• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

289 Excellent

About something

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

1558 profile views
  1. Well, actually they explode quite often for Earth standards...
  2. No problem, happens all the time - especially if there are no question marks to indicate a question Yeah, honestly, it was a quick and dirty screenshot which has this common behind-a-planet-sunlight-problem...probably should have written, they're attached to fuel tanks... Well, judging from the screenshot I posted before, you can't really know it but I never really had a heat shield on my mind...
  3. Guess you gotta make implicit questions explicit to receive an answer? So, is it ok or not ok?
  4. It's nit a simulation program for scientists, but a degree in (astro)physics does help a lot...
  5. Was just assuming he went to automotive, 'cause jobs there usually are like get paid for x hours, work 1.6x hours. Oh and by the way your vacation in 10 days is cancelled, you are going to Japan, so go get a visa, good luck.
  6. Ah ok, missed the part where it read that he now got a job in automotive....
  7. Haven't seen any updates for an entire month story suspended?
  8. So the rules state that clipping functional parts into each other is a no go but clipping structural parts is go. Now, while these are theoretically engine parts that do clip, it is pretty obvious it's just the structural polygons of the engines that do clip, while the functional polygons do not clip. Furthermore, clipping isn't used in this case to save space in order to put this vessel into a cargo bay (show the cargo bay to me, that contains this vessel) or to gain an otherwise undesired advantage - it's just for the better looks of the aft section. Oh and just for the records: The boosters used for the launch of this vessel didn't need to be detached. So this theoretically might be launched as an SSTO ....
  9. I have my backups. I will further backup them, make sure that a coordinated nuclear strike cannot take them out and....well did I mention that I still enjoy the original 1999 Homeworld?
  10. Early January 2016, I think. Must have been version 1.0.5, if I am not mistaken.
  11. Nah, I was thinking, that the devs were too lazy and simply implemented a 1200m/s plus worst case offset maximum collider speed. After all, KSP was meant to goto space, not to race on the poles at mach 4 ;) so likely they thought that nobody needed ground colliders at those speeds...
  12. 1210m/s on Minmus (see above) 1259m/s on Laythe, according to my hypothesis. If the collider's size was subject to the planet's size then the colliders probably wouldn't be squares or rectangles but have another shape since the planet is a sphere. In my opinion the size is set as a hard value which does not change. However, the surface of the planet is rendered locally, so you never have to worry about overlapping squares or other shapes. You're moving on a local tangential plane, so to speak.
  13. I like this paper, very much actually. So here's some number crunching: Kerbin's siderial rotational velocity is nearly 175m/s. Now, let's consider the original 1365m/s which were postulated by @Stratzenblitz75 and substract the surface speed. Substracting the rotational speed of Kerbin from the maximum loading speed, we obtain a difference of 1191m/s. If we take those measured 1381m/s we get a maximum speed of 1207m/s. Postulating a constant speed at which the physics engine stops calculating the colliders it sounds reasonable that 1200m/s plus the siderial rotational velocity of the body under question might be the math behind this phenomenon. If this hypothesis is true, then other celestial bodies should yield different maximum collider speeds. In any case 1200m/s plus Kerbins siderial rotational velocity is close enough to the value @Stratzenblitz75 provided (1375m/s vs 1381m/s) to test this hypothesis on Minmus. The flats there should yield enough space to perform similar maneuvers. With a siderial rotatonal velocity of just over 9m/s, the maximum speed should yield values around 1210m/s.
  14. Bought the game in January 16 and since then I played career only, with a few sandbox exceptions in order to do some stupid stuff or challenges. That is, I still am in my very first career save which is a 9MB file in 330 iterations... Initially, I wanted to get a better feeling for the single parts, so I limited myself to the choices available in the career save. Still, I am playing that one career but there's no strict approach on how to play or not to play. I do whatever is in the range of ideas I come up with. I basically learned the game while playing that game and my craft became more and more sophisticated over time. So the entire save basically is sort of a short history of my KSP abilities. Interesting to see how you built vessels a year ago...
  15. According to Wikipedia it was 0.7g mass equivalent which naturally equals 700mg... and well yes, 700mg is a bit on the small side for a family lunch, but dont underestimate the energy you get from it...