Pause of certain Team Hawk missions, and planned rank improvements.
- Thread starter Mooncrasher
- Start date
ilikespace
Planet editor
Recruit
Hot Stuff
Space Glider
Swingin' on a Star
Planet Sculptor
Voyager Quest
Atlas
Floater
The game still does not have the precision for deep space encounters. I just did one to test again, it is possible but painful. All the navigation system did was get me kind of close enough to start messing with it on my own. I matched orbits exactly, but I was still several thousand km away. If I wasn't very familiar with orbital mechanics there is no way I could have gotten close enough. The trajectories of spacecraft when you're this zoomed in are constantly jittering back and forth every single frame so it's terrible to watch too. The game crashed because of the navigation tool once I was nearing the (quite imprecise) encounter it had shown, so I left it off until I got within the 5km range where it shows the velocity directions.
@Alta
With under pressure
I totally fail to see the problem 
View attachment 121075
View attachment 121076
View attachment 121077
View attachment 121078
View attachment 121079
Iit should go into team Titan!
View attachment 121075
View attachment 121076
View attachment 121077
View attachment 121078
View attachment 121079
Iit should go into team Titan!
I totally fail to see the problem
View attachment 121075
View attachment 121076
View attachment 121077
View attachment 121078
View attachment 121079
This challenge is too easy, it should go into team Titan!
View attachment 121075
View attachment 121076
View attachment 121077
View attachment 121078
View attachment 121079
This challenge is too easy, it should go into team Titan!
What does everyone think of this statement:
A shuttle with a side-mounted booster cannot have the hitboxes of the orbiter engines vertically overlapping with the hitboxes of booster engines, or visa versa, in the build grid or launchpad at moment of lift-off.
The intention with this statement is to provide a strict and easily understandable definition for that kind of shuttle, because the performance demanded will be less than other types of shuttles. If you can think of a loophole for it, I'd love to see it!
On a related topic, I made a prototype of a no DLC shuttle with side mounted booster. It has a very ugly booster, but it satisfies the definition above, and has a payload fraction of 13% (reminder that only 10% was previously required, and you were allowed to use bottom mounted boosters that were easy to balance)
Any thoughts about it with regards to the overhaul? Think 13% is enough? Think it would be easier to reach 13% with DLC?
And before you ask, I detached that fairing before it got burnt, so technically no damage. What are your opinions about that as well?
A shuttle with a side-mounted booster cannot have the hitboxes of the orbiter engines vertically overlapping with the hitboxes of booster engines, or visa versa, in the build grid or launchpad at moment of lift-off.
The intention with this statement is to provide a strict and easily understandable definition for that kind of shuttle, because the performance demanded will be less than other types of shuttles. If you can think of a loophole for it, I'd love to see it!
On a related topic, I made a prototype of a no DLC shuttle with side mounted booster. It has a very ugly booster, but it satisfies the definition above, and has a payload fraction of 13% (reminder that only 10% was previously required, and you were allowed to use bottom mounted boosters that were easy to balance)
And before you ask, I detached that fairing before it got burnt, so technically no damage. What are your opinions about that as well?
I think whether the engine is turned on should be described as well for the aformentioned condition. Maybe just prohibit any stage below the orbiter?
What about this? Basically staged side mounted shuttle. The orbiter's engine and main booster's engine hitbox doesn't hit each other, and doesn't hit anything if turned off. The bottom booster's engine also doesn't hit each other's hitbox.
If you can think of a loophole for it, I'd love to see it!
Hmm, is the wording that bad? The meaning of "vertically overlapping" was supposed to refer engine hitboxes sharing the same x-coordinate.
To use my shuttle as an example:
Yellow (on the orbiter) doesn't vertically overlap with green (on the booster) at any point on the x-axis.
Purple on the bottom of the booster does overlap with purple on the top of the booster, but that's ok because they're both booster engines.
To use yours as an example:
Yellow (on the orbiter) DOES vertically overlap with green (on the booster) at some point on the x-axis, which is disallowed by the intention behind my statement.
Purple on the bottom of the booster also does overlap with purple on the top of the booster, but that's ok because they're both booster engines.
