Feature wise this game is awesome already.
Imagine at the end of the alpha around .9- how awesome the game will be.
[QUOTE=swampie;36470573][thumb]http://filesmelt.com/dl/KSP_2012-06-24_18-49-54-34.png[/thumb]
Upsidown tri-couplers are cool.[/QUOTE]
I'm kind of surprised that design doesn't fly really funny when one of the tri-tanks empties before the others and causes balance issues.
[QUOTE=ChristopherB;36461071] I stopped playing after they transitioned to the pay-for-the-updates system[/QUOTE]
Sorry but what do you mean by this? Are we going to have to buy updates later in development even after buying the game?
I think he means the 0.13 being the last free version thing.
think this is enough rockets
[IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/32047569/Rockets.png[/IMG]
Shit I think I broke it
[thumb]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/32047569/shit.png[/thumb]
That means you didn't have enough rockets
There needs to be a set of parts that are just small bits of set weights, like 0.5, 1, 1.5 etc, so we can balance out asymmetrical rockets (more or mess)
In other news 70km orbit is best orbit
[thumb]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/32047569/70km.png[/thumb]
I hope there are 2 secret things in this update.
Docking.
Official rovers.
[QUOTE=Webby2020;36476577]I hope there are 2 secret things in this update.
Docking.
Reentry effects.[/QUOTE]
Fix'd
But the other thing is cool, too... I guess.
CONGRATS KSP
1 YEAR ANNIVERSARY
[url]http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=14927.0[/url]
I've been with KSP from the beginning, ever since it hit FP.
When gameplay was trying to reach the highest altitude and there were no dreams of a moon, let alone 2. Symmetry was the biggest anticipated feature and nobody thought orbiting was even possible.
Now look where we are.
Landed on Minmus for the first time :')
[img]http://i.imm.io/tUEE.png[/img]
(note that i do have mechjeb - used it to get into orbit, tried to use it to go to minmus, it fucked up, so i did everything manually from that point)
I really wish I had radial SAS so I didn't have to waste my weight budget on so many RCS tanks or mess up my center of gravity with more RCS modules.
Doodled a kerbal (probably jeb)
[IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/32047569/kerbal.png[/IMG]
Will do more with it but its late
[QUOTE=mecaguy03;36480226]Doodled a kerbal (probably jeb)
[IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/32047569/kerbal.png[/IMG]
Would do more with it but its late[/QUOTE]
Looks like he's screaming so it's probably Bob or Bill.
I was aiming more for the huge grin
Oh.
:v:
[QUOTE=Webby2020;36476763]CONGRATS KSP
1 YEAR ANNIVERSARY
[url]http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=14927.0[/url]
I've been with KSP from the beginning, ever since it hit FP.
When gameplay was trying to reach the highest altitude and there were no dreams of a moon, let alone 2. Symmetry was the biggest anticipated feature and nobody thought orbiting was even possible.
Now look where we are.[/QUOTE]
I remember back then, I made a coupla parts and even wrote the CFG documentation for the wiki.
I dunno if anyone ever uses that, though.
I made a mun rocket using only the 909 liquid engines (the tiny ones)
The complete rocket
[IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/43645231/photos/KSP/screenshot1 (2).png[/IMG]
1st stage seperation
[IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/43645231/photos/KSP/screenshot2.png[/IMG]
2nd stage seperation. It lasted for quite a while, but I actually needed that for later.
[IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/43645231/photos/KSP/screenshot4 (2).png[/IMG]
Landed!
[IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/43645231/photos/KSP/screenshot5 (2).png[/IMG]
Going back home.
[IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/43645231/photos/KSP/screenshot6.png[/IMG]
Don't have a decoupler so I gotta have to land the entire lander
[IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/43645231/photos/KSP/screenshot9 (2).png[/IMG]
But I (sort of) managed to do so! At first I hoped for a landing in the ocean (as I got), but as I think of it now, a land landing would probably have saved the rest of the lander. Anyways, mission successful!
[IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/43645231/photos/KSP/screenshot11 (2).png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=scratch (nl);36482332]I made a mun rocket using only the 909 liquid engines (the tiny ones)[/QUOTE]
I did too.
[img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/2668640/vmun.PNG[/img]
Technically the tiny engines are the most efficient ones because their are lightest and the thrust per unit of fuel is equivalent on the vanilla engines.
:D America is designing moon rockets again :D
[url]http://spacenews.com/launch/120622-boeing-cleared-design-sls.html[/url]
[img]http://puu.sh/DArL[/img]
i finally got my space plane to orbit kerbin with a few modifications.
