• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1179 Excellent

About Hotaru

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

2675 profile views
  1. I couldn't disagree more. Squad explicitly promised that anyone who bought the game before May 1, 2013 would get paid expansions free. That they keep that promise is infinitely more important to me than the fact that I have to pay for DLC and others don't. Even knowing I myself would have to pay for it (bought game in late 2014, not even close), I was very pleased when @Badie assured us that Squad would keep its word and give old timers the expansion for free. Honesty is worth more to me than a few dollars.
  2. @EvilEmotaku @KAL 9000 OPM and Kerbol Origins both have the same problem: they move Eeloo to Sarnus/Sarvin orbit, and I'm after something that doesn't move stock planets. OPM I'm definitely not using for this career save because I'm specifically saving it for the next one (and very much looking forward to it). I like the look of Kerbol Origins though, and I may see if I can revert the changes to Eeloo and install it anyway. OK, I know this wasn't on purpose but the word "it" is a really, really, really offensive way of referring to someone of indeterminate gender (or especially transgender). The word you probably want is their, which (though grammatically a bit awkward) is the best way we have in English to refer to either a hypothetical person of either gender or a specific person of unknown or ambiguous gender. And for the record, my pronoun is "her." No worries, I actually specifically asked for recommendations for planet packs to install once I've made initial landings on all the stock ones, which is why everyone has suddenly started suggesting them.
  3. I'm not bothered about whether it's cheating or not. I am, however, bothered about whether it makes what I happen to be trying to do easier/less annoying or not. For some routine tasks it's brilliant: you can circularize your orbit, for instance, practically with a single click and MJ will set up the maneuver node and execute it all on its own. It also has some very useful tools for setting up interplanetary transfers, and its auto-land function is great for routine but precise tasks such as landing tanker ships at surface mining rigs with meter precision. For other things, like launches to orbit, I've actually found hand-flying easier than using MechJeb. MJ flies a very rough approximation of a gravity turn, and I find when I use it's ascent guidance for routine launches I actually spend a lot of time and effort tweaking the ascent profile to agree with my launch vehicle. Whereas flying "manually," all I do is hit the spacebar, tilt downrange a bit at 100 m/s, and set SAS to prograde hold; the rocket pretty much flies itself to orbit after that, and all I have to do is keep an eye on staging and throttle. I also find that when working out a rendezvous I'm able to find "shortcuts" that MJ wouldn't have--such as setting up a direct encounter with an orbiting target from a hyperbolic trajectory, so I can rendezvous with, for instance, a Minmus-orbiting space station in a single burn where, using only MechJeb's tools, I would've had to enter orbit, match planes, and then set up a rendezvous. Even in this situation though, MJ is still useful: once I've manually set up the direct intercept, I could use its "match velocity with target" function to automatically fire the burn at the correct moment. So in my mind the key isn't whether it's cheating; the key is knowing when to use it and when not to.
  4. (Necroing this thread because it was the first thing that came up on a Google search for "KSP SAS not working.") I just encountered a similar problem to the OP (though not specific to any particular part; it happened on two different vehicles with different command modules). Attitude hold appeared to work fine, other modes were ignored. The solution turned out to be that I had a joystick connected and it was apparently sending a tiny amount of control input which overrode the SAS. Jiggling it a bit seems to have fixed the issue. Just something to try for anybody having this problem in future who happens to run across this old thread the same way I did.
  5. @NotAgain According to the Astronaut Complex I have 38 kerbals available and 23 assigned. I have fund penalties set at 10%, which keeps hiring costs civilized. They still aren't exactly cheap, I think my last one was pushing 200,000 funds, but seeing as I've got over ten million funds in the bank right now it's not much of a concern. Five labs (Station Persistence and Base Constancy at the Mun, station Immutability at Kerbin, station Permanence at Duna, and the one on Daring 3) all turning out science, plus regular science returns and contract funding mean I'm practically in sandbox mode by this point. I'm thinking once I finish the stock landings everywhere project I'll install KR&D and start using science points to upgrade my parts instead of just converting them all to cash. I may also give myself a budget cut; right now funding is at 50%, I might reduce it to 10 or 20%. Although I'm not sure whether that affects the science to funds strategy or not. The current date is year 17, day 184. PS. Make that 41 available, I just hired a couple (they're actually running at 143,000 apiece right now). Working on kerbonaut class number seven, which happens to contain two of the best kerbal names I've ever encountered: Addon Kerman and Munvan Kerman. I expect the total to level out around 60; I plan to have them retire once they've been active for 20 years or so.
  6. @NotAgain Thanks for the suggestions! I will definitely use Kerbal Komets (had meant to install it for this update in fact, but forgot). As for Xen's packs I don't know about the Duna, Eve, or Eeloo ones but I will probably go for the two standalone systems. Boring stuff: Turned on the Scatterer water effects since it turns out they don't have as heavy a performance hit as I somehow thought they did. Very cool. Space station Patience II with Defiance 25 docked, the final kermanned mission to the station. Daring 3: exploration of Dres. Space station ops. Lucidity 2 at Tylo. Bravado 6 return from Jool.
