Adelaar

Members
  • Content count

    170
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

158 Excellent

About Adelaar

  • Rank
    Your personal re-entry heater salesman

Recent Profile Visitors

1091 profile views
  1. Parts. Anything that can be added to a construct, such as lamps, hulls, etc.
  2. I'm not sure. I haven't tested cloned parts.
  3. TIP regarding modded installs of KSP crashing on starting up (specifically; when reaching the "Parts upgrade" part of the loading screen As far as I can tell, KSP crashes on startup ONLY when a mod carries a COMPONENT along inside it. Kerbal Engineering Redux, for instance, won't work as it introduces parts. Visual mods such as Scatterer and EVA will not cause a crash, as they introduce no new parts to the catalogue. So as a general workaround for people suffering crashes; remove all the mods which install components, until those mods are updated by their developers (and don't go poke them until they do). Mods which introduce optional parts (which are not always needed) can be removed, this includes the parts in Kerbal Engineering Redux* (just remove the Parts subfolder from the Kerbal Engineering Redux folder). I hope this will at least enable people to enjoy the most they can out of KSP until the mods are updated. * I am aware that there is already an update for KER, just like to include this example as a proof of concept. DISCLAIMER: I shall post this as a general announcement/tip for those suffering from crashes on modded installs of KSP. Moderators may move this thread where-ever they like it to go, but as I would like to maximize visibility and found the Questions section not the best place to start, I shall post it here instead.
  4. Please note that currently, if a orbit is suborbital but above 19 km, there isn't a decay calculated AT ALL. This can be extremely frustrating when leaving space debris in a suborbital flight path but it doesn't crash. I also remember the orbital decay bug which lingered in the game after 1.0. The decay in that bug was pretty extreme, in the order of 1m/s in decay, but still a great bore and killed much of the fun in building a space station. Nevertheless, the suggestion isn't a bad one, it's a good one actually. However, I can only see it come to life IF the following suggestions (which have in part already been mentioned, so I shall paraphrase) are implemented: 1. This should be an option, and reserved for the more experienced players. 2. This process should be automatic, so in stead of an orbital decay you'd see a drainage in RCS or LFO. 2a. This will also mean that Fuel levels should be visible from the space center, and a low fuel warning should be given when reserves are low so that people can start a refueling mission or just let the thing run dry and start to decay. 2b. This would ultimately lead to Squad having to implement a decay function while the vessel is not in view. Otherwise, they would still be hanging in the air like they always do, until you view the sat personally. 3. The orbital decay should be limited in effect, and depending on the size of the craft. I'd suggest that anything above 400-500km (Kerbin) should not suffer from decay, to make things less tedious. Needless to say, this requires a whole lot of extra coding (and possible bugs) so I don't think that Squad will resort to implementing this function. To calculate all the decays of all the space objects can become quite gruesome for a pc, as it has to be done realtime (even when focussed on another object). This will possibly hurt the performance and for such a trivial matter as orbital decay it is hardly worth the effort. I'd be happier when weather (including wind) is implemented in the game, as that mechanic is more demanding as well as rewarding.
  5. Great job on the 1.3 release, and good progress on Making History
  6. I don't boat, but I'm glad that you're putting all the parts through floatation testing, because it was aboat time. I never really understood why huge aircraft filled with fuel would remain afloat. Even if you drop something like a Mk3 pod into the water it just floats completely unrealistically... So hats off to you.
  7. The choice in music however... Nice to see another SSTO doing this challenge though
  8. Yeah, building spaceships with a crowbar! Killing aliens by constructing Juno based flamethrowers! Converting Black Mesa into something that is still unsafe for work, but arguably has actual scientific value! In other words: HL3 confirmed.