To use my shuttle as an example:
Yellow (on the orbiter) doesn't vertically overlap with green (on the booster) at any point on the x-axis.
Purple on the bottom of the booster does overlap with purple on the top of the booster, but that's ok because they're both booster engines.
To use yours as an example:
Yellow (on the orbiter) DOES vertically overlap with green (on the booster) at some point on the x-axis, which is disallowed by the intention behind my statement.
Purple on the bottom of the booster also does overlap with purple on the top of the booster, but that's ok because they're both booster engines.
I see what you mean now, that the hitbox must not share the area in the x-axis. At first I thought the hitbox is limited to the hitbox square only, not expanded throughout the direction of y negative or away from the nozzle. I thought it's impossible to have an overlapped hitbox square, since when the engines are turned on, one of them will be destroyed.
Maybe just want to add, that the orbiter's engine must be turned on on launch?
Another leeway I could come up with:
Or something like this, LOL.
Maybe just want to add, that the orbiter's engine must be turned on on launch?
Another leeway I could come up with:
Or something like this, LOL.
Buran didn't do that
Good loopholes!
What if I changed the statement to:
A shuttle with a side-mounted booster cannot have the hitboxes of the orbiter engines vertically overlapping with the hitboxes of booster engines in the x-axis, or visa versa, in the build grid or launchpad at moment of lift-off.
The engines of the booster must be restricted to one side of the orbiter and also not pass the centreline of the orbiter, as defined by taking the mid-point of a line drawn on the x-axis from left-most part of the orbiter body (excluding the tail) to the rightmost part of the orbiter body (excluding heatshields) at its widest point.
Good loopholes!
What if I changed the statement to:
A shuttle with a side-mounted booster cannot have the hitboxes of the orbiter engines vertically overlapping with the hitboxes of booster engines in the x-axis, or visa versa, in the build grid or launchpad at moment of lift-off.
The engines of the booster must be restricted to one side of the orbiter and also not pass the centreline of the orbiter, as defined by taking the mid-point of a line drawn on the x-axis from left-most part of the orbiter body (excluding the tail) to the rightmost part of the orbiter body (excluding heatshields) at its widest point.
Buran didn't do that
Good loopholes!
What if I changed the statement to:
A shuttle with a side-mounted booster cannot have the hitboxes of the orbiter engines vertically overlapping with the hitboxes of booster engines in the x-axis, or visa versa, in the build grid or launchpad at moment of lift-off.
The engines of the booster must be restricted to one side of the orbiter and also not pass the centreline of the orbiter, as defined by taking the mid-point of a line drawn on the x-axis from left-most part of the orbiter body (excluding the tail) to the rightmost part of the orbiter body (excluding heatshields) at its widest point.
View attachment 122174
Good loopholes!
What if I changed the statement to:
A shuttle with a side-mounted booster cannot have the hitboxes of the orbiter engines vertically overlapping with the hitboxes of booster engines in the x-axis, or visa versa, in the build grid or launchpad at moment of lift-off.
The engines of the booster must be restricted to one side of the orbiter and also not pass the centreline of the orbiter, as defined by taking the mid-point of a line drawn on the x-axis from left-most part of the orbiter body (excluding the tail) to the rightmost part of the orbiter body (excluding heatshields) at its widest point.
View attachment 122174
Some part is for what Marmilo said, but I think it's also for difficulty tolerance. Keep adding booster away from the orbiter guarantees unstability.
Didn't know Buran had different launch configuration, thanks for the correction.
I can get what the statement conveys, but I still a bit bothered, it sounds quite complex. Probably 'the orbiter's engine must not be obstructed beyond its hitbox in the direction away from the nozzle' could be added or change the 'overlapping' part?
Buran didn't do that
Good loopholes!
What if I changed the statement to:
A shuttle with a side-mounted booster cannot have the hitboxes of the orbiter engines vertically overlapping with the hitboxes of booster engines in the x-axis, or visa versa, in the build grid or launchpad at moment of lift-off.
The engines of the booster must be restricted to one side of the orbiter and also not pass the centreline of the orbiter, as defined by taking the mid-point of a line drawn on the x-axis from left-most part of the orbiter body (excluding the tail) to the rightmost part of the orbiter body (excluding heatshields) at its widest point.
