lots of things would be cool. Like if I was not stuck in montana away from my rig. Meanwhile in Montana I a have seen and yelled "fuck you" at a grizzly bear just across the road. My mission is complete in life.
oh i also saw an ICBM matainance truck doing something. note the minute man on the side of the truck. once i have access to DB i will be posting the full story if anyone wants. note the guy looking at me with binocs in the truck :D
[IMG]https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s720x720/563304_3926635238657_681307762_n.jpg[/IMG]
at another but while waiting a gatline gun armed humvee pulled up behind us.
[IMG]https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s720x720/531536_3926616598191_893270430_n.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=CardBoardBox;36656376]lots of things would be cool. Like if I was not stuck in montana away from my rig. Meanwhile in Montana I a have seen and yelled "fuck you" at a grizzly bear just across the road. My mission is complete in life.
[/QUOTE]
I did that, too.
The zookeeper wasn't all that happy, though.
[QUOTE=Dacheet;36656405]I did that, too.
The zookeeper wasn't all that happy, though.[/QUOTE]was not on a zoo. it was just waltzing around Glacier national park. was also some black bears.. two were fucking. it was like a black teddy bear rape session. girls.. they play hard to get even if they aren't human...
do my ICBM pics show up to others?
I feel like an idiot, just found out jet and turbojet engines work with rocket-fuel tanks. Why would anyone even bother using jet-fuel tanks when rocket-fuel tanks hold more than twice the fuel and are only little heavier?
They're not really a little bit heavier. They are slightly more than double the weight and even though it has triple the amount of fuel, I found it impossible to fly a plane using rocket fuel tanks and jet engines. The wings either break off once I lift off the ground, or the plane is just uncontrollable and flips out easily.
[QUOTE=Dark-Energy;36658206]They're not really a little bit heavier. They are slightly more than double the weight and even though it has triple the amount of fuel, I found it impossible to fly a plane using rocket fuel tanks and jet engines. The wings either break off once I lift off the ground, or the plane is just uncontrollable and flips out easily.[/QUOTE]
I replaced the jet-tanks with the rocket-tanks on the plane I pictured above and they hardly changed the flight characteristics at all, just I can go fly 2-3x as far now.
I just made a rocket car.
There really needs to be a slow-mo thing
Is it possible to remove debris and other craft from the tracking station? Also the tracking center is not tracking things anymore either. I only have 10 or so things in the center and I raised the limit to a thousand.
[QUOTE=Lamar;36658820]Is it possible to remove debris and other craft from the tracking station? Also the tracking center is not tracking things anymore either. I only have 10 or so things in the center and I raised the limit to a thousand.[/QUOTE]
From an active flight you can use the map to switch focus to a piece of debris and then end its flight
does anyone else not like the jets? I'm just terrible at them.
[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;36663469]does anyone else not like the jets? I'm just terrible at them.[/QUOTE]
Ever since I got back into this game, I've been enjoying making jets more than anything else. They're not too hard to make once you have enough lift. I think they'll be a lot easier though once engine bodies and intakes actually work.
Whenever I make jets they are made of glass and paper mache
I've been trying to make a skycrane for my rover for an hour and I feel retarded
[QUOTE=HarvesteR]Quote from: Rascal Nag on Today at 04:16:11 PM
I guess also on the subject of crew count is different size pods. Is this a particularly hard thing to implement or is getting rid of some crew displays and seats and whatever else has to be done pretty easy?
I've been working on this today. Even though IVAs aren't going to be complete for 0.16, we still need to deal with how crews are assigned to parts, because even without a first-person cockpit view, there needs to be a minimal amount of support for crew transfers now, as EVAs pretty much consist of transferring crew from one part (Command Pod) to another (EVA suit), and switching focus to it.
So, what I did today was make the abstract crew handling completely independent from the character spawning. Now, parts define their crew capacity through the cfg file, and the internal cockpit mesh will spawn as many kerbals as there are seats defined (for now, three).
Actually, it goes a little further than that. Even having an internal model is completely optional now. You can have a part that carries crew but doesn't have an internal model (The EVA suits themselves, for instance). The crew will be there 'in spirit', but the portraits won't spawn.
This rewrite also accounts for discrepancies on the crew capacity definition and the amount of seats available. If more seats than crew capacity are defined, some seats will be left unused. If there are less seats than crew, you'll see as many portraits are there are seats, and whenever a seat is made available, the next unspawned crewmember will "scoot over".
This essentially frees parts and vessels from having to worry about the internal space representation of themselves or their crew. Moving crew around is as simple as calling a few methods on the parts now.