  9. I enjoy two parts of the career the most; some hours after the start where the basic aviation and space components are unlocked and it's time to fly around Kerbin to explore it and do tourism missions. And building up the comm relays and performing basic Kerbin/Mun/Minmus missions. And then there is the second part after unlocking the Rapier engine, where I can get to fly my SSTO's for more intricate missions like modular construction of space stations/space infrastructure.
  10. @LoSBoL, your screenshots are beautifully edited in!
  11. This was a very interesting challenge, thank you! I've decided to do a run in the S5 Arrow, an SSTO capable of 400km orbits. Unlike rockets this thing has to land on a runway, so that'll be an extra challenge to do without quicksaving and -loading. Some exerpts of the trip: The cockpit Ascending to space And we're orbiting! The view Descending, for a guess as to where I had to perform the retroburn (based on the map view in the cockpit) I have it almost spot on. BUUUURRN Do you see that white stripe on the right? Yes? Well, we're overshooting the runway at 1500 m/s. Using one of the parked aircraft as a target, the distance to cross turned out to be 100+ km, here we see the runway as we're closing in to land. Parked! Running on fumes, too: 7,5% fuel. The entire album:
  12. Not necessarily an escape pod, but instead an: ACDC (Anomaly Caused Death Countermeasure)... Because how many times where you on a regular mission, just taken off: When Jebediah says: I feel we're forgetting something. And six minutes into the flight it all becomes clear: Damnit Bill, you forgot to remove the pre-flight explosives again! Hit the Abort button! ACDC seperates the cockpit from the fuselage by using a seperator, 8 forward facing sepatrons and four upward facing sepatrons to clear the cockpit from the remains of the ship. It also cuts the engines and deploys the airbrakes. Under test circumstances, it works like this: It works perfect, the only downside is that there is extreme drag caused by the "seams", which rather hinders an easy ascent procedure... So it's not fitted anymore, because fuel efficiency is more important than crew lives. I mean, what costs a Kerbal to a full tank of fuel?
  13. Spaceshuttles you say? I have had to dig through my bucket of designs which were an excellent idea at first, and then failed to really be of economical use. Before proceeding, I'll have to tell you the backstory to these designs: I wanted to build an interplanetary transport, whereby the shuttle and landers would all be SSTO's that would depart from Kerbin, hook onto the main ship and then set sail for distant worlds. And so the S12 Spearkhead MKIIIB came to be. It's a rocket annex shuttle which is designed for vertical take off and landing. It's a cross-over between a rocket and an SSTO and the train of thought was that I would need less fuel for a 50/50 SSTO/Rocket configuration than either an SSTO (where wings in space are just useless) or a rocket (which without wings just lacks efficiency for, reasons.) In 1.2, she flies, but only barely. She's highly unstable for some reason and so has been abandoned. But in the glorydays, the sequence would go like this: Launch confirmed Booster seperation Aerodynamic tail section decoupled. Time to do important things like staying alive. Diving back to Earth, eh, Kerbin Powered landing (seeking out a good spot, pitching the nose up and then hit the parachute button hoping the aircraft won't tear itself apart from the G-forces And landing! (this bit tended to go a bit oopsie when their was anything bigger than a pebble lying around) There were other ships in the series, a mining platform, and a smaller lander with less dV: Of all those designs, only the miners are used on Minmus to fly to an orbital refinery. The obvious problems: Not very efficient, tended to topple on uneven ground, nearly impossible to get a pinpoint landing right, no margin for error and finally; the interplanetary stage costed nearly a million... Oh well, good times.
  14. Yeah, this is more relevant than follow horizon. Considering this game is called Kerbal Spaceplane Program I find it weird that there isn't an automated function to hold attitude, pitch or heading. Especially attitude would be nice, since I am usually at a 7-10 degrees attitude above my current heading when coming down from SPAAAAAAACE.
  15. @sal_vager, sad to see you go. Ever since the Great Exodus took place, I took great comfort in seeing your name in the online list. I'll have to look for another shining beacon now. I hope you enjoy the experiences that life throws at you and that you'll be well. Best of luck