Kerbal Space Program Kanuary Edition: von Braun ain't got nothing on this v2! - Games

[img]http://i.imgur.com/2PoAm.png[/img] This went MUCH better than expected

Make some then.

[quote=Gojira] oh god a 2m version a 3m version a 1.75m version a 0.5m version think of the possibilities [/quote] this guy annoys me, he wants every part in ever possible size.

[QUOTE=CardBoardBox;34242584]this guy annoys me, he wants every part in ever possible size.[/QUOTE] He's just some dumbshit. Ignore him.

I just use 1 and occasionally 2m parts. I don't get the need for tons of diff. sizes Occasionally I'll use the Saturn V parts but really also, the Kerbernicus in Orbit: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_ubSR2PsjY[/media] it just so happened foobar put "I Feel Free" on. Wow, does it fit.

[QUOTE=cpt.armadillo;34242544]Make some then.[/QUOTE] I have the modeling/creativity abilities of a rhinoceros on heroin.

[QUOTE=MC3craze;34242610]He's just some dumbshit. Ignore him.[/QUOTE] How do we him from the rest of the forums then? [editline]16th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Dacheet;34242613]I have the modeling/creativity abilities of a rhinoceros on heroin.[/QUOTE] I want to test this now. But with cocaine instead of heroin.

When I installed blender, I couldn't get it do do anything.

[QUOTE=cpt.armadillo;34242948]When I installed blender, I couldn't get it do do anything.[/QUOTE] I tried to make a solar panel just now. It was a plane with a deformed UV sphere (whatever that is). I rule.

I sent my Space probe into, well, space, and it just kept going up. My new objective is to reach the sun.

[QUOTE=cpt.armadillo;34242948]When I installed blender, I couldn't get it do do anything.[/QUOTE] I've been modeling with Google Sketchup and it seems pretty easy but I think I haven't been able to actually get the part in-game. [editline]16th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Evil-Muffin;34242994]I sent my Space probe into, well, space, and it just kept going up. My new objective is to reach the sun.[/QUOTE] Good luck, keromrade!

[QUOTE=cwook;34243035]I've been modeling with Google Sketchup and it seems pretty easy but I think I haven't been able to actually get the part in-game. [editline]16th January 2012[/editline] Good luck, keromrade![/QUOTE] Sounds like a good idea, I can't believe I never got that idea before.

I really want to run the math and have a big enough rocket for a direct ascent straight to the Mun. It wouldn't be that hard. Getting to 11.4 k km would be the hard part though.

[del]MC3Craze[/del] Flixxbeatz posted this on his youtube channel. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqSLlpVutLs[/media] It got me thinking, what if someone made a reverse-mounted srb that had 99999999 strength or something and was designed to look like one of the pods from ODST: [img_thumb]http://www.phantom360.com/images/Halo3Expansion/ODST_drop.jpg[/img_thumb]

[QUOTE=cwook;34244852][B]MC3Craze(?)[/B] posted this on his youtube channel. [/QUOTE] That's Flixxbeatz, not me.

[QUOTE=cwook;34244852]It got me thinking, what if someone made a reverse-mounted srb that had 99999999 strength or something and was designed to look like one of the pods from ODST: [img_thumb]http://www.phantom360.com/images/Halo3Expansion/ODST_drop.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] It would spazz out like a loose booster does.

[QUOTE=Goz3rr;34245455]It would spazz out like a loose booster does.[/QUOTE] Maybe a liquid booster then with an ASAS attached?

[QUOTE=cwook;34245701]Maybe a liquid booster then with and ASAS attached?[/QUOTE] SAS deactivates when detached.

[QUOTE=MC3craze;34245795]SAS deactivates when detached.[/QUOTE] But how will I deploy my barrage of smart-missiles from orbit?!

[QUOTE=cwook;34246153]But how will I deploy my barrage of smart-missiles from orbit?![/QUOTE] The Kerbal way. Reenter, land, drop, burn into orbit, detonate. Repeat until all targets destroyed.

[QUOTE=Dacheet;34242377]I wish there were more parts like that.[/QUOTE] I've been thinking of making some satellite parts. I just need more experience in Blender first. I've only ever made 2 models in it. And I can't texture for shit.

Model them and send them to someone who can texture?

