@Pedro I figured as much; that the engines on the side are being heated by the engine at the top, but at first i could not reproduce the effect. It turns out that the game is very particular where, from what distance and by how much exhaust a part is being hit, for it to heat up.
Just blasting the nozzle of an engine from very close range had no effect, it seems that the center of mass of the part must be hit by exhaust. Once i got things arranged so that it does have an effect it heats up extremely quickly and then explodes, and with just a notch less throttle it cools back down to ambient temperature; either to much or nothing, no in-between.
I suppose the new damage system can do with a bit of tweaking, especially if the same system is to be used for engine self-heating.
I'm the only one who thinks that aside from Droo (and a bunch of moons all over the system), the new planets look less detailed than old ones? Luna looks odd with a whole lot of craters of exactly the same size? And Droo's 1st new moon is in an orbit to close to Luna (unstable/unrealistic), and looks out of place with its gas planet texture and single death-star crater (gimmicky pop reference)?
Other than that, nice job.
I'm pretty sure "discard and exit" is supposed to only discard changes since the program was loaded, not to delete the program. It is basically 'exit without saving'.
The experimental version of the game now includes a Vizzy command "send (message) with data () to nearby crafts". You can use that to control non-player controlled craft.
@KellyNyanbinary Not doubting that, but in the video i see engines glowing, and it does not look like those are in the exhaust of other engines.
When i create the same setup as the video everything works except for the glowing engines, even with additional engines blasting those, they stay cold and do not glow as they do in the video.
Is engine black body radiation supposed to not yet be in the latest test version (0.9.910.1 PC), or what am i doing wrong?
Got heat damage enabled, image effects and hdr enabled, build a new rocket. But rocket engines do not even heat up (remain at ~15C), let alone glow red hot.
@Vedhaspace The 300 number includes the factor 9 of the number of engines. But further investigation shows there may be something wrong with the batteries, not with the electric power cycle engines (see my edit of the opening post).
Besides the heavy focus on level and points which causes that to become a goal onto itself, there's also the problem that there is just to much junk in the upload section, so that interesting contributions get lost. Who's going to browse through all that? We can add tags but it is only optional, and using tags to filter is cumbersome (can only select a tag on the page of an uploaded item) and is limited to only one.
@Chtite451SR2
The forum structure is a bit unclear; i posted this via Community - Forums - More - Suggestion, and the post has the 'suggestion' tag.
But there also is Development - Suggestions.
On that subforum i found a post making a similar suggestion (and i have added mine to it in a comment), but the post is 6 months old and has very few upvotes: Paint Tool Target Visualization
Probably some vizzy tutorials will be made, but creating a full training course on Vizzy's utmost abilities would take a very long time.
Best way to learn besides already having experience in any programming language, is to study other people's Vizzy programs (also look at reddit.com/r/simplerockets). I found this post to be very helpful: https://old.reddit.com/r/simplerockets/comments/ei1mq7/myfirstautomatedlaunchprogramitmakes_a/ (although it does not work flawless on any rocket)
I get a decay of about 100m every ~5 minutes or so at 100km Droo orbit, but that may be a bug - https://www.simplerockets.com/Feedback/View/N81KwK/Orbital-Decay-Below-20km-Without-Atmosphere
Tried it: PhysTicks/Sec 'jitters' and is rather different in different test runs. 1st it went from ~74 at low altitude to ~90 at a couple dozen km altitude. 2nd run it hovered just over 100 all the way, increasing slightly with increasing altitude. All with Vsync at 60fps. JItter is probably unavoidable, but it is generally inconsistent.
"sorry to be 2 months late, you didn't ping me in the previous one."
No problem.
"In the throat size slider you are changing the value between less than 100% and 100%."
No, all the standard rocket engines that can have their throat size adjusted have a default throat size of 75%.
So in the game the nozzle throat can in fact be increased and engine thrust increases with it; 100% gives almost double the thrust of default throat size, not just a little bit - but the size of the engine remains the same.
I think the fix is easy: in a way throat size is redundant and already covered by engine size (a bit higher up in the part properties panel) - just remove throat size and maybe move "engine size" down in the panel and rename it to "throat size".
I do concede that part of the cause of these visually stumpy little (and relatively unrealistically powerful) rocket engines is not in fact that throat size is not visually represented, but is also caused by the fact that throat length can be made unrealistically short.
"In real life you can achieve this by clogging the throat, for example making the walls thick to reduce the internal section, without any external change. "
I very much doubt that in reality a rocket engineer would ever do that. Seems like rather far-fetched reasoning to make it seem as though this 'bug' in the game is in fact intentional design.
It is not unusual for a game in early beta to not only be incomplete but to also have faults in content that is already released. I just worry a bit that the dev may lose sight of little 'visual bugs' like this (there is similar issue with exhaust plume expansion) - it would not be the fist time such a thing happens with an indie game, which is a shame because these sort of bugs are low-hanging fruit in terms of effort required to fix it.
