GluttonyReaper

Members
  • Content count

    370
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

254 Excellent

About GluttonyReaper

  • Rank
    734

Recent Profile Visitors

2386 profile views
  1. I don't know what your craft looks like, but I'm guessing the last point of the contract didn't complete because you didn't put the 'root' part of the craft in a sub-orbital trajectory - if you have a mothership as the main craft, the game wants you to use that to fulfill all aspects of the contract for whatever reason, so if you had a separate reentry pod, it might not have counted it. It may have also had something to do with going straight into an aerobrake... the game can be quite finicky about what it counts as 'suborbital' in regards to the atmosphere, although I don't have much experience in that regard, so someone else would be better to confirm that. You don't necessary have to do the whole thing again, though. If you press Alt+F12, you'll open the cheat menu up. In there, you can go to the 'contract' section, and manually set the contract as complete from there, and get the relevant rewards and such. It's something I do occasionally when I'm in these kinds of situations, where I disagree with the game over whether I've actually completed the contract or not - I put in all the work, it's a singleplayer game, so I don't feel particularly guilty about it. The way the 'newly launched vessel' works is that the contract wants a new vessel, not a unique vessel. Which means you can complete four separate satellite contracts with the same satellite, as long as launch it after you take the contracts.
  2. ...as well as the Mk1 Landercan, and an altered version of the Cupola command module from the same mod (I think the original is still floating around somewhere?). And potentially some other parts, although I can't remember any off the top of my head. All of the plane stuff was a mod originally too, with was then improved by another mod which also became stock. I mean, if you really want to split hairs about it, almost everything in KSP was done in mods before the base game. ISRU was done by Kethane/Karbonite (with the modder who created the latter going on to create the stock system, and is still a dev to this day). Career mode was done (in part) by... Mission Control, was it called? It's been a while, I don't exactly remember Wheels were done in mods, probes were done in mods, aerodynamics were done in mods, re-entry heating was done in mods... even docking was done in mods, kind of. So, quite a bit.
  3. No, yes and yes. As soon as there are more than 250 craft marked as 'Debris', the game deletes the oldest of those craft until there are only 250 again. It's functionally the same as clicking 'Abort' in the Tracking Station for those craft.
  4. I think this, perhaps, illustrates the biggest difference between ideal space tourism and adventure tourism. Climbing Mt. Everest, skydiving, high-altitude hiking... all of these are 'active' things. Even if there's someone guiding you along, it's ultimately you who makes the journey or whatever, and I think, psychologically, there's a massive difference. If you get to the top of Mt. Everest... you did that. You challenged yourself to do something and you achieved it. Perhaps you had a long road of personal and physically development to get there, which is likely a worthwhile and interesting story in of itself. If you pay to get in a rocket (and for the sake of example, assume just as risky), and make it all the way into space... you got lucky and managed not to die? Maybe it's satisfying for the engineers. The odds might be the same, but the effect and point is very different, making comparing the two and little difficult... the actual journey into space would be thrilling, sure, but it's not what people are paying for. In that sense, it's still much more like a holiday to an exotic location that an adventure holiday, but naturally far, far more expensive. A similar effect applies here - part of the reason people perceive airplanes as 'dangerous' and some people feel very uncomfortable flying in one is they have zero control over what happens on that journey. If something bad happens to the plane, none of the passengers have any ability to do anything about it, realistically. In a car... even if statistically they are much less safe (arguably criminally so, but that's another discussion entirely), the driver feels in control. If something goes wrong, it's their own fault, or another driver's fault, as far as they are concerned, and they can do something to prevent it. Even passengers likely understand how cars and driving works, and can tell the driver if they think they're being dangerous or doing it wrong. And it's much easier to apply the mentality of "I know what I'm doing, and so nothing bad will happen like it did to those other people," than on a plane where you just have to trust that the pilot knows they're doing. Rockets are even worse in this regard - it's not just another person flying it, it's a computer, that could be susceptible to all kinds of problems that you don't even know about. ...so clearly, the correct solution is to let tourists fly the rockets to space themselves, KSP style
  5. Another option would be to use relay antennas, although the extra weight penalty is pretty significant. Maybe you could orbit a relay just above the atmostphere, and use a 16-S to transmit data out? (Also, antennae or antennas?)
  6. Unless something's changed, it does work... the game will only technically dock with one pair out of the three, but the magnetic forces will hold the other two together with reasonable strength. As already mentioned though, you have to be pretty precise with docking to make sure all three connect at once. EDIT: You can also use autostruts to hold them together - the 'grandparent part' option would probably be good here.
  7. I'd rather see stack parachutes as new parts... I like the nosecone/parachute combos we have now.
  8. Update: Menyoo and Lexicon (which are mod menus for GTA V) have recieved similar emails to the Open IV team, and have now also shut down. ...unlike Open IV though, these two were explicitly made to run in GTA Online in addition to singeplayer, in the form of extra 'paid' versions, if I'm reading this correctly. Both have said that they be donating the money made to a charity chosen by Take-Two, in statements that seem eerily similar (actually, exactly the same now that I look at it. Guess it's standard issue?).
  9. I haven't really got a horse in this race, so to speak... but I feel you might be underestimating the number of people who fall into this catergory. There's also a lot of people who simply just don't care about mods - not because they're young or anything, but just because it's not something they do. We take it for granted on the forums how easy it is to install mods for KSP... I'd tried with other games in the past, and it'd always taken a lot of time and energy and fiddling to get everything working, usually with sub-par results that occasionally broke for reasons I wasn't smart enough to understand. Hence why it tends to be a niche, minority thing for most games. Until you try modding KSP, you'd have no reason to think it was any different, so I think a lot of people just never get to that point. There's also many people who just don't have the time to mess with mods, the kind of people who boot up KSP once a fortnight when they have a few hours free. When you haven't got much time to play the game, it often doesn't matter how easy mods are to install, the benefits are largely outweighed by the time spent installing and keeping said mods up to date. Some people would rather just have more time to play the game. This forum more than likely isn't representative of KSP users as a whole, with most 'casual' players never making it to the forums. It seems more likely that the majority of players are running pure stock at least. ...and of course, there's console players, but that's a whole other issue entirely
  10. Yup, this a problem for the largest wheels only - unlike the others, they use 'tank' steering, meaning they use differential throttle to turn, rather than physically steering. The 'bug' (if there is one, not sure if it's intended behaviour or not) is that the throttle the steering can use doesn't scale with how fast you're moving or traction control or anything, like normal driving does, instead just going all the way up to 100 at all times. As such, if you mash left and right repeatedly, you can effectively run the motor at 100% at all times
  11. In simple terms, they let you turn your rockets around while they're in space. The more reaction wheels you have, the faster you can turn
  12. I'm not sure why it isn't moving normally (too much weight, maybe?), but I can explain why it moves why you use A and D. Those particular wheels use 'tank' steering - rather than turning physically, they increase the throttle on one side of the vehichle to create a turning motion. This throttle increase doesn't seem to obey the usual rules - throttle usually tapers off as speed increases, but this is not the case when steering, allowing you to run your wheels constantly at full speed. Hence, if you just tap A and D repeatedly, you'll actually accelate forwards, much faster than you could normally. Not a solution, just an observation.
  13. Now that looks very nice Shame neither have ben updated in 2 years...
  14. Plaster-of-paris... now that's an interesting option. Yup, even a quick google search brings up some pretty useful stuff. Now that's very, very shiny. Hopefully I'll be able to match that level of detail down the road, we shall see That's... a surprisingly good option. It may attract some unwanted guests, though...