View attachment 122174
Good loopholes!
What if I changed the statement to:
A shuttle with a side-mounted booster cannot have the hitboxes of the orbiter engines vertically overlapping with the hitboxes of booster engines in the x-axis, or visa versa, in the build grid or launchpad at moment of lift-off.
The engines of the booster must be restricted to one side of the orbiter and also not pass the centreline of the orbiter, as defined by taking the mid-point of a line drawn on the x-axis from left-most part of the orbiter body (excluding the tail) to the rightmost part of the orbiter body (excluding heatshields) at its widest point.
View attachment 122174
I can get what the statement conveys, but I still a bit bothered, it sounds quite complex. Probably 'the orbiter's engine must not be obstructed beyond its hitbox in the direction away from the nozzle' could be added or change the 'overlapping' part?
What marm said, actually the way I said it might still be restrictive for that...
Do keep in mind, that this is primarily to clarify what we think of as being a side-mounted shuttle. The most important thing about it is that the engines can't be directly under the orbiter in a way that makes balancing of weight and thrust easy as fuck. Hmm, that previous sentence is actually a good simple summary to use in the text that will be seen by everyone.
The super complicated language doesn't have to be seen at all except by maybe 5% of people, I'll chuck it in some hidden extended details section that most won't click on, because they're not going to do anything that relies on knowing it. It'll only be ever pulled out when someone tries to be clever and edge the definition in a way that breaks the spirit of it. I'm hoping that any instances of edging the complicated language just ends up with something unexpected in a cool way, if the definition captures the spirit of what we want well enough.
Aye, I'll think about it. At least it's 90% ready, right?
Do keep in mind, that this is primarily to clarify what we think of as being a side-mounted shuttle. The most important thing about it is that the engines can't be directly under the orbiter in a way that makes balancing of weight and thrust easy as fuck. Hmm, that previous sentence is actually a good simple summary to use in the text that will be seen by everyone.
The super complicated language doesn't have to be seen at all except by maybe 5% of people, I'll chuck it in some hidden extended details section that most won't click on, because they're not going to do anything that relies on knowing it. It'll only be ever pulled out when someone tries to be clever and edge the definition in a way that breaks the spirit of it. I'm hoping that any instances of edging the complicated language just ends up with something unexpected in a cool way, if the definition captures the spirit of what we want well enough.
Aye, I'll think about it. At least it's 90% ready, right?
What marm said, actually the way I said it might still be restrictive for that...
Do keep in mind, that this is primarily to clarify what we think of as being a side-mounted shuttle. The most important thing about it is that the engines can't be directly under the orbiter in a way that makes balancing of weight and thrust easy as fuck. Hmm, that previous sentence is actually a good simple summary to use in the text that will be seen by everyone.
The super complicated language doesn't have to be seen at all except by maybe 5% of people, I'll chuck it in some hidden extended details section that most won't click on, because they're not going to do anything that relies on knowing it. It'll only be ever pulled out when someone tries to be clever and edge the definition in a way that breaks the spirit of it. I'm hoping that any instances of edging the complicated language just ends up with something unexpected in a cool way, if the definition captures the spirit of what we want well enough.
Aye, I'll think about it. At least it's 90% ready, right?
Do keep in mind, that this is primarily to clarify what we think of as being a side-mounted shuttle. The most important thing about it is that the engines can't be directly under the orbiter in a way that makes balancing of weight and thrust easy as fuck. Hmm, that previous sentence is actually a good simple summary to use in the text that will be seen by everyone.
The super complicated language doesn't have to be seen at all except by maybe 5% of people, I'll chuck it in some hidden extended details section that most won't click on, because they're not going to do anything that relies on knowing it. It'll only be ever pulled out when someone tries to be clever and edge the definition in a way that breaks the spirit of it. I'm hoping that any instances of edging the complicated language just ends up with something unexpected in a cool way, if the definition captures the spirit of what we want well enough.
Aye, I'll think about it. At least it's 90% ready, right?
ilikespace
Planet editor
Recruit
Hot Stuff
Space Glider
Swingin' on a Star
Planet Sculptor
Voyager Quest
Atlas
Floater
