Kerbal Space Program Jebruary Edition - Games

[QUOTE=qwerty000;37379656]Eats fuel in one second Making fuel capacity 999999 doesn't help[/QUOTE] Then make it a ridiculously low number. Alternatively, Control-Alt-Shift-D for infinite fuel

[QUOTE=CardBoardBox;37379291]:D just waiting for code now. who knows how long that will be... [IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1417259/kerbal/Soon%20hopefully.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] I'm gonna be honest, that topology looks awful. Looks like you automatically carved the holes.

[QUOTE=Dacheet;37379698] Alternatively, Control-Alt-Shift-D for infinite fuel[/QUOTE] Ohhhhhhh Neat, thanks

[QUOTE=OvB;37379620]I've always been curious how the real Dragon was going to integrate landing legs into it's body. Having them pop out of the heat shield seems risky to me, as you're adding another open seam to something that's extremely important for the crews survival. Something sort of like what you have would seem the safest, but I don't know the logistics. Anyway, I'm just rambling on. I like the capsule so far.[/QUOTE] yeah I was not much of a fan of it either :) As for the Dragon, its shield is tiles so it does have seams already. And it was the outer edges of the shield that were being used as the landing feet. PICA-X is very durable so it could take the pressure of the ground and any shock that comes from it. That design also takes up the least amount of space inside the fuel and RCS region. And because it used the out edges and Dragon has a lifting body style Entry for Low Gs the Edge regions used were the ones farthest from the most forward point of the shield. Also, the outer Edge is not touched as much as the forward point as the shock is prety wide because the capsules sides are so steep. For example Apollo was 35 degree slope and all was well. Orion is 30 degree slope and they need to add some heat tiles on part of the side because of it. So the steeper the side walls the less heat they get. Ironic. That being said I disliked SpaceX way. I looked into it as you can see :D [editline]23rd August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=TextQUAKE;37379849]I'm gonna be honest, that topology looks awful. Looks like you automatically carved the holes.[/QUOTE] Nope. I put them in by hand. Boolean does a terrible job. I hand made almost every poly. Circle skew topologies were carefully studies and replicated. [IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1417259/kerbal/Dragon RCS referecnes.png[/IMG]

Im trying to get a stream up, if anyone want to see me make a vtol and fly it to the mun, here is the link: [URL]http://www.ustream.tv/channel/gta-man1?chatTurnedOff=1[/URL]

[QUOTE=gta-man12345;37379916]Im trying to get a stream up, if anyone want to see me make a vtol and fly it to the moon, here is the link: [URL]http://www.ustream.tv/channel/gta-man1?chatTurnedOff=1[/URL][/QUOTE] the feed back was terrible. edit: yeah that feed back.. [editline]23rd August 2012[/editline] Quick question. Should i make it so that the widest part of the Capsule is 2.5 or make the trunk 2.5 since the Dragon capsule is slightly wider than the trunk.

[QUOTE=CardBoardBox;37379863]yeah I was not much of a fan of it either :) As for the Dragon, its shield is tiles so it does have seams already. And it was the outer edges of the shield that were being used as the landing feet. PICA-X is very durable so it could take the pressure of the ground and any shock that comes from it. That design also takes up the least amount of space inside the fuel and RCS region. And because it used the out edges and Dragon has a lifting body style Entry for Low Gs the Edge regions used were the ones farthest from the most forward point of the shield. Also, the outer Edge is not touched as much as the forward point as the shock is prety wide because the capsules sides are so steep. For example Apollo was 35 degree slope and all was well. Orion is 30 degree slope and they need to add some heat tiles on part of the side because of it. So the steeper the side walls the less heat they get. Ironic. That being said I disliked SpaceX way. I looked into it as you can see :D [editline]23rd August 2012[/editline] Nope. I put them in by hand. Boolean does a terrible job. I hand made almost every poly. Circle skew topologies were carefully studies and replicated. [IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1417259/kerbal/Dragon RCS referecnes.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] You should redo those areas and try to keep triangle density as consistent as you can. Most games use vertex lighting which will make things look very weird when you have a lot of triangles in one place.

[QUOTE=TextQUAKE;37380886]You should redo those areas and try to keep triangle density as consistent as you can. Most games use vertex lighting which will make things look very weird when you have a lot of triangles in one place.[/QUOTE] As stated I redid the Vertex Normals myself. Thus this will not be a problem. besides I already showed a picture of what it looked like in game. with out the texture map with the poly lines it would be smooth as the 3ds max render (the purple one) :D I am well aware of vertex lighting. already slayed that problem ^^ thanks for the input though.

