unmanned probes
3) TweakSize - why can't i make bigger/smaller parts? can be very cheaty with missions thought
4) Stage recovery - it simply automate process of changing craft, manually deploying chutes and manually recovering

[Chiefwaffles]

One the best parts about mods is how optional they're are.
As it stands, a decent amount of people don't like FAR, remotetech, life support, etc. and would appreciate it not being forced into their game.

Having them in options sort of ruins it as well. Time spent making FAR ingame and toggle-able In the options menu would be better spent doing other things. Modding isn't really that hard.

[Sean Mirrsen]

And besides, while it won't be FAR, aerodynamic fixes are on the plate right after scope-completion, which is next update.

[miauw62]

Kerbal engineer being included by default would be great though.
It lets you see:
Altitude above terrain
Apoapsis and periapsis in craft view (so you can keep an eye on your rocket)
TWR
etc

All of it is incredibly useful.

[Sean Mirrsen]

And incredibly easy to install as a mod. Evidently Squad don't feel that this info should be available in regular KSP yet, because as far as I know KerbalEDU does have that functionality.