  7. Extremely cool. I look forward to building things that aren't Apollo ascent stage replicas with it. Thanks!
  8. It was originally linked in the latest KSP Weekly, which is also where I got it from.
  9. @RoverDude Question about the new Apollo ascent module (which looks brilliant, by the way). EDIT: EDIT2: never mind I get that the RCS kind of has to be integral the way it's built, but why does it need that integral fuel tank? It looks like it's basically identical to a standard Round-8, why not just have a size-0 (or size-1) node at the bottom of the module so we could put anything we want there? I'm thinking, for instance, of an ion-powered spacecraft where I might want a xenon tank instead of an LFO one, and don't want to be carrying around the extra mass of a drained LFO tank.
  10. Docking ports of different sizes don't work together. You can connect them in the VAB and they will be able to decouple, but you won't be able to reconnect them in flight once separated unless they were the same size. In fact you can connect any part to a docking port in the VAB like this and have it decouple in flight, which can be useful (for instance) for putting a launch escape system on top of a capsule. The LES can be jettisoned by decoupling the docking port using an action group, removing the need for an additional decoupler.
  11. No, that is not what I really mean. It's not even true, frankly. I don't particularly care one way or the other, seeing as I'll be buying the expansion pack anyway. Please don't put words in my mouth. I meant exactly what I said. Which is, in my opinion parachutes should be free. You seem to be reading that as I am entitled to free parachutes, which is a completely different statement. Let me put it another way. Squad is perfectly entitled to develop and sell whatever they want, and we will buy it or we won't. We the users are also perfectly entitled to our opinions on what Squad should and shouldn't sell, for whatever reason. Maybe we think they shouldn't do a thing because we believe it would be bad for business. Maybe we think it's dishonest. Maybe we feel we're being taken advantage of. Maybe we just don't like the direction they're taking the game we care so much about. Any of those are perfectly valid reasons for saying Squad should or shouldn't do a thing. You seem to be intentionally making a point of misunderstanding the word "should," for reasons I don't understand. It's not an "absolute moral judgement" or any such thing, it's the opinion of whoever says it. "Should," "would be best if," "would be wrong not to (for some reason)," "would prefer if," all those are roughly equivalent. Even saying something as universal as "you shouldn't steal" is not far off from saying "based on the system of morality I subscribe too, stealing is wrong," which is still just a statement of opinion.
  12. Again, out of likes. One thing I find kind of entertaining about this whole thing is that while lots of us assert that one part or another of the DLC should be stock, everybody seems to think different parts of it should be stock. For me, it's parachutes. Parts seem like perfect DLC material. Some other people say the parts should be stock, still others that the mission editor should be stock, and so on. And if they made everything that anyone said should be stock, stock, I think the DLC would be down to just the alternate spacesuit. So on the whole, I'm not that bothered about it. In the end I have no problem going along with Squad's judgement about what does and doesn't belong in DLCs. That won't stop me having my own opinions on the subject, but it won't stop me buying them either.
  13. Unsurprisingly, I've expended my supply of "likes" for the day, but I agree with everything you said... ...except this. There's no such thing as must, surely (beyond the obvious must turn a profit), but should is completely subjective. What I think Squad should do, what you think they should do, what they think they should do, all of those things are perfectly valid opinions. Of course some of the rationales behind those assertions might be proven right or wrong if they actually did do the things we think they "should" do, but that doesn't make the initial assertions invalid. For instance, I stand by my comment that parachutes should be free-update material, not paid-DLC material. Not must but should. Because, in my opinion, making people pay for them is bad form. Not necessarily bad for business, but bad form, in the same way microtransactions, while possibly good for business, would be bad form. I think paying for Kerbal survivability crosses the line from "additional content" to "pay-to-win," and if that were the only thing in the DLC I almost certainly wouldn't be buying it. Fortunately that is far from the only thing in the DLC, so it doesn't really color my enthusiasm for the expansion as a whole (I'm really looking forward to new Soviet-style parts!), but it is still something I notice and dislike.
  14. Fair enough. All the more reason to make sure this DLC is really good and worth paying for: if the competition is free, it'll never compete on price, it has to compete on quality.
  15. Personally I have no problem with paid DLC, and a nice Soviet parts set and a new spacesuit (the missions don't hugely interest me, but I might get more excited when I actually see them) sounds like a perfectly reasonable addition to the game for somewhere around $10. Just make sure there's a good two-kerman pod in there somewhere. (That said, I do think including Kerbal parachutes in a paid DLC is a bit cheesy. Those should go into the stock game. New parts are one thing, but people shouldn't have to pay extra for their Kerbals to survive crashes.) I guess I'm in the "Squad needs to keep their business running somehow, better DLC that adds content than pointless merchandising" camp, not the "DLC is evil" camp. As long as we don't end up with microtransactions. Those are evil.