Difference between revisions of "Kerbal Space Program Wiki:Tasks"

Revision as of 04:10, 30 March 2015

This is a list of tasks. Feel free to add something you want to be checked/done and others can then claim those.

To avoid that multiple people work at the same time at the same task you should claim tasks by answering to them. Also answer to a task to remove your claim if you aren't working on it anymore and want others to finish the task.

For saving the place, delete the sequence if the task is finished, and everyone is pleased with the result!

Add a new task

UPDATING

Updating some element:

Pictures

keep the original name, just update it!

• 

  some new part has arrived since... - Done

• 

  some new part has arrived since... - Done as well

• 

  still 0.25 - check if new version changed before update - if it has remained same: just report it!

• 

  New version needed - please, without background!

• 

  “Merge” with File:Gilly Biome Map 0.90.0.png?

Shall we delete this section? Kamiakze (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2015 (CST)

This section remains, as updating is frequent (only the pictures will change). Just some friendly notes for the pictures: taken from too close - and the perspective deformed the shapes (both), the neutral background - as blue sky - is preferred (docking), and the shading each others should be avoided. A thumb up from me. NWM (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2015 (CDT) (PS: put four "~" on the end of your comment as a sign)

Its been my first attempts on these collection photos, so, thanks for the notice :) i will update them as soon as i have time (probably tomorrow) Kamiakze (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2015 (CDT)

And a further note: is the claw docking port? NWM (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2015 (CDT)

Well it works similar to one but the image is used where only the docking ports are listed. And to be honest I think it doesn't belong there but that is only my personal preference.

Regarding the image I'd have three suggestions:

• Make it when the Sun is not so high so that there aren't so many shadows making the image so dark.
• Prevent as much background as possible (my version before had only the sky as background)
• Don't look directly at it. The difference between the two lateral docking ports (the ones in the top left) is marginal from that viewpoint. You don't really see that the lower one has the Mk2 shape.

— xZise [talk] 05:33, 29 March 2015 (CDT)

Regarding the Gilly biome image: I think the low resolution image is superfluous and the only difference (which is why I haven't deleted it yet) to the high resultion image is that it has the legend. I personally would prefer if the legend is in the text below and not in the image, and in fact the list on Gilly itself could use the legend. — xZise [talk] 05:33, 29 March 2015 (CDT)

Very much agree. Text in images isn't a good practice for a multilingual resource. Also, it just clutters up the image when a separate legend does the same job. --Brendan (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2015 (CDT)

Templates

{{TechTree}} - still 0.25 - Moderate difficulty, save game with all nodes appeared tech tree is needed. NWM (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2015 (CST)

Name change in Rockomax Mark 55 Radial Mount Liquid Engine

The name in the description changed in Rockomax Mark 55 Radial Mount Liquid Engine. Please determine in which version that was done and update the related pages (Rockomax Mark 55 Radial Mount Liquid Engine and Eumon Kerman) respectively and maybe create Eugene Kerman (or request a move of Eumon to Eugene Kerman).

(See the comment by User:Brendan in this diff) — xZise [talk] 06:18, 3 March 2015 (CST)

For .svg mages

Creating the more informative .svg version of some picture:

• 

  Exley maneuver

• 

Make the texts correctable!

For "Orbit_Synchronization_how_to.png" - pictures by stages of the maneuver would be more preferable!

Rocket engine "family photo"

The old "Reaction engine" article is moving to Rocket engine. It's had the same old v0.17 LV-T30 engine image since... long ago. It would be nice to arrange all the non-aspirated engines together on the Launch Pad -- liquid fuel, SRB, RCS, and ion -- and take a "family photo". Maybe with Jeb, if he can manage not to break anything. Currently I'm without a gaming computer, and I was sad to find I don't have the screenshot I'd previously taken. But there are new engines since then anyway! --Brendan (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2015 (CST)

Just a note: Ion engine is not rocket engine.NWM (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2015 (CST)

Looking into it, they satisfy the requirement of using only onboard propellant, but I'd overlooked that rocket engines are jet engines -- they form a high-speed jet of exhaust gases. KSP's ion engines might get a pass, but the Hall-effect thrusters they're modelled on emit ionized xenon gas, but don't form a jet. Fascinating. --Brendan (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2015 (CST)

The definitions changes even by countries. The simple automatic replacing arm is "robot" in Japan, but not in US. And simply, I don't know any country where ion engine (+atom rocket motor) is rocket engine.

PS:read it before link it! NWM (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2015 (CST)

I read it, and like all people, I sometimes miss things. That's why community wikis beat encyclopedias.

Also, I've made a concerted effort to be understanding, despite your repeated hostility. So I'm a bit baffled by the tone implicit in your last comment. I'm interested in working together, not proving personal points. Please keep that in mind. --Brendan (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2015 (CST)

If you wanna work together, and you had noticed what you have missed, explain your idea of solution instead of complaining. So, mutilating the page (and the family photo) for the "rocket engine", or expanding with the jets for the "reaction engines"?NWM (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2015 (CST)

Brendan is not complaining on the comment made at 18:15, 5 March 2015 but instead just saying what the status is. Only at 19:16, 6 March 2015 you could say Brendan complains, but understandably because of comments like “read it before link it” which might not be hostile but sounds so from an outside observer.

But apart from that why don't Hall-effect thrusters don't form a jet? Especially with about 10× the velocity of conventional chemical engines. They are also listed as a type of rocket engine in the Wikipedia article: w:Rocket engine#Electrically powered.

And then is the question about why we would want to separate ion engines from chemical engines? They work exactly the same from a KSP viewpoint and the only difference is the type of fuel. As described in Talk:Reaction engine separating jet engines (the airbreathing ones) make sense as the behave differently (most notably the additional thrust curve and intake air requirement). — xZise [talk] 05:26, 7 March 2015 (CST)

I vote for extending the "reaction engine" with jets (yes, and later even with electric air-propellers and helicopter rotors of the official DLC-s - with notes) creating a "surface independent" (do not rename it!) engines comparison page instead of moving to "rocket engine". Messing due to a stupid definition, and creating an another page even less coherent to the official terms is not a reasonable step for me. NWM (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2015 (CST)

All these subjects are better addressed in Talk:Reaction_engine#Reaction_Engines_which_are_Rocket_Engines_or_not. --Brendan (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2015 (CST)

A stupid question: is there any reason of this picture? The LV-1 will bee only some pixels in the shadow of the LFB-KR-1x2. And who the hell will update this picture if the far less populated family pictures is not updated?...NWM (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2015 (CDT)

Calculate version numbers

With {{Check version/ver}} and {{Check version/Rev}} it's possible to calculate version numbers now and templates like {{Infobox/Version}} could profit from it. For example getting the version after 0.23.5 one can do {{Check version/ver|{{#expr: {{Check version/Rev|0.23.5}} + 1}}}} and get 0.24. So it's possible to get the next and previous version numbers.

It only does support version numbers since 0.20.2, so both templates probably need to be extended to support prior versions. But at no point a specific revision number should be used so that is easier to change the numbers later when I miscounted and 0.20.2 wasn't the 38^th revision. — xZise [talk] 07:41, 12 March 2015 (CDT)