juanml82

Members
  • Content count

    1220
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

276 Excellent

About juanml82

  • Rank
    Rocket Scientist
  1. Ok, it was just the distance between the kit and the construction equipment
  2. Hi, I'm trying to launch a 100% complete kit, but I get the error "can not launch from a packed construction kit". What does it mean and how can I launch the ship?
  3. Any chance this gets updated to 1.3?
  4. And useful. By launching it with LFO drop tanks or in an asparagus configuration, we can use the central stack as an interplanetary transfer stage
  5. Well, at this point, no idea. I've just hyperedited a copy of the ship I was building to the Mun's orbit and deleted the kit
  6. About integration, if you want, you can add a bottom adapter from the bottom form factor to stock form factors of similar size. Also, again if you want, you can throw in a second version without the nose and with an attachment node there instead
  7. IDK, I think dev's effort is better employed in something else. After all, if you're looking at the map view and see a plane icon in orbit somewhere, it's a spaceplane. You can adapt most designs to the stock categories, and it's not like the stock game has a proper gui in where to manage multiple flights anyway - icons should be accessory to that
  8. You have too much monoprop. Worse, monoprop tanks are heavier than LF tanks. Just one of those MK3 monoprop tanks should be enough (more than enough, actually). OTOH, you lack reaction wheels. Unless you burn monoprop, that ship should be taking a lot of time to turn. You don't need radiators. The MRS mod has a few parts that can help you fine tune your ship. I'm thinking about 2.5m nervs, which equal to 4 stock nervs and 3.75m reaction wheels. You may also want to add a small cargo bay (or a 1.25m service bay at the nose) with rtgs, science experiments and extra batteries.
  9. Cool part. As for internal rtg, while it makes sense, I'd prefer if it's not there - IMHO it goes against the lego-like nature of the game. About launching it, why do you recommend 5m launchers? I've tried with two radially attached kickbacks and got into orbit without issue. As for constructive criticism, I think where it's lacking is with integration with the rest of the parts. Radial attachments requiring fiddling with the rotation gizmo to get the parts straight (then again, given the shape, I doubt there is a way around that), and it would be cool if you could add an adapter the form factor at the bottom of the pod and the Mk2 form factor, or the 3.75m form factor, so stacking it looks more "organic". I also have mixed feelings about the nose. The top rcs and the texture is ok, but on the other hand, while there is an attachment node at the top (and I haven't tried it) it doesn't look like it would play well with attaching 1.25m parts, like a parachute, a klaw or a forward docking port.
  10. Maybe this hasn't been defined yet, or if it is, it maybe under NDAs, but I'd like to know if there are plans for more kerbal games, like a KSP 2, a "Kerbal Aeronautic Program" prequel, or any other lateral thing (idk, "Telltale Games: Kerbal Space Program"). As much as I like this game, I feel the stock game will not move in the direction I'd like it to move... but maybe a KSP 2 will. Or maybe a KAP 1 will be fun as well.
  11. Example: Skyrim. You fight certain enemies, they use a shout that disarms you. You can get your sword back from the ground, you can retort to destruction magic, you can use a shout that makes you temporarily invulnerable, you can run and let a follower or conjured daedra deal with the enemy. Which one you take also depends on the skills you've leveled up before that point. However, if your engine fails to start when you're landing on Vall, your ship will crash. There is nothing you can do to avoid it. Hence, lack of choice. KSP, since career, has plenty of RPG elements: contracts are side quests (there is no "main quest"), science is xp points, the tech tree is levelling up, "finish this quest" is "finish this mission". And you can not fail the career, but you can fail your individual missions.
  12. So we already have orbital decay between 62.5 and 69.9 km And we're back at Harvester's original trial and error: you get to do things in the VAB which will have consequences that you can't predict. That's fine for someone playing single missions in LKO. But if you're sending a fleet to Jool? You create 8 different vessels. You send each of them in a long transfer to Jool. While they are travelling, you handle your Eve and Moho missions. Finally, KAC lets you know the ships are beginning to enter Jool's SOI. Everything goes well until a random coin toss makes your tanker fail to restart its engines as it approaches its suicide burn for landing on Vall. And there is nothing you can do about it. Take an RPG instead. You can focus on developing your one handed skills or your two handed skills. One-handed swords have specific pros and cons you (should) know from the get go, the same applies for two handed swords. As the game progresses, maybe there are special one handed swords you can't take advantage of if you leveled up your two handed skills as well. However, what will never happen is your swords vanishing in the middle of a dungeon.
  13. We need pics to check. Just in case, are you using LF only tanks or are you using LFO tanks and removing the oxidizer? Nervs should be used with LF only tanks (stock: the spaceplane parts like the MK3 line. Mods: Interstellar fuel switch lets you completely fill regular rocket tanks with LF. There are also plenty of part mods). What's your payload? As in, what are you carrying above the nukes and their fuel tanks?
  14. A good game is a sucession of interesting choices. If your engines don't restart, you don't have a choice to make. You've lost and there is nothing you can do about it. It's like having a piece of armor or a weapon that randomly vanishes in an RPG or FPS. It's not a good design choice for a videogame, even if it's a consideration real engineers can have. If you want both orbital decay and avoid micromanagment, you also need a game element to automate station keeping. You make a satellite and add enough fuel and an engine so it can last x years. So you add a game element to cause a failure, another to negate it and you end up where you've started. KSP is consuming more CPU cycles, man hours have been spent in designing it, and the gameplay remains the same. If they can do the station keeping themselves, what's the point to have this dynamic in the first place? I don't care, because you're incredibly unlikely to accidentally rezvendous with debris, let alone get hit by one. And if I want debris to dissapear while I'm not looking, I lower the amount of debris. Also, did someone calculate what's Kerbin's Karman line? Is it really 70km?
  15. Yeah, actually I was waiting for a new cinematic to share in some of my acquaintances Facebook. I guess the old 1.0 cinematic would have to do, but it's a bit weird considering that the localization effort was made in order to boost sales. True, all the cinematics are language neutral, but it would be cool to have something nice advertising "now in your language"