How do you mean that? I'm talking about the "throat size" slider in the part properties panel of some of the rocket engines. How is it that moving the throat size slider to the right and have the % number increase, does not increase the throat size?
"you're reducing it or keeping it open"
Two of the standard rocket engines have a bell- or delta nozzle and they have throat size at 75%, so throat size can be reduced and increased, not only "reduced or kept open".
The throat is inside the ingine, but internal dimensions do affect extrernal dimensions.
For a given throat expansion ratio, increasing the nozzle throat size does mean that the entire nozzle (bell) increases in size, and the diameter of the engine mounting also increases.
The game does not reflect that fundamental reality and it results in engines that are just visually wrong.
Maybe scaling the size of the exhaust with throat size is not the correct solution, but there is a problem:
In the game a cone or bell with minimum nozzle length (for optimal efficiency at sea level) results in an tiny engine size that is disproportionally small for its large thrust.
Also it is odd that for Omega and Bravo engines the nozzle length can not be adjusted, even though those engines are essentially just bell nozzles. The expansion rate can still be adjusted but only by nozzle throat size, which greatly affects thrust (by a factor of about 4) without visual representation in the game (same engine size).
I think part of the problem is that nozzle length can be changed from 0% to 200%, where (for bell and cone) 0% is visually extremely short. Maybe part of the solution is to limit minimum nozzle length to 100%.
I think that all rocket engines should have the same adjustments wrt nozzle throat size and nozzle length, and that there should be proper visual representation of those.
@Pedro I figured as much; that the engines on the side are being heated by the engine at the top, but at first i could not reproduce the effect. It turns out that the game is very particular where, from what distance and by how much exhaust a part is being hit, for it to heat up.
+3 2.0 years agoJust blasting the nozzle of an engine from very close range had no effect, it seems that the center of mass of the part must be hit by exhaust. Once i got things arranged so that it does have an effect it heats up extremely quickly and then explodes, and with just a notch less throttle it cools back down to ambient temperature; either to much or nothing, no in-between.
I suppose the new damage system can do with a bit of tweaking, especially if the same system is to be used for engine self-heating.
I'm the only one who thinks that aside from Droo (and a bunch of moons all over the system), the new planets look less detailed than old ones? Luna looks odd with a whole lot of craters of exactly the same size? And Droo's 1st new moon is in an orbit to close to Luna (unstable/unrealistic), and looks out of place with its gas planet texture and single death-star crater (gimmicky pop reference)?
+1 3.2 years agoOther than that, nice job.
There are two suggestions forums, it's a bit confusing.
+1 3.4 years agoYou want to execute vizzy code if an activation group is activated?
if activation group n = truevizzy codeendif(n is the activation group number)
+1 3.4 years ago"activation group n" and "true" and "false" can be found under Craft Information in the vizzy editor.
I'm pretty sure "discard and exit" is supposed to only discard changes since the program was loaded, not to delete the program. It is basically 'exit without saving'.
But yeah, those sliders.
+1 4.3 years ago"set Slider 1 to sin of altitude AGL * 0.25"
Does that actually work, given that "set Slider 1 to 1" does nothing? Or is there a secret ingredient that i am missing?
Figured it out: "set Slider 1" controls Slider 2
+1 4.3 years agoSend it messages to control a script.
2.0 years agoThe experimental version of the game now includes a Vizzy command "send (message) with data () to nearby crafts". You can use that to control non-player controlled craft.
2.0 years agoThe bug has been acknowledged by a dev; it's probably a factor 1000 conversion error somewhere.
2.0 years ago@KellyNyanbinary Not doubting that, but in the video i see engines glowing, and it does not look like those are in the exhaust of other engines.
2.0 years agoWhen i create the same setup as the video everything works except for the glowing engines, even with additional engines blasting those, they stay cold and do not glow as they do in the video.
@KellyNyanbinary I am using new engines. They remain cold and don't glow.
2.0 years agoIs engine black body radiation supposed to not yet be in the latest test version (0.9.910.1 PC), or what am i doing wrong?
Got heat damage enabled, image effects and hdr enabled, build a new rocket. But rocket engines do not even heat up (remain at ~15C), let alone glow red hot.
2.0 years ago@Vedhaspace The 300 number includes the factor 9 of the number of engines. But further investigation shows there may be something wrong with the batteries, not with the electric power cycle engines (see my edit of the opening post).
2.0 years ago@Vedhaspace not to mention that's just one engine instead of 9.
2.0 years ago@pedro16797 re camara fov:
2.6 years agoWhat xml or input controllers magic needs to be done to get below 20?
Jundroo really does not want us to make telescopes?
