• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

50 Excellent

About wibou7

  • Rank
    Account squashed in the great forum rework of 2015
  1. While it MIGHT be possible to do even lighter, you already pushed it quite to the limit. I don't think there will be many challenger to try and beat you. Very impressive indeed.
  2. Don't take offense, but if your challenge designs were a little bit more polished, you wouldn't get a link to the challenge submission guide everytime. The guide is not just "proof that a challenge is possible", it also requires for a challenge to be fun. And to be an original idea. And to have a way to determine how to win (if applicable). And to be detailled clearly so that everybody understand what to do easily. ... In their current forms, pretty much all of your challenges end up on the "second page of forgetness". Almost nobody ever try them. Ask yourself : could it be because of the points above? Take a look at the challenges @Rath posted. They are all great exemples that had hundred of challengers and that were re-posted on several different KSP versions. If I take a look at this very challenge: - Is it original? Actually, it might be! There was some "how high can you go on starting tech" in the past but I haven't seen that in a while... Maybe we are due for a reboot? - How do we win? "Go farthest" or "go as fast and as high as you can" are both very VERY vague. Farthest from what? In altitude? From KSP? Straight Up? What if I escape Kerbin SOI, how will you count then? Fastest as you can.. ok, but how do that add up to "farthest"? Should I try to go higher or faster? A rocket could go highest but be slower than another one, would I win then? What if I launch with an angle to make orbit? What if somebody actually make orbit, how will you count then? Scott Manley once made it to Minmus with starting tech... How "far" is that? If that's not clearly defined, people won't try OR you will get tons of people that simply find loop-hole. - Is is detailled clearly? Not quite, as I pointed out in "How do we win". But there is more to say... By "tier one", I understand you mean "the first tech node you start carrer with". But that's really NOT obvious, as @Rath pointed out, it could meant "tier one building" just like the cavemen challenge... Maybe you should define exactly what you meant? Are mod permitted? If so, to what extend? Can I use auto-pilot? Modded part ok? What is "powered separation"? Do you meant using exhaust to "explode" a spent stage? That might not be obvious to everyone... I could go on but I think you understand my point (I hope!) Take a look at the challenges posted as example, then compare to this one... this one is clearly lacking in details.
  3. I find the attachment is quite rigid, the joint less so... I often had rigidity problems if a large ship was anchored sliiiightly off-center. However, this is no longer an issue in 1.2 with the magical "auto-strut" feature. The biggest mass is pretty much always the asteroid in tow, so "auto-strut - biggest mass" work quite well there. Full disclaimer: auto-strut is known to be Kraken-bait (so was the Klaw *long sigh*). Use cautiously. Make numerous quicksaves while using. Reboot KSP periodically.
  4. This is typically caused by the "control" being transferred to the docking ports or some other ill placed part. The problem is cause by the part being vertical while the wheels are horizontal... Hence the motor control are confused. The easy fix is to select the probe core (or any other part oritented in a sane way compared to the wheel), to right click and to select "control from here". By the way, welcome to the forum
  5. Minimum "safe" distance is 7061m: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Mun (see "Terrain") That's the lowest you can go without any risk of hitting a mountain. Putting a craft in a 7062m x 7062m orbit does not seem like a challenge to me... it would be easier than mun landing in any case. Orbits that don't cross high point coordinates could even go lower... But once below 5000m, your craft would be at risk of being deleted if you switch focus and you wouldn't be able to timewarp without switching focus. Personnally, I wouldn't have the patience to wait for a full orbit to complete without timewarp. There might be matter for a challenge there, but not in its current form
  6. What were you expecti... ooooh riiiiiiight. I'd like to call a vote... Anyone in favor of banning @Majorjim! from posting ANY picture on this thread post, please stand.
  7. Probably for the same reason you don't want to? You do realize you could (or anyone) create an account and fix the page, right?
  8. Soooo, I've been trying to make up a plane that could stay up without the need for an engineer but no dice so far. I've chosen the ultra-light path so I can keep in the air with minimal airspeed (around 60 m/s on this one). I can keep this baby up with a level 1 engineer or better. Still, with a pilot I don't split even (yet).
  9. Level 5 engineer make it quite easy... What about reworking the challenge a little? Just add a special difficulty "I ain't no engineer" ?
  10. We want pictures!
  11. It's just impossible to answer that without at least some details: - What's a "girandola"? Is it a pre-made part from a mod, if so which mod? Otherwise how much does it weight? Is it a fairing or not? Do you have any other payload? - To lift where? 1m from the ground? In orbit? The mun? Elsewere? - Do you have any other mission (antenna, power, ...) that we should know of? More importantly, what did you try so far? Do you have any picture of your failed tries? Unclear question always lead to unclear answer...
  12. Soooo something that can withstand a collision of a couple thousand m/s? Sorry, it is just impossible unless you count cheat and cheaty modding.
  13. Interesting! I will definitely try that! Have some reps.
  14. Ah right, I never thought about gravity assist. Assist from the moon is so weak I never use it, at least coming from interplanetary. But I guess it can be enough for asteroids coming in, it probably explains it!
  15. Free fuel for you! I wonder if there is something other than floating point errors that cause asteroid to get captured naturally. I mean, KSP only consider the gravity of one body at a time, so it's impossible to get naturally captured unless you aerobrake... Riiiight? But somehow, naturally captured asteroid are somewhat common. Puzzled!