I've been setting proper crew capacities for each command pod now. The old mk1 pod now carries a single kerbal. The spaceplane cockpits each carry two, and the new command pod carries three. I've also given them all hatch nodes so that you're able to board them again when you approach the 'hatch'. (The hatch is just a texture actually, but it's set up to let you board if you approach it).
Next up, I want to do something about the Flight UI when on EVA. Most of it is useless then, so I want to disable most of it, or maybe move some things around.
Cheers[/QUOTE]
Can we get sources on these blog quotes? Thanks.
[QUOTE=Wave160;36667934]Can we get sources on these blog quotes? Thanks.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=13530.msg234953#msg234953"]Here you go.[/URL] Most of these quotes come from the 0.16 Update dev log in the KSP Development subforum.
[QUOTE=Lamar;36664336]Ever since I got back into this game, I've been enjoying making jets more than anything else. They're not too hard to make once you have enough lift. I think they'll be a lot easier though once engine bodies and intakes actually work.[/QUOTE]
They kind of start to get unflyable once you exceed 20 engines though
haha. so we were driving around the desert today in Utah and suddenly there was this shitty sign in my preiphial vision which drew my attention. It was a rusty pos sign that made it seem like it was abandoned. but then suddenly my brain realized it was the ATK space systems sign.
We randomly happened upon ATK's booster test sight :D pics if anyone wants them.
[IMG]http://imgkk.com/i/a-ak.jpg[/IMG]
Okay I have pretty much reached my limit in patience in getting anything larger than this flying
[QUOTE=fishyfish777;36668883][IMG]http://imgkk.com/i/a-ak.jpg[/IMG]
Okay I have pretty much reached my limit in patience in getting anything larger than this flying[/QUOTE]
Congratulations, you've accomplished the dream of many mentally-unstable people of the 1800s.
I got to the moon for the first time ,but then...
[img_thumb]http://puu.sh/GHRH[/img_thumb]
:c
I dunno where I went wrong I hit the ground at about 5m/s?
[QUOTE=loco;36669156]I got to the moon for the first time ,but then...
[img_thumb]http://puu.sh/GHRH[/img_thumb]
:c
I dunno where I went wrong I hit the ground at about 5m/s?[/QUOTE]
imagine falling 5 meters per second in real life
[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;36669318]imagine falling 5 meters per second in real life[/QUOTE]
i feel like this wouldn't happen so much with an imperial units option.
call me dumb if you must, but 1000 m/s doesn't really register to me.
[QUOTE=fskman;36669503]i feel like this wouldn't happen so much with an imperial units option.
call me dumb if you must, but 1000 m/s doesn't really register to me.[/QUOTE]
Its still only about 11ish miles per hour. I think a lunar lander could survive that.
[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;36669318]imagine falling 5 meters per second in real life[/QUOTE]
Acceleration due to gravity is 9m/s on earth.
I'm pretty sure that a lander can survive a fall of < 1 second on earth, much less the moon, just saying.
[QUOTE=draugur;36669654]Acceleration due to gravity is 9m/s on earth.
I'm pretty sure that a lander can survive a fall of < 1 second on earth, much less the moon, just saying.[/QUOTE]
On the moon it's only 1.5 m/s^2. It's a pretty big difference.
As I recall, lunar legs can stand up to 14m/s, unless the impact tolerance indicator is retarded and doesn't follow speeds for whatever reason.
[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;36669770]On the moon it's only 1.5 m/s^2. It's a pretty big difference.[/QUOTE]
The moon's acceleration due to gravity shouldn't matter considering the legs are capable of withstanding impacts of larger forces on a larger body. That's like saying that a crane that can lift 300 tonnes couldn't lift 100 tonnes because it's not rated for 100 tonnes. Your logic isn't making sense to me.
Unless the tensile strength of an item somehow magically scales its tensile strength when it changes from being on the moon to the earth, I don't see why it should have broken.
[QUOTE=draugur;36670050]The moon's acceleration due to gravity shouldn't matter considering the legs are capable of withstanding impacts of larger forces on a larger body. That's like saying that a crane that can lift 300 tonnes couldn't lift 100 tonnes because it's not rated for 100 tonnes. Your logic isn't making sense to me.
Unless the tensile strength of an item somehow magically scales its tensile strength when it changes from being on the moon to the earth, I don't see why it should have broken.[/QUOTE]
I was... agreeing with you about that it shouldn't break from a 1s fall.
When did he show it landing at >5 m/s on Kerbin, though?
[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;36670922]I was... agreeing with you about that it shouldn't break from a 1s fall.
When did he show it landing at >5 m/s on Kerbin, though?[/QUOTE]
Oh, I thought you were arguing against me. My bad.
I was speaking on the premise that the guys above said it made sense for it to have broken, which it doesn't.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
