• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8460 Excellent

About regex

  • Rank
    Peace, Love, and the R-7 Family

Profile Information

  • Location Eugene, Oregon
  1. Do you mean "realism" as in "real world" or as in "realistic to consider"? If you mean the first then I would tell you that is not applicable to KSP because payload fractions IRL are much, much lower (1~2%) than what you can easily achieve in KSP (>15% up to nearly 50% with specialized systems, last I checked). If you mean the later then I would say "what do you want to put into orbit?" In stock I generally build a few subassemblies to handle payloads up to about 70 tons (5, 10, 20, orange tank, 50, 70, something like that). Anything more than that usually requires a custom launcher (the way I build, at least). The orange tank, though, is what I consider to be a "gold standard" for LKO. You can do a hell of a lot in KSP with 36 tons.
  3. I must have missed that announcement. Cool.
  4. That would probably be the best thing to do, edit part temps.
  5. Do you have a [citation] for this? As I understood it the Kerbals and their animations are some sort of protected asset, and replacing them would be incredibly tough and/or require violating the EULA in some fashion. Because if it is a thing I'm very surprised no one from the RO group has been heavily campaigning and recruiting for this to happen.
  6. Wrong, plugin code (in library and code form) shared on Squad-owned services must be source-visible but there is no requirement that it be open-source, meaning you are always free to inspect the source of a plugin but use of that code may have other restrictions. Plugins shared elsewhere have no such restrictions placed on them. This is an important rule to understand for those people who want to get into modding. The add-on Posting Guidelines say nothing regarding the choice of license, only that you must choose one. All Rights Reserved is perfectly acceptable around here.
  7. Build something that looks like Lun or Орлёнок (omit the rear prop if you're unmodded, or build some contraption if desired) and fly it hella low over the ocean, you won't regret it even if it's not a true ground-effect craft. They're very fun and the new water physics since 1.0 mean you can land it in water as intended.
  8. *

    Well that's nice and I applaud the effort.
  9. *

    [snip] I'm not defending Squad, per se, but rather showing why a company, any company, that runs a free-to-use forum wouldn't bother spending money restoring a single user's mistakenly deleted posts when it likely represents a lot more time, effort, and money than the solution they've already taken.
  10. I think they were more referring to the mod rather than actual IRL fuels but you are correct in that their understanding of Real Fuels is wrong. Real Fuels is a spin-off of Modular Fuel Tanks which means that each fuel tank has a volume that you can fill with whatever fuel is needed for whatever engine, and customize each tank as needed. Of course, you might need a Service Bay type tank to handle monopropellants like hydrazine for RCS which rules out it's use for Kerolox storage, but that's beside the point.
  11. *

    No, it's a reasonable backup plan for a free-to-use forum for a video game company focused on making a game. If it gets messed up somehow it's easy to simply rollback, apologize to users, and move on. In cases like this though, it's really not worth restoring the entire database again and the workload involved in restoring a single user's posts from a mistake will likely cost much more in an actual employee's paid time than it is worth than to simply "fire" the offending moderator and lock up the tool. If we were paying for using this forum I would have much, much higher expectations but we're not; we're guests on a free-to-use forum with unpaid moderators helping out a company that probably would prefer to not have the overhead of hosting a forum but still does.
  12. *

    I don't think anyone's really happy about that but I don't see any reason to rage on the forum. The moderator had their privleges stripped according to @UomoCapra's post on the Reddit thread, which was an appropriate action.
  13. This sounds like basically all my attempts at landing on Callisto, one problem after another. Keep it up! I finished up the basic Atlas core and plopped my Able stage on it, making the ill-fated (IRL) Atlas-Able. This morning I tested it out with a potential lunar fly-by probe. Unfortunately, much like its real life counterpart the launch vehicle failed, this time with the sustainer mysteriously cutting out with about 1km/s of fuel left (thanks TestFlight... ) Still, I count this as a good test considering it broke all my previous altitude and orbit records with a 250km x ~9000km orbit. I'll put some batteries on the Able stage to allow for longer coasts and hope for a better launch tonight. The probe was spinning at a fantastic rate from the SRM stabilization so the picture didn't turn out how it looked in game. I'll probably reduce the fuel in those spin motors in order to make mass for the batteries.
  14. *

    These forums are owned by Squad, they can do whatever they want however they want using whatever methods they want in terms of this forum. You are a guest here using their free services, if you don't like the service or how it works, there's always Reddit.
  15. I waffled a bit this week trying to build a procedural Atlas, needed to call in the big guns and get some help from NathanKell, who had done this before. Turns out I was using too many structural parts and the engines just need to float under the fairings, which is okay I guess because you don't really see under them. Once I solved the "hanging" collider problems it was smooth as butter. There's still a lot of work left to do on this one and it's obviously a test rig, but I think it's turning out nicely.