Blaarkies

Members
  • Content count

    563
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

223 Excellent

1 Follower

About Blaarkies

  • Rank
    Junior Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

2001 profile views
  1. The game works, the mods do not. If the game does not work, the out-dated mods are breaking it. It is nothing special, same thing happened with Skyrim while it got some patches and updates, same thing keeps happening to World of Tanks, and Minecraft, Medieval Engineers, and i am guessing any game that can use mods suffers from this. Installing mods has always been an at-own-risk thing. Although i do not agree with how Steam installs these updates (single-player games should be playable even without doing the latest update), there should be a confirmation setting for this type of event
  2. Map mode, double click the sun, press TAB four(4) times... Ok you might also know about pressing Shift+TAB. It switches focus backwards(from kerbin, to gilly, to eve, to moho, etc.) Caution! : Shift is also the default "throttle up" key !
  3. Better burn time doesn't account for droptanks either, but we are ok with that. Even the landing indicator is not a suicide burn measure, but we KSP players find a way
  4. 1. To know how much fuel you need to go somewhere, you need to know DV. In cars we measure range in miles/kilometers, in space we measure it in DV(delta-v). a.k.a The amount of extra speed you can add to the spaceship if you were to burn all of your fuel. That dictates if you can go to the Mun, or farther. To find that number, you need to know how much you ship masses when empty, and how much fuel you have onboard. Every 90 LF+110 OX masses at 1ton, but for ballpark numbers i just figure my LF/100 (and always have balanced OX for them) when finding DV for LFO engines. When doing it for Nuke engines (that use no OX), just do LF/200 2. If you filled up some LF into the small ship, find the balanced OX_needed = LF_onboard * 1.22 If you filled up some OX into the small ship, find the balanced LF_needed = OX_onboard * 0.82
  5. Moho, Eve, Jool yes people go there...where is Dres?
  6. When you accept a contract (to put the first one into orbit), the contract is never attached to the probe. You see the probe/satellite as your one vehicle to complete this contract, but the game doesn't know that...it thinks that it is just some random attempt at a better comm network(even if it's on board parts completely satisfy the contract) So the second contract just came about in the same way it usually comes about: there was a craft with some fuel on board in orbit, and this contract wants an adjustment. If you complete the adjustment first, you will get the money for the adjustment contract. The "place satellite" contract will remain, waiting to be finished. You can finish it with the same satellite(if you packed enough fuel), or you could send a new satellite that fulfills the contract. An like @PT said, just ignore it if you don't want to do it, you won't get punished for not Accepting the "adjust orbit" contract
  7. Thats the point, more of the same dull planets won't do anything for the game. Even adding better visuals won't change it(clouds, scatterer, and some hd textures do nothing for the flat landscapes on Duna, the only two different spots are really the pink poles, and the orange dust bowls) That being said, that is really the sad part of real life exploration as well...Mars is barren, and the only interesting things there are really science related. I mean if we could get to stay there for a week, it would be cool feeling the different gravity, the absent atmosphere, the coolness factor of being one of the lucky few...but take a walk somewhere around there, and imagine how by the end of the week you realise everything looks pretty much the same. So in game, we land on Duna, get the science, plant a flag and walk around...for 5 minutes? Then sometime after we may land again, or even build a base, this base refuels a science scout-plane-thing...and then suddenly it gets really boring there, because it is literally just flat textured landscapes. I heard some cool ideas for weather affecting flight, volcanic activity, some cryo geysers and the like, or meteor showers(just asteroids repeatedly respawning on a collision course with the a moon, imagine seeing them near your near base) Anything that give the planets more character, or interactivity would go much further * also keep in mind the analogues of the game. Dres is a Ceres-like body, which will find it hard to hold on to its moon (half the size of Gilly is already too big for Dres). Mars could very well handle a Gilly size moon to simulate Mars' Deimos. It can be argued both ways which way is better for analogues, but that is SQUAD's decision in the end
  8. Are these new planets going to look any different than any of the existing planets? And if so, then why don't they spice up the existing planets with this new technique so that we didn't get bored of them Currently, going to another planet feels like science farming and plant a flag, done, dusted...next! But it shouldn't be like that. I mean we have special goals like bringing back a kerbal from Eve's suface, building a Laythe base, but all those get cut short because there isn't really anything to see on the planets...they need detail
  9. SSD does near nothing for KSP, i tested this on my new computer. Started out with everything on SSD because "it would be speedy!" and i had 5minute loading times. Didn't really notice any difference, so i moved the entire KSP folder onto the HDD. Got 5 minute and 20 seconds loading times...SSD's have a very specific use case where they improve everything, KSP loading is not one of them. Think about how long it takes to copy KSP from the HDD back onto itself...50 seconds? Now realize that read speed alone is slightly faster than write, and that is all that RAM wants. All the "data" can be put into RAM by the time the first picture slideshows. The majority of work in KSP does not happen on the HDD (virtual memory is a different matter, that is much better solved by more RAM than an SSD)
