Gaming The Kerbal Space Program - Version 1.2.x

Cool! :)

Do the fuel tanks also feed fuel through structural components like decouplers and tricouplers like shown in the video?
 
Cool! :)

Do the fuel tanks also feed fuel through structural components like decouplers and tricouplers like shown in the video?

Fuel can flow through tricouplers in the next version, and all other Strut parts. It won't flow through Decouplers though. I think not allowing that adds to the challenge a little.


Now for a proto-update (meaning it's some new idea I want to discuss):

Lately I've been hearing lots of requests for a more stable way to secure parts to the rocket. And they're totally right. Right now the attachment method (mainly the lateral attachment) is quite weak, and will only work well with small parts and smaller designs... there isn't much room to go crazy.

So I've been thinking for a while on how to address that, in a way that won't destroy everything we already have...

Basically the whole issue means we have to find a way to add more bracing to the rocket parts... this means we have to step away from the tree-like structure that is the result of a VAB build. But how?

Something ocurred to me today, that might just work: Strut Connectors.

This part is a special(-ish) part that you grab and place much like the others. But it does something more. Once you place it, it automatically spawns it's B counterpart, so you have to place that as well.
Once both Strut Connectors A and B are in place, a structural beam gets created in between them.

This approach could work really well over the existing framework I think. For one, both connectors are just parts, like the others, but the special thing about it is that they create a hard link between themselves.
Another good thing about it is that since both connectors need surfaces to attach to, you NEED to have the underlying structure of the ship already in place. So this strut can never be the one and only connection between parts.

Also, it doesn't mess with the tree-structure, since both connectors are separated parts. They just share a physical linkage, but hierarquically, they're in different places.

Now, the second bit of obvious trouble is decoupling. surely, if you decouple something that's being held up by other points, it can't go well... So I thought maybe the struts could be listening for a disconnection (an intentional one), and will also detach themselves if they find out that you've jettisoned a bit of the ship away. Which is also interesting, because if the main decoupler breaks accidentally, the struts won't know about it, and now you have a part of the ship stuck to you.

And this is why I'm writing all this... I want to get feedback on this idea, to try and spot conceptual problems or better solutions.

So, what do you think?

Cheers
 
oh good, I may finally be able to place my uber engine on the bottom of a craft without it breaking off the moment I press space.
 
A quick update here:

Today I fixed a potential problem with the symmetry. On parts like the tricoupler, it's possible to use symmetry to build the 3 sides as one, provided, of course, that you're using the 3-sided symmetry mode. So I set up a cfg-defined variable, that lets you define the symmetry mode to use for a part. The tricoupler is now set for mode 2, which is the 3-sided mode. So if you're using any kind of symmetry and try to attach a part to the tricoupler, it will snap back to 3-sided mode.

So all parts that need/want to have stack symmetry, like the tricoupler, have to define the stackSymmetry parameter in the cfg now.

Cheers
 
It won't flow through Decouplers though. I think not allowing that adds to the challenge a little.
As I read this, external drop tanks came into my mind. What about that? :thumbup:

For your strut question. I can't really imagine in which situation they would be usefull. Could you make a picture or a graph or so? :)
 
Is there an option to add a new stage manually? This design is limiting me to four and I can't get all the stages to separate at the right times.
 
Last edited:
Just wanted to tell everyone that if they are looking for a nuclear engine, they should take a look at the Kerbal forum.

I build a little mod of the normal liquid engine to make a nuclear engine.

I do wonder where Jeb managed to acquire the nuclear material needed for the engine...

Pros:

It has a higher thrust then the liquid engine
It has a higher temperature tolerance
It needs lesser fuel

Cons:

Its a princess and likes to messily explode
Its runs rather hot and overheats easily
It weight twice as much as the normal liquid engine
It can't be turned off completely. Due to engine design there has to be fuel flowing through it to cool it down.

On another note, I have run a test to see if there is the possibility to use a liquid upper stage for a controlled descent. It does work when you turn on the SAS if the engine points down.

