• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

593 Excellent

About Mycroft

  • Rank
    CMAU Incorporated Founder and CEO

Profile Information

  • Location In orbit of a random body
  • Interests KSP, Duhh!!!!!! ;) Also building unnecessarily large craft, and occasionally Portal 2.

Recent Profile Visitors

2060 profile views
  1. I would probably be classified as an engineer, with the occasional moments of flight controller (I often enjoy teaching new players). But if you look at my Kerbalx page, you will see all my craft have one thing in common (besides being huge and overegineered and usually capable of more than they were designed to do). They all have a purpose. I never really enjoy building craft just because, I enjoy building craft designed to do a certain thing, and usually end up being able to do it with fuel to spare. Some of my designs are fairly innovative, and I hold the current record for the top three most massive craft ever posted on KerbalX (not to brag, but that's just a fact). In fact, I even designed craft to beat my own mass record without using tweakscale. That was their purpose. I really enjoy community space programs actually, not because I like the interaction, but because I enjoy the challenge of building crafts to meet certain specs. When I built for @DaGuyAboveYou's CSA, I really enjoyed it, and the design I came up with, based on my tests, worked rather nicely. The reason I ended up taking a break from KSP was because I didnt exactly have a point to build craft for. I know a few scientist KSPers (who doesn't?) and I never was exactly interested in being ultra-efficient, just reasonably efficient. I remember when a scientist friend of mine nearly choked when I said to add more fuel if it didnt have enough delta-v. All that to say, since I find it easier to build things when they have a specific purpose, I suppose I am an engineer.
  2. This challenge looks cool! If anyone is interested, I have a 227 ton battleship id like to see how performs... but we dont have the CPU resources to run a battle and film it. If anyone is interested, @ me and I'll post it. Just testing the waters here.
  3. Two things. First, My armor was tested against modded weapons of just about any variety i could find. Secondly, about stock vacuum missiles, that would be true if the targeting system targeted the CoM. Sadly for the missiles, it does not. It targets the first part. So creators like me can make it harder for attackers by offsetting the first part as I did on my Andromeda (, rendering that feature useless at best, or at worst, a lot less useful. And yes I found that relative speeds in excess of 250m/s do lots of damage, and oddly enough, my armor does actually work on it, but not super well.
  4. I basically agree, in my own research, I found that the best armor is layers of 2x2 metal panels separated by octags. Spreads heat and impact. 4 layers can take a lot of heat and structural damage. Problem is, that is ultra heavy and part abundant. Especially combined with its limited use, this weighs things on the side of the guns heavily, especially in vacuum. It could be argued that this is already the case with stock vacuum missiles, since putting an i-beam on the front will deal lots of damage, but I believe the fact that stock missiles have to be personally flown makes it both more awesome and partially evens the odds. There are no comparable armor mods at the moment, as @NotAnAimbot so kindly stated, but @Sidestrafe2462 if you would like to work on one, we would support you.
  5. My company? Well when I was little, I came up with a fantasy world called 'Coalonia'. They had huge spaceships, so of course when I came to KSP, I had to include that for nostalgia's sake. I spent a while on deciding what name to use but eventually settled on "Coalonia Military Aerospace Unlimited Inc" and so CMAU Incorporated was born. I used this flag for my KSP flag, as it was a space themed thing from an online logomaker Pretty simple. I even have a company joke that the real motto of the company is "Go big or go home" since we build stuff in the 100+ kiloton range for giggles. RIP my poor laptop.
  6. I recently came back from a break from KSP and the forums, and was a little surprised to see Sal's avatar everywhere. I discovered this thread and was sad to hear that Sal was leaving. I remember the many times when he helped me personally, living by his rule of a tap on the shoulder, when I made some of my many mistakes. Even when I first started, I could tell Sal commanded great respect in the community. And not just by the intimidating 'SQUAD Staff' title under his avatar. By the way everyone treated him, but most importantly, I could tell he commanded respect by the way he respegted people. @sal_vager, I know I'm a bit late with this, but I want to say that I will miss you greatly. You were always one of my favorite mods, and I deeply respected you. May you fare well in wherever you choose to go, because a man who knows how to command respect in one place can command respect in any. Sal, I salute you. (cue 21 kerbal-gun salute) totally not an exuse to blow kerbals up Sincerely, Mycroft, Incomplete Nerd, and CEO of CMAU Incorporated We will miss you.
  7. CMAU Incorporated is back up! It may be a bit before we can compile our submission, but we are officially reopening for business, after a few months break! We are glad to be back, and hope to make many vehicles for the cause of HKA!
  8. uhm.... Wasn't this thread supposed to be terminated because of too much friction? And not reopened? mean while: -17 (+) ...because neutrality...
  9. Yes, we thought it would be helpful since the current organization (according to provider) is not user friendly if you are looking to launch a given payload and dont necessarily care who designed it, but that order has value if you only trust a few launch providers or distrust some others. So my request was that we have both, one on this thread, and keep the other thread the way it is, so people can use both.
  10. Hello, CEO of CMAU Incorporated here. We came to this thread looking for a launcher, and were disappointed that there was no list of availiable lifters in the OP. @TheEpicSquared Could you please add such a list, similar to in the OP of the other thread, but perhaps organized by payload tonnage instead of launch provider? That would save a ton of time for both payload providers and launch pproviders, as both could see what launchers were needed and what were not, as well as what options are on the market at the moment. Thank you for your time, and we would definitely be interested in participating in the future, both as launchers and as payload providers. But we would prefer to know what all the options are first. Thank you for your time! Mycroft, CEO of CMAU Incorporated