[QUOTE=HarvesteR][QUOTE]Will we be able to use our E.V.A thruster packs while hanging on a ladder, and also, will jumping off of ladders follow Newton's laws of motion? So, jumping off would provide a small amount of force to the ladder (and thus whatever it is attached to).[/QUOTE]
Right now, that's not possible, but I have been thinking about that, and it would be a very interesting thing to do. However, I think that sort of interaction with physical objects needs its own dedicated feature maybe.
About Newton-correct forces when ladder climbing, I did my best here to keep the Kerbals as physically significant as I could while writing the EVA control code. However, character physics, apart from ragdolls, is an exceedingly complex subject. Consider, for instance, how hugely complicated a system of forces, torques and friction you'd need just to simulate something as simple as walking, You'd have to consider the friction coefficients of both the walking surface and the boot soles, consider the area of the boots that touches the ground at any given time during the walk cycle, calculate the forces that result from that friction system and the torque that's being applied to the thigh and calf joints, all to make the character move around.
Needless to say, to make this a feasible endeavour, we have to cut a few corners. It's far easier to just move the character forward while playing an animation that looks like walking, and the end result is much easier to tune and work with.
Long story short then, for character control, we chose to put top priority on gameplay and feel, not realism. That isn't saying characters behave completely unrealistically though, but on the other hand, no one should expect complete physical accuracy from them either.
Worry not though, the space flight physics for EVAs are the same as for vessels. Given enough RCS fuel, you could orbit your way back to Kerbin, without a ship.
[QUOTE]How is fuel for Kerbal EVA packs going to be handled? Is it going to be infinite? Is it going to be "you get so much per EVA, and it resets when you dock," or "you get so much per pack?" Or maybe you'll be able to refuel from RCS tanks on a given spacecraft?[/QUOTE]
It's not going to be infinite. That would make it possible to just forget the ships and go 'solo', and that's quite silly, even for Kerbal standards.
Most likely you will be given a finite amount of fuel when you leave the ship/base/station, and to refuel, you'd need to board it to leave again with a full tank. That would keep it simple and realistic, limiting your range of action with EVAs alone, unless you take some sort of mobile base with you for long expeditions.
Cheers[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=HarvesteR]Here's a new progress update:
The EVA ladder system is very much done I think. At least concerning what it needs to do for now... That means there are only a few other things left to do to be able to call EVAs ready.
First and foremost, the game needs to be able to spawn a Kerbal EVA at the pod's airlock, and also later let you board the ship again through that same airlock. We also need to rig up a menu of sorts on the crew portraits, to let you select which Kerbal to EVA (or IVA) with.
Also, and not at all less importantly, we still need to finish the low-gravity walk system. Right now, what we have just doesn't cut it. We'll need to dedicate some effort to get it working nicely.
With those bits done, we just need to polish and clean up, and set up support features to integrate EVAs in the game, like UI bits and such.
It's still to early to be talking about experimentals and all though... I'm just happy to see that EVAs are past the half-way point now.
Cheers[/QUOTE]
[editline]25th June 2012[/editline]
Firing of the latest version of SpaceX's Merlin engine:
[video=youtube;976LHTpnZkY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=976LHTpnZkY[/video]
Does anyone else wish for a space drydock to make space traveling craft?
Holy shit this cart mod is amazing! Why didn't I get it earlier?
Bought it!
50% wants it 50% wants to support the developer!
I have no clue how they somehow made it into deep space.
[IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/32047569/Kerbal Space Program.png[/IMG]
(Just btw I didnt go download some space background and slap it in the background of this)
[QUOTE=mecaguy03;36488764]I have no clue how they somehow made it into deep space.
[IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/32047569/Kerbal%20Space%20Program.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
With a smile and a big load of fuel.
[QUOTE=mecaguy03;36488764]I have no clue how they somehow made it into deep space.
[IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/32047569/Kerbal%20Space%20Program.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
So that's where that balloon tank and a command pod went off to.
[QUOTE=Pelf;36486629]
[video=youtube;976LHTpnZkY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=976LHTpnZkY[/video][/QUOTE]
good gosh. They really simplified the Merlin. Compare that to the C variant. So much less stuff. attached to it. turbo pump and regen. cooling looks completely different.
compare it
[IMG]http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/images/2007/11/12/merlin_1c_firing_2.jpg[/IMG]
bt if you compare the current 1D to the old Pictures it is very different
[IMG]http://www.raumfahrer.net/forum/smf/index.php?action=media;sa=media;in=11790;preview[/IMG]
Thus i think the old videos they were testing the chamber and nozzle and now that those passed they made the engine super simple.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