2.7 years agoCamera FOV limited to >= 20 degrees
No Vizzy camera FOV instruction
Besides the heavy focus on level and points which causes that to become a goal onto itself, there's also the problem that there is just to much junk in the upload section, so that interesting contributions get lost. Who's going to browse through all that? We can add tags but it is only optional, and using tags to filter is cumbersome (can only select a tag on the page of an uploaded item) and is limited to only one.
2.8 years ago@Chtite451SR2
The forum structure is a bit unclear; i posted this via Community - Forums - More - Suggestion, and the post has the 'suggestion' tag.
But there also is Development - Suggestions.
On that subforum i found a post making a similar suggestion (and i have added mine to it in a comment), but the post is 6 months old and has very few upvotes: Paint Tool Target Visualization
3.5 years agoProbably some vizzy tutorials will be made, but creating a full training course on Vizzy's utmost abilities would take a very long time.
Best way to learn besides already having experience in any programming language, is to study other people's Vizzy programs (also look at reddit.com/r/simplerockets). I found this post to be very helpful: https://old.reddit.com/r/simplerockets/comments/ei1mq7/myfirstautomatedlaunchprogramitmakes_a/ (although it does not work flawless on any rocket)
4.3 years agoI get a decay of about 100m every ~5 minutes or so at 100km Droo orbit, but that may be a bug - https://www.simplerockets.com/Feedback/View/N81KwK/Orbital-Decay-Below-20km-Without-Atmosphere
4.3 years agoTried it: PhysTicks/Sec 'jitters' and is rather different in different test runs. 1st it went from ~74 at low altitude to ~90 at a couple dozen km altitude. 2nd run it hovered just over 100 all the way, increasing slightly with increasing altitude. All with Vsync at 60fps. JItter is probably unavoidable, but it is generally inconsistent.
4.3 years ago@pedro16797
"sorry to be 2 months late, you didn't ping me in the previous one."
No problem.
"In the throat size slider you are changing the value between less than 100% and 100%."
No, all the standard rocket engines that can have their throat size adjusted have a default throat size of 75%.
So in the game the nozzle throat can in fact be increased and engine thrust increases with it; 100% gives almost double the thrust of default throat size, not just a little bit - but the size of the engine remains the same.
I think the fix is easy: in a way throat size is redundant and already covered by engine size (a bit higher up in the part properties panel) - just remove throat size and maybe move "engine size" down in the panel and rename it to "throat size".
I do concede that part of the cause of these visually stumpy little (and relatively unrealistically powerful) rocket engines is not in fact that throat size is not visually represented, but is also caused by the fact that throat length can be made unrealistically short.
"In real life you can achieve this by clogging the throat, for example making the walls thick to reduce the internal section, without any external change. "
I very much doubt that in reality a rocket engineer would ever do that. Seems like rather far-fetched reasoning to make it seem as though this 'bug' in the game is in fact intentional design.
4.3 years agoIt is not unusual for a game in early beta to not only be incomplete but to also have faults in content that is already released. I just worry a bit that the dev may lose sight of little 'visual bugs' like this (there is similar issue with exhaust plume expansion) - it would not be the fist time such a thing happens with an indie game, which is a shame because these sort of bugs are low-hanging fruit in terms of effort required to fix it.
@pedro16797
"You aren't increasing the throat size"
How do you mean that? I'm talking about the "throat size" slider in the part properties panel of some of the rocket engines. How is it that moving the throat size slider to the right and have the % number increase, does not increase the throat size?
"you're reducing it or keeping it open"
Two of the standard rocket engines have a bell- or delta nozzle and they have throat size at 75%, so throat size can be reduced and increased, not only "reduced or kept open".
The throat is inside the ingine, but internal dimensions do affect extrernal dimensions.
For a given throat expansion ratio, increasing the nozzle throat size does mean that the entire nozzle (bell) increases in size, and the diameter of the engine mounting also increases.
The game does not reflect that fundamental reality and it results in engines that are just visually wrong.
4.3 years agoMaybe scaling the size of the exhaust with throat size is not the correct solution, but there is a problem:
In the game a cone or bell with minimum nozzle length (for optimal efficiency at sea level) results in an tiny engine size that is disproportionally small for its large thrust.
Also it is odd that for Omega and Bravo engines the nozzle length can not be adjusted, even though those engines are essentially just bell nozzles. The expansion rate can still be adjusted but only by nozzle throat size, which greatly affects thrust (by a factor of about 4) without visual representation in the game (same engine size).
I think part of the problem is that nozzle length can be changed from 0% to 200%, where (for bell and cone) 0% is visually extremely short. Maybe part of the solution is to limit minimum nozzle length to 100%.
I think that all rocket engines should have the same adjustments wrt nozzle throat size and nozzle length, and that there should be proper visual representation of those.
4.6 years ago