  10. 2 small fuel cells easily hold up the 1.25m ISRU, given you have a 3star engineer and a single large drill. Also instead of using a 2.5 service bay, maybe the 2.5m payload fairing could be useful (if OP is ok with clipping). I believe fairings have less drag and also less mass(relative to a similar size cargo-bay)?
  11. Press ALT+F4. Calm down it won't corrupt anything , as long as you are in a pause menu. (that includes being in flight and pressing "Escape", being at space-center and pressing "Escape", unsure about being in the tracking station, R&D, VAB,...) I wish i could find the thread where the squad dev explains this, but it was months ago. So pressing ALT+F4 is not really a force close(kill task) type of command, it is just a call to close the program...with an attached timer basically so that windows will ask the user after some time, "Listen, this green-men application of yours is not responding buddy...". So do it in a pause menu because there is no writing/reading from savegame files during a pause menu, thus no chance of corruption. It could save some time, if there is anything to do on the PC after closing KSP...who am i kidding, we only close KSP for sleep(sometimes)
  12. Put a ground relay probe on the mountains west of KSC. The 5km extra altitude seriously help with the occlusion on 100%, and it is very easy to get there. As others have pointed out, just build enough so that you can do Mun missions, after that you will have better relay dishes. With those, put a relay in a polar orbit with an Ap above the north pole at just below 84 000km(tip of Kerbin SOI), and Pe at south pole 70km. This satellite spends 40days above the north pole with connection to KSC, and swings around Kerbin in about 40 minutes. This covers everything except the south pole of every kerbin body(and their dark side), and can be greatly improved by lobbing another ground relay to the mountains north of KSC
  13. So we now have control of whatever happens via context menus for any controllable part in range? Like popping parachutes on the dropped stages(if we opened the parachute menu before hand)?
  14. Hehe i see now my message looked really offensive, i am sorry. What i meant was that OP probably wants the easiest way to fix his design for a single ship landing. Your design does make a lot of sense, it can quickly farm the entire Mun of all science, but the player needs to be at least well versed in orbital rendezvous, EVA kerbals into the boarding seat, soft landings that do not require landing legs. Those are easy tasks for players past 100 hours of total gameplay time, but think back to your very first docking attempt...i know i still did the same Small-Tank-On-Nerv mistake back then. You are right, constructive criticism: I was bugged about missing the low science Crew Report, because completionists will need to re-land a lander can design again on all the binomes again (only if you really really want every piece of science). Other than that, it really does check all the boxes for an efficient lander. For OP: Most of my ideas for a better design has already been said in this thread. But one lightbulb moment got me past this design phase. Get the KER (kerbal engineer redux) mod to show the dv per stage, or take 15 minutes on Wikipedia to understand dv and how to calculate it. Now, thought experiment: - Add a single MK1 liquid fuel tank, with one NERV engine on it. Write down the total dv for that stage - Add an extra MK1 liquid fuel tank to the previous design, and calculate the difference in dv it gives you - Add another MK1 liquid fuel tank and calculate the difference that this one tank offers 1st tank -> +3764 m/s 2nd tank -> +2217 m/s 3rd tank -> +1518 m/s 4th tank -> +1122 m/s * dv with ONLY tanks and engine. Lander as payload will decrease these numbers See the diminishing returns on adding more tanks? It is good to understand how that is affected by adding/removing fuel tanks. So the problem is you have a very expensive engine with 3tons of mass, but it only runs through 2tons of fuel. So if you add another tank, you get up to 3764+2217= 5981m/s dv. That alone replaces the job of your poodle engine. 3 tanks give you 3764+2217+1518= 7499m/s dv, which can do the entire mission from kerbin orbit and back again with a huge margin for error. Remove the poodle and you save a lot of mass on the launch, needing a smaller cheaper booster. Now comes the lightbulb. The fuel+engine segment has dv proportional to the amount of payload up top. So your bottom most stage has a payload which is the total mass of all the stages above it. The second stage has a payload the mass of everything above it, and so forth. You want this ratio between payload to engine+fuel segment to be balanced: - Too little fuel and you are carrying many extra stages to make up for the dv. - Too much fuel and you are losing due to the diminishing returns. Besides that, always try to pick the smallest engine that can get the job done (due to Isp differences, that leads to an entirely different discussion though)
  15. Really?OP posted this: "Noob needs rocket science lessons.", then you come along and brag about your garden chair science fare project? It is clear OP is "noob" and admits that, but they want to learn more via this thread and that is awesome (we have all been there, with oversized wobbly rockets)...so teach/explain some useful tips to them (what is the idea behind your design, why is it so efficient, pros/cons,...) How do you get Crew Reports with that anyway?