Oh FUCK no: [IMG]http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n315/Gubru/ohgodno.jpg[/IMG] [url]http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=6071.0[/url]

Some news on Harv's progress with 0.14 and persistence: [quote] Well, time for progress news: I've started on the scene state saving thing now, because it's the next necessary step in making everything work together. The multi-ship support isn't complete yet, but without saving and resuming, it'll be impossible to test out the multi-ship, and without testing, we can't finish it. So, today I've set out to invent a flexible, robust and expandable format to save the entire scene, and I think I've been able to come up with something. I'm calling is SFS (Saved Flight State), it's a file format, much like the craft files, but it's structured as a tree, with scene-level data at the root, then all vessels and vessel-level data (and their orbits), and inside each vessel definition, all parts and their own data. All this is done with a recursive solution, where each object in the scene is handled by a Prototype abstraction. There are ProtoVessels for ship data, and ProtoParts for each part. This way, each object more or less writes it's own backup, and that gets stored in two places. In game memory, as the set of abstractions, and as an .sfs file, where each protoobject writes itself down to the file. Apart from this, I'm also setting up a system to allow parts (and specific part types) to register 'blind data' for saving. That is, when the scene is saved, all backup-enabled objects have the possiblity to write down their own data for saving, and the SFS system will write all that data down en masse. The SFS is completely unaware of what that data represents, but it will parse it and make it available, so the objects that saved them can do their thing. This is what will make possible saving part-specific data, like the fuel level on a tank, or the attachment state of a strut. I know this probably very uninteresting... it's mostly boring data pushing, but it's necessary so we can have a solution that works. This scheme here is looking quite good, because we can add more data to the same file format later, without breaking compatibility. We'd only have to break it in case we needed to change the way data is saved, or added something which is retroactively necessary to support a feature. We hope that won't happen too frequently. BTW, this system is completely independent from craft files. It won't even use any of the code for that. I want to keep them separated, as they're doing quite different jobs, and saved ship files shouldn't be mixed with game state saves. Right about now I've got the file structure saving down, which is good, but I have to write all the data itself now into the thing, and that's going to be a monster job.... not a particularly hard job, but lots of coding ahead of me today. Well, more news on this as they come. Cheers. [/quote] [b]AND[/b] [quote] Well, more news: Some 500 lines of code later, I think I have a file format worth keeping here. All of the 'usual' data is already being saved, and the blind-save scheme is indeed working. Parts are effectively writing their own backups now. This is good. I thought there would be a much, much larger amount of part data to save, but in most cases, parts only have one or two bits of information to store, and that's on the parts that DO have information to store. Some other parts, like the fuel lines and struts, were already saving their own data into the craft file. For those cases, I thought it best to not disturb what is already working, and just saved the old cData field on the new file format. Now that I look at it, there really is a lot of repeated data on this new file, when compared to craft files... But then again, they ARE both defining ships... it's the context that makes all the difference, and I think it's a wise decision to not reuse the old ShipAssembly code. Next comes the second half of this job, which is loading in and reading all this data. This is always more difficult and frustrating, because when you're saving, you have a very clear output you can read (unless you're saving to binary), but when you're loading, you have to either spend a lot of time writing debug code, or trust that you've paid enough attention to what you were doing... After the file is loadable, will come the last and toughest bit of the whole job, the actual using of the loaded data to resume the flight scene from where it was when it was saved. I'm hoping the game will cooperate with this... The startup logic for the flight scene hasn't been modified since version 0.8. :P Oh well, we'll only know what it's going to be like when we get to it... Cheers [/quote]

Awesome stuff, that HarvesteR is doing.

[quote]All this is done with a recursive solution, where each object in the scene is handled by a [b]Prototype abstraction.[/b] There are [b]ProtoVessels[/b] for ship data, and [b]ProtoParts[/b] for each part. This way, each object more or less writes it's own backup, and that gets stored in two places. In game memory, as the set of abstractions, and as an .sfs file, where each protoobject writes itself down to the file.[/quote] Imagine the saves for ships using the Probodobdyne Kit ProtoProbodobdyneExperimentRack.sfs

[QUOTE=Gubru;34248043]Oh FUCK no: [IMG]http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n315/Gubru/ohgodno.jpg[/IMG] [url]http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=6071.0[/url][/QUOTE] The comics and nonsense are bad enough, but the responses by Cap'n Skunky just push it over the edge. I deceived myself into believing this would never happen, that everyone in the community was intelligent, that Harvester's kind and lax style would keep the forums afloat. The forums are taking water, and the moderators do nothing but piss in it. We have to flood the forums with sanity and sensibility. Only then can good triumph.

^This post does not exist, continue discussion on save files.

[QUOTE=MC3craze;34251002]^This post does not exist, continue discussion on save files.[/QUOTE] You know what would be awesome? If we got some sort of facepunch space-pack of persistent space stations. Basically we all make our own space stations and we compile them together, and then we put the pack of space stations in the OP of this thread, and it would allow us to show off our mad space station making skills. As well as making the game funner because we don't only have our own space stations in orbit, but a bunch of ones made by a ton of different people, so we can explore our designs and such.

[QUOTE=finbe;34251052]You know what would be awesome? If we got some sort of facepunch space-pack of persistent space stations. Basically we all make our own space stations and we compile them together, and then we put the pack of space stations in the OP of this thread, and it would allow us to show off our mad space station skills.[/QUOTE] Especially with the new node part! I wish there were more space station parts.