So how do I go about doing a trans-kerbin injection? Where along my parking orbit do I need to burn?

I just managed to figure out how to fix my strange texture problems. As it turns out, deleting the meshes fixes the problem, but unfortunately, my computer has had a longstanding issue with creating new meshes, and I can't get it to generate new meshes for some of the parts. So, I'll be working with carbon fiber parts until the pack is balanced, at which point I'll probably get cardboard to test the parts out and generate the meshes on his computer to fix the texture error.

I just did a mental operation in orbit. I wanted to get a satellite into orbit around the Mun with some kerbals in it and use the same ship to get a lander on the Mun. But my current moon lander is single capacity. So I attached a three man pod in the middle of my craft along with a satellite, engines above and below. Got that into orbit around Kerbin. Sent up a budget three-man Kerbin orbiter and manually rendezvoused so that it was about 500m away from the satellite ship (I don't have MechJeb)/ EVAd two of my Kerbals over to the empty three-man pod (I lost one in an unsuccessful attempt earlier on in the mission). Took control of the Kerbal in the command pod of the satellite ship and headed to Mun orbit. Released the satellite with the Kerbals in it then took the lander down and managed to get within a couple of hundred meters of my other couple of landers. I might have tipped it over accidentally and ended up breaking the engines off but it could have been worse

Just landed on Mun for the first time! Well, sort of landed. I ended up flopping over sideways but luckily my lander happened to have landing legs that, if you're careful, can flip you back up. Only have one tank of fuel left and no parachute though. Sorry Rofurt Kerman. v:v:v

[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;37382911]I just managed to figure out how to fix my strange texture problems. As it turns out, deleting the meshes fixes the problem, but unfortunately, my computer has had a longstanding issue with creating new meshes, and I can't get it to generate new meshes for some of the parts. So, I'll be working with carbon fiber parts until the pack is balanced, at which point I'll probably get cardboard to test the parts out and generate the meshes on his computer to fix the texture error.[/QUOTE] It only built meshes right for some of the broken ones in like 0.14. and.... it has to rebuild them because you renamed them and the mesh names had to adjust for this. So... now basically need to turn everything into a .mu lol. thats okay it will be less MBs.

My current hobby is making a ship in one go, no tests or anything, and flying it to the moon or whatever and seeing if it works. My last two worked perfectly and landed on minmus

Almost landed it perfectly on Minmus too but I had 4 extra tanks of fuel left that I tried to land with. Didn't go so well. Bill survived but he's stuck there now.

i have noticed something they are not enforcing their new licensing rule bullshit can i declare a victory?

[QUOTE=jordguitar;37385661]i have noticed something they are not enforcing their new licensing rule bullshit can i declare a victory?[/QUOTE] You could try dropping it.

I hope Bill has some good spinal support: [IMG]http://puu.sh/YnNE[/IMG] [editline]24th August 2012[/editline] R.I.P. Bill [IMG]http://puu.sh/YnQX[/IMG]

I think we should do some little facepunch challenges to liven the thread up a little

putting stuff in orbit is fucking fun as I am typing this post, there is a rocket sending a satellite to a 120km orbit :d

Launch a ship that's wider than it is tall, no struts or other support parts (stock only maybe?)

[QUOTE=latin_geek;37388461]Launch a ship that's wider than it is tall, no struts or other support parts (stock only maybe?)[/QUOTE] and then wobbly as fuck

I can do that easy. Just use a CM with an [del]rcs tank[/del] a short fuel tank with an engine and put tanks on the sides of it and link them up with fuel lines. [editline]24th August 2012[/editline] done it

I wish in the debug menu there was an "Unbreakable Kerbal" option. I really want to see how the ragdoll reacts slamming into the Mun at 3 km/s

[QUOTE=CardBoardBox;37379291]:D just waiting for code now. who knows how long that will be... [IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1417259/kerbal/Soon%20hopefully.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] Oh hey it's a new picture. Have this for inspiration: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NKFtrlrOIs[/media] [editline]24th August 2012[/editline] Does it have windows?

