Jump to content

Xavven

Members
  • Posts

    1,104
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Xavven

  1. I agree with this, basically. I use all sorts of different engines on stages depending on need. However I will say that there are some engines that come into my builds quite often, and others that seldom fit my purposes. Spark, Terrier, Cheetah, and Poodle I use often on upper stages, landers and probes, or even sustainers. Ant, Spider, and Twitch I hardly ever find a use case for. Bobcat and Skipper see a lot of use as a light first stage, or a sustainer engines. But Skiff seems to occupy this strange niche case that hardly ever comes up, and the combined cost of the decoupler and the engine is usually as much or higher than simply using a Skipper with a larger fuel tank instead on a $ per DV basis. Skipper and Twin Boar are great first stages, with the latter being overkill for many of my builds but it's just too cost effective compared to the alternatives. And clustered Skippers make great first stage heavy lifters until bigger engines are unlocked in the tech tree. I hardly ever have a use for Thud. Huh, if I had to pick one, I'd pick Twin Boar. It just has SO much thrust and is so cheap that it had wide applications as a first stage for payloads big and small. I often find that I don't need something that powerful for my payload, for example it is giving me a TWR of 2.8, but when I price out a more tailored multi-stage lifter with engines that keep the TWR more in the 1.5 - 2.0 range, it ends up costing the same amount or more. Frankly I think the Twin Boar is just underpriced. But we don't need perfect game balance. Sometimes in real life you get a design that just dominates because it's effective, reliable, strong, and cheap. I like to think of the Twin Boar as that magic combo that some Kerbal rocket scientist devised.
  2. If it's an orbital fueling station then I put a boom on it that branches off to all three sizes so any ship I conceive of now and in the future can use it. Generally I use jr. on probes, standard on most manned ships, but occasionally I build big ships too with sr. I tried standardizing on jr. for all refueling, but quickly found out that even during refueling you want a solid, non-wobbly connection, so bigger ships need bigger ports.
  3. I agree. I'm sure it depends on personal build style, but I tend to put smaller landing struts on my creations, and in past versions I've had to manually set the struts to max strength and damping. In 1.12.2, maxing them turns them into rigid beams of diamond. They also seem to have less ground grip and my landers slide down even slight inclines much more easily.
  4. I was looking to say the same thing effectively. I'll add that I'd like us to have blurry/low-res textures for planets and moons in the home system for starters, to simulate the limitations of what you can see from ground-based telescopes with the Kerbal equivalent of circa 1960's Earth technology. Maybe slightly better textures if the player launches a space telescope to Kerbin orbit, but you don't get good textures until you send a probe into its SOI. For exoplanets, we should only have as much information as using the transit method ala the Keppler space telescope would give. Meaning, rough estimates of size and density, and only if they orbit their star in the viewing plane. No textures at all, and if they are small enough we shouldn't know they're there until a probe is in that star system.
  5. Nothing we say here is changing their minds, but to help you understand, software development is a business. They aren't going to make enough money bug fixing KSP 1 at this point. KSP 2 is very likely to be profitable, on the other hand.
  6. With something as complex as KSP, there is no such thing as stamping out all remaining bugs. At some point you have to call it "good enough". They have devoted the rest of their resources to KSP 2, which is why we haven't seen another bugfix patch in a month and probably won't for some unknown time more.
  7. Is @Whackjob still playing KSP? You could look up some of his videos on YouTube. Looks like he stopped uploading KSP stuff 6 years ago, so it's missing a lot of improvements like the Making History parts (including 5m parts and engines), stock autostruts and joint reinforcement, but his principles still apply. Look at how he arranges rockets, girders/panel, and struts them together.
  8. After getting to the point where unlocking all the career nodes was pretty easy, I set my sights on more sandboxy things like: Jool 5 Eve manned return mission Tylo landing & return vehicle Do it again but this time it must be a single-stage from Tylo orbit to landing and back to orbit (no dropping any spent stages) Laythe spaceplane Build a spaceplane that has the same launch and return profile as the Space Shuttle Quad-copter exploration of Eve and Duna Build a space station inspired by the ISS ISRU operations on Mun and/or Minmus that include the mining rig, ore processing on-site, trucks if necessary to transport fuel to a ground-anchored and custom built (by Engineers using the i menu) launchpad, transport of fuel to orbit, optionally to a space station, acting as a refueling gateway for other missions. Apollo 11-17 (pick one) reenactment And you can do a whole career with additional self-imposed rules like: Kerbals require extra roomy spacecraft with multiple rooms for any mission lasting longer than 14 days. Kerbals require the above, plus artificial gravity by some means of centrifugal force if the mission lasts more than 1 year. This could be mods that add spinning habitats, or "pretend spinning" by custom building your own circular habitat or just putting the living spaces at the ends of a spacecraft that is reasonably long enough that it could generate enough centrifugal force by just sending it tumbling in the pitch or yaw direction, understanding the game when time-warping stops the rotation, but we pretend the Kerbals keep it spinning when not performing maneuvers. Environmental policy bans the use of solid rocket boosters, except seperatrons Anti-Kessler syndrome policy: no spent stages or orbital trash is allowed in orbit around Kerbin. No deleting debris allowed (unless its periapsis is below 70km implying atmosphere would decay its orbit quickly), so trash must be manually de-orbited within a reasonable timeframe or when able. Same as above except the rule applies to all other celestial bodies, so transfer stages must impact into the surface. No trash in solar orbit either. No landing on engine bells. Must use landing legs (or custom built landing legs that look reasonably structurally sound)
  9. This isn't meant as a bug report, but is anyone else getting duplicate parachutes (the personal kerbal ones) every time they use the EVA science kit?
  10. Sounds kind of like a kraken drive. Do you have anything near your exit hatch? Upload a craft file. Speaking of aging satellite contracts, I really like them! I love the idea of servicing other spacecraft, adding reaction wheels and/or batteries, etc. It's one of my favorite mission types now and it makes the Kerbal system feel more alive and realistic.
  11. Naming systems that denote purpose and version are practical and useful, especially for organization and when you have dozens of flights going at once. So of course I don't do that and instead pick naming systems that are fun, but leave me forgetting what the heck it was for and how old they were in the tech tree. https://namingschemes.com/Main_Page has a giant list of suggestions. Lately I've been using horticulture and animals, so things like Pothos IX and Polar Bear Mk 4. In my next save I might go with Hobbit/LOTR characters. Sure would be fun sending Dwalin and Balin to the moon
  12. Yes, I copied my KSP directory to my Documents folder first, but I did my testing on a new save and without mods.
  13. I'm not getting any drift on a (very simple) craft that I built as one craft on the ground, then decoupled and re-docked while on the ground (using rover wheels) then cheated into orbit with F12, rotated 15 degrees (on both ports) and then un-locked both ports. I saved and reloaded and quit and reloaded, then saved and reloaded 5 more times. They're still perfectly in-line. Does this bug only occur with very large craft? I will say that after the 1.12.2 patch, KSP was causing my entire computer to crash very consistently (no problems in other CPU and graphics intense games like DCS). When I verified game files in Steam, it re-downloaded 34 files. Still crashed. Verified again, 0 files had to be redownloaded, still crashed. It wasn't until I uninstalled completely, deleted the KSP directory from my Steam common folder, and redownloaded completely that the crashes stopped. Is there a chance that the part drifting bug could be solved by others if they deleted and reinstalled completely fresh like I did? EDIT: Warning - copy your KSP folder somewhere safe first so you don't lose your saves
  14. Yes, here are the relevant notes in the patch:
  15. Very touching! I was hoping you would get Felipe in this video and I cheered out loud when I saw that you did!
  16. Oh man, I just realized I completely feel the same way. It was the last major game-changing thing to add once they finished fixing the souposphere, adding a stock version of remote tech, and ISRU. But now... it's up to mods for the forseable future.
  17. Hey, ya'll. Don't think of this as a sad moment. It would be sad if KSP and KSP2 were both ending development. KSP version 1.13, KSP version 2.0. What's the difference? We are getting more KSP, folks. The sequel is going to be great.
  18. There are several reasons career is harder than science mode. It adds limited funding and limited starting facilities as constraints. In science mode you have limited technology but can build as big as you need to and can retry as many times as needed. In career mode, you can fail the game if you fail too many time in a row and deplete your funds. Career also forces you to complete contracts to replenish funding. Some of those contracts aren't worth the time and effort, or might even cost you more to complete than they actually pay out, so you have to know enough about the game to pick and choose the right contracts. Contracts also might require precision landings, specific orbits, etc. and many of those requirements (and the skills needed for them) aren't needed in science mode. I find it to be more fun than science mode because of the added challenge. It has its shortcomings that have been discussed quite a bit over the years, though. My personal opinion is that it could be improved by having annual costs that increase as you upgrade facilities and have more flights in progress, and annual government funding that increases as your reputation increases, and reputation decreases if you haven't done anything in a while -- this would make time warping is more consequential.
  19. I was about to type effectively the same thing. I'm impressed. A big THANK YOU to the people who did these retextures.
  20. I like surface exploration too, but I dislike rovers specifically. My exploration vehicles are mostly hoppers. When propellers were added, my Eve exploration vehicle of choice became a quad-copter. Before that, I had designed a rover with a roll cage and flip-righting mechanism and drove several tens of kilometers with it, some manned, some not. It's fun trying to get up a crater edge and back down without eating dirt. But in the end, wheeled vehicles are too slow for instant-gratification me.
  21. Looks great! I think Pol still needs a revamp too. Does anyone know if Tylo was done already? I can't seem to remember and I haven't been there in a long time.
  22. I don't miss that at all! And then there were times when adding too many struts would cause parts to explode on the launchpad, so you'd have to figure out which ones to remove to stop that problem. It was a balancing act. Ugh!
  23. That is pretty noodly! Mine looked a lot like that when I joined circa 0.21 or so. Was that screenshot taken before 2.5m parts?
  24. I remember learning how to build thrust plates to make big rockets when the Rockomax Jumbo-64 was the largest fuel tank we had and the Mainsail was the most powerful engine we had. Everything back then had to be asparagus staging once you reached a certain size. Now we have 5m parts and my rockets look more reasonable.
  25. Great idea! Thanks for sharing this. I put mini docking ports on things I think will need refueling, but even though a mini docking port is light, its weight is actually significant on smallish satellites. It's sometimes enough to unbalance a craft to the point that I have to counterbalance it with either a second mini docking port or something else of similar weight on the opposite side. I'll definitely use this trick.
×
×
  • Create New...