    Yes, I know, I took a long LONG break from KSP, due to lost interest and major systems issues, but I am happy to report that CMAU Incorporated is back online! We hope to relaunch posting on KerbalX and contracts for many different people, including, (hopefully) a few for CSA! Shoot me a private message if you have questons/comments/concerns/, but for now, CMAU is back in business!

    Thank you for your time,


  12. I understand the fact that you feel blamed for the problem here. However, no one singled you out, or pinged you, because we understand that you are most likely working on a fix. However the case remains that there is in fact a glitch in Kopernicus (a truly wonderful mod that we would be screwed without) and the proposed workarounds only work for some people. Honestly, I found your words highly ironic as it is sadly your job to actually fix this glitch, not people who depend on your mod for their own. Now I'm quite sure that you are working on a fix but I would respectfully request that you refrain from blaming people for not installing your partial fix, and claiming that they do not listen to the requests of others, without knowing the whole story. This will get us nowhere. I know @daniel l. and he does actually listen to the requests of others very well. All suggestions are taken seriously and responded to. Also please kindly refrain from taking on such an aggressive tone in posts on another modmakers thread. You and I both know what that does. Respectfully, Mycroft, CEO of CMAU Incorporated
  13. Cool! I don't use Tweakscale as a general policy, so big and heavy go hand in hand for me. I would like to make a submission at some point, and I have a work around, but I was wondering what your perspective is. That glitch is an old rival of mine, and I have learned to live with it. I will be posting one of my 300m, >100 kiloton space battleships at some point here. Made with B9 HX and no Tweakscale. Cool challenge, and it's right up my ally! I love it! Oh and no it doesn't fit in any building. The booster just barely fits inside the SPH.
  14. @daniel l. This is a cool challenge and something I would be interested in. However I have one question. Could you please include a galaxy file so that people with any computer can compete? You and I both know that not everyone can run the TBG generation program, so for those who can't, would you please include a file? It would also standardize the challenge. Thanks, and TBG is awesome!
  15. Ok so this looks like a cool challenge but I do have one question. What about the KSP glitch that breaks the runway/pad if your craft is heavy enough, no matter how far off the ground you are. It was confirmed to be a glitch but apparently isn't high priority on the fix list. So basically because of your rule that the KSC must remain undamaged, doesn't that mean that there is an arbitrary limit on how big a craft you can submit? I'm a little confused here. Other than that one small thing, this looks like a great challenge!