HarvesteR put up a new blog post, for those interested. [quote=HarvesteR's Dev Blag] Hi again, After the Scenario Logic got done, it was time to implement a tutorial system. Tutorials were to be coded using ScenarioModules as a base, so we had a nice starting point to code it on already, but the main goal was that we wanted to 'write' tutorials, not 'code' them, as much as possible. So, enter the TutorialScenario class. This base class handles the common tasks of a tutorial type scenario, like drawing the instructor dialog, loading the assets for it, and managing the base logic as well. For the Tutorial System, we are using a specialized version of the same state machine solver we used for the Kerbal EVA code. It worked out really well for the EVAs, and using a proper FSM system instead of just a collection of tutorial dialog pages means we can have a lot more flexibility when writing tutorials. The TutorialFSM system then, is a complete state machine, where states can be added as sequenced pages, or as special, event-triggered ones. That means we can have a main tutorial sequence, and special exception-trapping pages where the tutorial can detect if you're doing something wrong, and tell you about it, or correct you somehow. It's worked out nicely so far. Now, a big issue we had with our old tutorials was that they were visually unappealing, and quite boring to follow, since they were just a bunch of pages with nothing but text, and with very limited interactivity. This time, we wanted to do it right, and have Kerbal Instructors leading you through the steps. I always loved how SimCity 3000 had the city "Advisors" telling you things, and that was a big inspiration to how the Instructors were implemented. The plan is that there is an Instructor, or advisor character for each area of the game. For 0.17, we created two characters, one for teaching spacecraft construction, and another for teaching flight and orbiting. So, meet your instructors: [img]http://i.imgur.com/xKW7A.png[/img] and [img]http://i.imgur.com/p3VEn.png[/img] As you've probably guessed, Gene is your Flight Instructor, and leads you through the basic flight, launching, and orbiting tutorials. Wernher, as you'd expect, ist die rackete scientist who will teach you how to construct spacecraft. These guys are rendered to an offscreen buffer, and that then gets drawn to the tutorial dialogs, very much like the crew portraits in flight. They also have a simple emote system, that allows them to be animated (to some extent) according to the tutorial logic. For instance, if you do something right, they can nod in approval or give you thumbs up. If you mess up, they can facepalm or show their discontent in various other ways. That's the base system for the tutorials then. We are currently in the process of writing the tutorials themselves now, and that is proving to be quite a lot more work than initially estimated though. Writing a tutorial is pretty easy with the new system, but writing a good tutorial is an art form. It's quite likely we won't be able to have all the tutorials we want for this release I think, but I'd rather have a few good tutorials included than a bunch of bad ones anyway. That's about it for tutorials, for now at least. Cheers [/quote] I'm wondering if these tutorials are going to have any value to people who have already been playing KSP since its earliest of releases. It might be refreshing to have some kind of "formal" education on how to orbit, etc.

[QUOTE=kidwithsword;37389835]HarvesteR put up a new blog post, for those interested. I'm wondering if these tutorials are going to have any value to people who have already been playing KSP since its earliest of releases. It might be refreshing to have some kind of "formal" education on how to orbit, etc.[/QUOTE] I'd play it just to see how awesome it is.

[QUOTE=kidwithsword;37389835]HarvesteR put up a new blog post, for those interested. I'm wondering if these tutorials are going to have any value to people who have already been playing KSP since its earliest of releases. It might be refreshing to have some kind of "formal" education on how to orbit, etc.[/QUOTE] crashing 101 exploding with style

So I now have some orbital infrastructure up and running, consisting of 5 COMSATs, a "node" COMSAT in KSO directly above KSC, and a space station which can house 3 crew + a CrewTank. My mission right now is to get a few more crew onto that station so I can use it as Mission Control for my next project, which is setting up Munar infrastructure and MAYBE EVEN a land based radio network (munar comsats are 4 scrubs). Problem is, I'm stuck on building my taxi vehicle. I try to do things somewhat realistically because I treat KSP almost as a very light engineering + astronautical simulator. In this case, I'm trying to make my taxi series of vehicles as spaceplanes, which would be 100% reusable, being able to land and "refuel" and stuff. But I cannot get spaceplanes into space, which is a fairly important part of a <SPACE> plane. Does anyone have any experience in building ones that can actually get into orbit, and have fuel left to maneuver around the kerbol system? The farthest I've ever gotten was into a fairly elliptical ~100km orbit, with no fuel left to deorbit.

It's pretty cool how they reference Gene Kranz and Wernher von Braun. [QUOTE]I always loved how SimCity 3000 had the city "Advisors" telling you things, and that was a big inspiration to how the Instructors were implemented.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://puu.sh/YqF0[/IMG]