Xavven

Members
  • Content Count

    1,072
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

935 Excellent

1 Follower

About Xavven

  • Rank
    Junior Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If I'm not mistaken, you can launch a new science lab and then collect the same data and get more science again. You just can't repeat the same data experiment in the same lab. This makes it so that science is infinite, only limited by available funding, which you can get from repeating contracts within Kerbin's SOI. This also means that the game loop is a little different than most games. Usually you're forced to progress until you beat the game. Career mode on the other hand is sandbox with some grind thrown in to give the illusion of purpose. Honestly, it works sorta well, but its limits really start showing the more I play KSP.
  2. I remember several threads on this same subject years ago. Science labs are OP in my opinion if you make the assumption that the goal of the game is to complete the tech tree, make tons of money, and push out to the innermost and outermost planets. Indeed, that's the gameplay loop that KSP set up. However, this can also be thought of as an open-world, sandbox game where you make your own goals. The lab gives an alternate means of completing the tech tree without forcing the player to grind Minmus landings or go interplanetary. Speaking of which, last I heard the statistics showed that a lot of players (not just the ones who post on this forums) don't actually make it to the interplanetary phase of the game. For them, the lab is the key to make the later nodes of the tree accessible, which you need if you want to make giant Mun landers that takes 20 passengers, or space shuttles. Neither of those are required to mine science from Mun and Minmus, but people make them for fun. Lately I've been playing around with quad-copters despite not really needing them for science or money farming, strictly speaking. That said, I have a suggestion. Time warping needs to mean something. I think that your space program should have a monthly operating cost that represents building maintenance, salaries, etc. and that operating cost increases with building upgrades, kerbals currently on mission, and probe cores on mission. That way, when you time warp to get a new set of contracts, complete lab science, or get breaking-ground deployed science finished, it actually costs you something.
  3. Try doing a quadcopter mission on Eve. I just got done with a design that has a max groundspeed of 128 m/s at 10,000m altitude on Eve. Much faster than my last ground rover design could achieve, and hills were of course no problem since, y'know, flight.
  4. That's a good point. It took me a lot of trial and error before I settled on my current plan for Gilly. Start with a low Eve PE on the intercept Lower the AP to about Gilly's altitude on the orbital insertion burn Go to AP and raise PE to about Gilly's altitude as well Orbit is now slow enough that inclination change isn't expensive. However, this assumes you also get yourself a low inclination in a mid-course correction on the way to Eve. Which, yeah as a newbie I never knew to do this or even how to do this.
  5. IMO, the progression from easiest to hardest is: Kerbin orbit Mun Minmus Ike Gilly Duna Eve (landing only, no return) Dres Jool system (except Tylo landing) Eeloo Moho Tylo landing/return Eve return The only reason I put Gilly before Duna is that Gilly requires so little delta-v to move around that it's worthwhile to get there to trigger contracts like "get temperature readings from these locations on the surface". You send one lander with a thermometer, pressure sensor, accelerometer, and gravioli detector with ~3000 m/s of dV on the lander stage and your money problems are over. Each contract will only use about 100 m/s from the existing lander, so you can complete a bunch of them before running out of fuel. Also, the Jool system might be harder to get to than Dres, but in terms of science it's far more worth it. You can collect a metric ton of science with a fly-by/orbit probe that neither lands on anything nor returns to Kerbin, but that swings around every moon, high orbit and low orbit, transmitting science back. If you have gravioli by this point then it can complete the rest of the tech tree.
  6. Short answer: yes Long answer: I've been a gamer for about 30 years, and I've played more KSP than any other single title in my entire life. That speaks volumes to how good this game is. Sure I have some criticisms, but only because it's my favorite game and I continue to care about it.
  7. Xavven

    Rovers

    My rovers are built like go-carts with a roll-cage, and the roll cage is attached to a hinge on one side. If I roll over accidentally, the whole "roof" of the car flips open like a clamshell, flipping the rover back onto its wheels. But the most important thing I learned about rovers is that they aren't very good in low gravity environments, but only because I'm impatient and want to go 30 m/s everywhere. On places like the Mun, I just build hoppers with 3000+ dV. On higher gravity areas like Eve, that's where rovers shine IMO.
  8. Juggling between missions just isn't fun for me. Normally I like to play for a certain amount of realism, and in reality a space program isn't going to hibernate for 2 years waiting for a Hohmann transfer to complete, but I really enjoy playing a mission from start to finish. The time elapsed since the start of the game is just a number and has 0 effect on gameplay. Who cares if my space program has been going for 400 Kerbin years?
  9. I'll start by saying all of that is perfectly valid, but the wonky things that make the game fun to you, make them not fun to me. I want my rockets to look aerodynamic. I don't want my decoupler on my spark to look like its fairing is floating in mid air. I want it to look: like this not like this I get that I the game will allow you to do whatever you want, but what annoys me is that it makes no sense. This looks bad to me (no offense) because of the extreme drag the ledge at the bottom should cause. Nobody should build something like this:
  10. Two main reasons: You start with manned spaceflight and don't get probes until mid-game. And oddly, Kerbals don't need electricity to live, but probes do have a constant electrical drain, so probes aren't viable until you get solar panels from the Electrics node. Parts get grouped into some of the most random research nodes. Examples: Advanced Exploration has extendable ladders and... the Mobile Processing Lab. These aren't even close to being the same level of complexity. Advanced Flight Control has RCS parts (okay makes sense) but also... command pods? The Skipper is in Heavy Rocketry, the 2.5m fuel tanks are in the Fuel Systems node, and the Rockomax Brand adapter (1.25m to 2.5m size) is in the General Construction node. Unless you have the Making History expansion, you need all three nodes to make use of the 2.5m rocket size without it looking like a wedding cake. Side bonus: the 2.5m EP-25 Engine Plate is in the Specialized Construction node, a full tier higher than Heavy Rocketry and Fuel Systems. Longer fuel tanks for a given diameter are often in higher science node tiers compared to their shorter versions, which is pointless when you can just stack two of the shorter ones together to get the same amount of fuel. Except the Tier 1 VAB has a 30 part limitation (which makes no sense) so early on, getting the longer fuel tanks helps you circumvent that limitation, but then the Tier 2 VAB has such a high part count limitation as to not be a factor at all. So the gameplay loop doesn't really fit here. The 0.625m stack separator is in the Miniaturization node, but the 0.625m regular decoupler (which should be a simpler part) is found a full tier later in the Precision Engineering node. You need one of them if you want the Spark engine in the Propulsion Systems node and not have it look stupid when you attach it to an upper-stage and a middle-stage on your rocket. And for some reason the Propulsion Systems node has the Status-V Minified Monopropellant Tank in it (the one with 7.5 monoprop fuel) which TBH should be in the Advanced Flight Control node with the other RCS tank. And Propulsion Systems also has the Baguette external fuel tank, but the smaller Dumpling external fuel tank isn't found until a full tier later in the Precision Propulsion node. None of this makes any sense!!
  11. IT Professional here. Microsoft Office famously does this to avoid data loss and corruption. Ironically this has backfired in our current environment and actually causes data loss, but despite that, the concept in general is sound.
  12. Set up an entire base on Eve, complete with a refueling ISRU site, a fueling truck, and an aerial exploration vehicle of your choice (quad copter? plane? hopper?)
  13. RealPlume, so your rocket exhaust doesn't look cartoony when you reach the upper atmosphere and the near vacuum of space.
  14. For me it's the tech tree. It's not buggy, it just doesn't make sense from either a balance/gameplay perspective or a common-sense/realism perspective.