Downside. As soon as you turn off the engine at touchdown, the upper stage topples over and explodes violently.
 
Where did you download the user made parts from?
I went trough this topic high and low, and found no links.
 
Where did you download the user made parts from?
I went trough this topic high and low, and found no links.

i had trouble finding anything too... it seems some addons were released during the recent not-glorious moments for the servers... (went down)

anyways, because of that i noticed there was a board missing, somewhere to announce ideas and releases... so i went on a created the Projects and Releases section... whichi was a good call, i was told by HarvesteR who managed to somehow "lock himself out" of his own forums - preventing him from creating it himself... :P

well, it's up now - addon makers should eventuually migrate their releases there, so at least now we know where to find stuff :cheers:
 
Good idea that. And I was the first one to make a thread there!

Whooo me!

:p

Well, perhaps my Nuclear Engine is a bit heavy through... Considering Kerbal constructions it should be lighter due to Kerbal security... :p
 
As I read this, external drop tanks came into my mind. What about that? :thumbup:

For your strut question. I can't really imagine in which situation they would be usefull. Could you make a picture or a graph or so? :)

Imagine a rocket with 3 fuel tanks stacked below the pod, and below that, a tricoupler with 3 engines attached.

Before, fuel wouldn't flow through the tricoupler, now it does.

About external tanks, the idea is to make a new type of decoupler, or some other part, that can transfer fuel from the tank to the engine.
The way this is setup right now, it's just a matter of overriding a function in the part's base class to enable crossfeed capabilities.

Hmm, actually, it could be made even easier if there was a flag to enable crossfeed at the base class definition... then it would be definable through the part.cfg

Cheers

Whoa I was :ninja:'d by a whole page! :lol:

Yeah, I managed to lock myself out of the forums... because my DNS server hasn't updated itself to the new host... But I was able to get in through a proxy server... I guess it'll have to do for now :P

Cheers again

---------- Post added at 09:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:42 PM ----------

Oh and good news! We've decided to go ahead and release version 0.8.1 with the symmetry and advanced editing features today! It's up already.

Some DNS servers are subbornly refusing to go over to the new domain, so if you don't see the new version listed there, it's because of that. If that happens, check the second to last post on the dev blogs. It contains instructions on how to use a proxy server to see the updated site.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Thanks to whoever made this, I just woke up my apartment block laughing.


EDIT: The Kerbal "space program" is currently believed to have military uses, neighbouring countries are considering international sanctions.


EDIT #2: 0.8.1 is out, get it while it's hot! :woohoo::cheers::hailprobe:
 
Last edited:
And it makes perfect sense too. For a space program to branch of in to military uses. I can see huge potential for mission scenarios here. Include opposing nations, and target buildings in those nations. People love blowing things up in games, and adding a military side to this would definitely benefit the game. Casual gamers attention would be caught better if they had an objective of building an ICBM to aim for and nuke a city half a planet away, before they themselves get nuked by an A.I. script. While 'orbitering' is fun for us the Orbiter crowd, your average casual gamer would get bored rather quickly if all they had to do was build and launch rockets in to space.








.​
 
Last edited:
Thanks to whoever made this, I just woke up my apartment block laughing.

YouTube - ‪Kerbal Space Program - Kerbal Pigeonship‬‏

:rofl::rofl::rofl:...and by drawing inspiration from this, I created a LES (that doesn't do it's job):

lestest.png


Once this takes off, the whole thing crashes into each other, killing the crew (so much for LES).
 
I went there just before the 503 and downloaded a copy, and I got a 0.8 no 0.8.2
Strange.
 
Hi again!

I've uploaded a quick hotfix update (0.8.2) to fix some bugs that slipped past us.

Also, yea, the server's having a very tough time right now... in the last 3 days the download count went from 5000 to over 20,000.

On hindsight, I think we should have sprung for the Amazon Cloud Server...

But this server's pretty new, give it some time to get used to things ;)

Cheers
 
Back
Top