![]() Creative director Nate Simpson characterized the process as a mothership concept-building multiple vessels and attaching them to a larger superproject. It'll require building massive starships in orbital drydocks, with the assistance of resources from space colonies (more on that below). Interstellar travel will involve more than just slapping a bunch of high-tech rocketry onto your shuttles. Intercept Games is incorporating a suite of future-facing speculative propulsion technology that will allow you Kerbals to venture across the void between star systems. With mechanics arriving later in KSP2's early access development, you'll be able to leave the Kerbol System for distant stars with the addition of interstellar travel. In Kerbal Space Program 2, you'll be able to travel even farther into the final frontier. If you want a prop-driven sub, you need to make your own from elevons.Kerbal Space Program 2 will feature interstellar travel The propeller on the rudder does nothing apart from introducing some drag. You said earlier you were able to get it to sink with the Mk1 fuselages inside the 2.5 m bays, but it doesn't do it for me, thing floats great.) (You can cut down the ballast requirement massively if you put the tanks inside cargo bays. Remember also that it'll become more buoyant as you burn off fuel. ![]() I added 282 tons of ore (without abusing cargo bays), for a launch weight of 444 tons, which was sufficient for it to sink. The small radial tanks you're using barely even register. You need much, much, MUCH more ballast to make that beast sink. There are a bunch of other problems with it too, however. The control surfaces you have along the back won't do anything (much). Your elevators need to be near the nose, and they need to be horizontal. Stick an elevon on it and it will work as a rudder. You have a vertical wing element in the right spot. You have two control surfaces at the bow, but the rudder needs to be at the stern. This means all of your control inputs will be reversed. This of course makes subs very heavy, so if you want to get it to Laythe without cheating, you’ll need a huge rocket - or a way to fill those ballast tanks in-situ by drilling, which is an interesting design challenge in its own right.Īre there certain parts that have more ballast than others? and which parts have buoyancy and which parts don't? Whichever way you do it, for a sub that size you need way, way more ballast than you’re using. When you open the doors, it’ll become more buoyant because the volume of the ore tanks will be added to the craft’s volume. For example, you can clip 6 radial ore tanks inside a Mk1 cargo bay, to make one really dense ballast element. Personally I don’t feel bad about working around the lack of dedicated ballast parts and the general buoyancy problem when designing subs by exploiting some of KSP’s physics quirks. It has 4 radial ore tanks as ballast, and it is really tiny compared to yours: To give you an idea of the ballast/volume ratios, here’s a neutrally buoyant sub that doesn’t make use of cargo bays or similar tricks. ![]() You need to reduce the volume and/or add even more ballast. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |