Jump to content

Tweeker

Members
  • Posts

    379
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

146 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

2,724 profile views
  1. Why? Because they're charging full price for and Early Access game.
  2. $49.00 for an early access game? Blech I've still got a bad taste in my mouth from the way they treated Star Theory, Now they want to push an unfinished game out at AAA pricing? Double Blech.
  3. That is , as the saying goes, "The banality of evil", It wasn't personal, just business. . and by the way, Have you met this nice guy who is really passionate about #product.
  4. That really the crux of it, they are hoping that by putting a face on it, and by focusing on the game, that they can head off any negative feeling about what they've done.
  5. Hi Nate, I certainly understand your difficult position in this matter, you're just a guy trying to get thru like everyone else. I don't see any need to bash on you for doing what you must to get by. It must have been quite difficult to find a project you had put so much into suddenly in limbo, and yourself out of a job. I can empathize, I've been there myself. But for my part, no matter how excited I am about KSP 2 I can't in good conscience reward Take-2's behavior in this matter. If I put myself in Michael or Allen's shoes I would be absolutely livid, by all accounts Take-2 was quite happy with the progress Start Theory had made on the game, and had even given them an extension. The sticking point here seems to have been Michael and Allen not wanting to sell the company on Take-2's terms. Even if the sale was a no-go there was no indication that the completion of the game was in any danger. This was a business move, and a pretty shady one at that. I've been playing KSP since .18, and I have enjoyed every minute of it. I learned alot, and made many memories playing the game. I am deeply excited for everything you are doing in KSP 2, But now knowing the sleezy things that have been done, for no reason beyond pure, simple greed, I don't think I'll every be able to enjoy it in the same way. I seriously doubt Take-2 will miss my 60$, but I can't just overlook such ruthless behavior. I wish you good luck with this project, but honestly I'd feel guilty enabling such behavior.
  6. I liked that it was developed ,and funded entirely base off word of mouth. They made a good game, and sold it for a price that match the features in the game at the time. It was constantly updated and evolving. There was no DLC/micro transactions, no spy ware, no DRM, Just a good game.
  7. Based on today's news I've definitely gone from pre-order to maybe buy on sale 1-2 year after release, {2024ish} I've got KSP 1 + mods, and that will have to be enough.
  8. I don't think it is strictly necessary to change to real life fuels, but it would be nice to have a few more realistic options. Alot of the fuels can be condensed into groups based on how dense they are, how storable they are, and how well they perform, In KSP currently you have, Monoprop, Solid fuel, Liquid fuel/oxidizer which is a rough analog of hypergolics LFO for the LV-N, and Xenon. Generally speaking I am a proponent of keeping things simple, But I think there is value in adding an analogue for cryonic fuels, and a "fluffier" fuel as a LH analog. Most of the hypergolic fuels, and KER/LOX are of similar density, and produce about the same ISP, ~290 to 340, and I think could be considered to be "liquid fuel" LH/LOX is about 3X fluffier than this, but produce 400-460 ISP, and could be represented by a 2nd type of liquid fuel. The LFO Nerva should have propellant that is 7X fluffier than it currently is, LH being 7X less dense than kerosene. CH4/LOX seems to slot in between the 2, Being slightly significantly denser than LH, and providing ISP in the 330-380+ range. So maybe 8 fuels, Monoprop, Solid Fuel, LF 1 ---- A Ker/lox or hypergolic analog, 300-330 ISP LF 2 ---- A LH/LOX Analog, 3X less dense 375-430 ISP LF 3 ---- A Meth/LOX analog, Maybe 1.2X less dense than LF 1 {a guess} and 320 to 370 ISP. LFO --- NERVA and NTR rockets, 7X less dense than it currently is. Xenon. Future fuels such as Metallic hydrogen. In my experience most real life engine can be converted to KSP fairly simply, divide the IRL engine thrust by either A) (1000 for LBF) or b) (4.5 for KN) to get KSP thrust. ISP seems to vary a bit for KSP engines compared to real life, Clydesdale has 235 VS 242 isp --- 3% lower, the Mainsail/Mastosdon have a ISP of 280-290 SL, VS 260 for the F1. I think real world ISPs could translate with a 5-10% reduction. It is important to remember the Mammoth's stats were badly distorted by the fact that the kickback was greatly undersized for the job when it was rolled out in 0.23.5. The mammoth was greatly overpowered to compensate for this. When the Vector was split of from the Mammoth in 1.0.5 it was likewise OP. Now that there is a proper booster in the form of the Cyldsdale, it is possible to re-scale the mammoth and booster. The Vector/ Mammoth for example should have stats more like this: 1.875M engine ~75% scale. SL ISP, 330-350, Vac ISP 405-430 SL Thrust 420 Vac thrust 510 for the Mammoth thrust would be 1680 SL, 2040 vac. An RL-10s are difficult to characterize because there have been SO MANY of them, however almost all of the have ~25,000 LBF thrust and ~450 Vac ISP. They are very rarely used at sea level, with the exception of the RL10A-5. IRL RL10s have a nozzle diameter betweens 1.16 and 2.1M, and KSP seems to be about 66% scale so 2.5M would be vastly oversized. 1.25M seems workable., then they could make 2.5m or 3.75m clusters like the Centaur, DUUS or EUS or ICPS. At a guess it should have stats something like this: 1.25m ~66-75% scale. SL ISP 300-320, Vac ISP 420-435 SL Thrust 10 Vac Thrust 25 I would like to see the option to switch out nozzles for different applications, for example having a sea level nozzle that is more compact, but lower thrust. Then a vacuum nozzle that make poor sea level thrust, and ISP, but is good in space. Maybe even an Eve optimized nozzle. --Just my 2 cents.
  9. Glad it worked out, I read your post and look at the stock Kerbal X. It seemed like it could be made into a decently capable ship, while staying true to the basic premise.
  10. The Kerbal X is actually a pretty decent craft, It just needs 2 things, more fuel in the lower stages, and a smaller engine on the lander. I banged one out, it has about 8,000 m/s delta-v work great for Mun landings, for Minus you need to lower the thrust limiter on the 3 landing engines to 33. I also added reaction wheels and RCS. https://kerbalx.com/Tweeker/Kerbal-XL
  11. I have used them extensively, but like most mod packs, there are part I use and parts I don't so the parts tabs become cluttered. I stripped the mod pack down, but the fact remains, these could stand to be added to stock
  12. I thought about it, and built a few probes, and from my experience, They are still the heaviest {Fuel excluded} part you will put on a small probe, If you Build a small probe consisting of: 1) an HCES or OCTO core, 2) a z-100 battery. 3) an OX-Sat solar panel, 4) an Oscar-B fuel tank. 5) An Ant engine 6) A thermometer, seismometer, a barometer, and a Gravioli detector, 7) Communotron 16 8) 3 ea LT-05 Micro Landing Struts. 3 struts are the least you are going to use, and the struts weight .045 for 3. this is more than any other part , except the probe core. The struts are the most expensive parts in terms of delta-v cost, and they are oversized in this application. You are actually better off using Cubic Octagonal Struts as landing legs. I actually use the LT-05 struts on my manned landers,
  13. It actual should be very simple to code, this is an older example of the .cfg, but PART { name = fuelTank_long module = Part author = NovaSilisko mesh = model.mu scale = 0.1 node_stack_top = 0.0, 15, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0 node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -15.1, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0 node_attach = 5.01, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1 TechRequired = fuelSystems entryCost = 4800 cost = 800 category = FuelTank subcategory = 0 title = FL-T800 Fuel Tank manufacturer = Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spacecraft Parts Co description = A stretched variant of the FL-T400, the FL-T800 holds twice the fuel in a slightly stronger container. The black stripes along the side make the rocket go faster, our engineers tell us. attachRules = 1,1,1,1,0 mass = 0.5 dragModelType = default maximum_drag = 0.2 minimum_drag = 0.3 angularDrag = 2 crashTolerance = 6 breakingForce = 50 breakingTorque = 50 maxTemp = 2000 // = 2900 bulkheadProfiles = size1, srf RESOURCE { name = LiquidFuel amount = 360 maxAmount = 360 } RESOURCE { name = Oxidizer amount = 440 maxAmount = 440 } } The Bold red part of the .config that effects how much, and what kind of fuel is loaded in the tank. All the parts could have this changed to be switchable between 3 or 4 different setups in the VAB, just as the paint scheme is changed now. It would be very low-level programming, mostly defining the capacity of each tank/part in LFO, rocket fuel, monoprop, etc.
×
×
  • Create New...