Jump to content

hjrrockies

Members
  • Posts

    76
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by hjrrockies

  1. That's the first time, ever, that I've not fallen for that trick. I'm a bit pleased with myself =)
  2. I understand that TAC is not currently supported under US. Some people seem to get it working fine for .24.2 anyway. I'm having an issue with the fuel cell - it doesn't do anything at all. I have room for water output and plenty of batteries for the charge, but still nothing. Is this a common issue, waiting to be fixed with the official TAC pack, or is this something I can patch on my own?
  3. Thanks a ton. I had gotten an intersection, but never at periapsis before. This will help with lots of other things - I'm very good at being precise with my orbits, but I lack a lot of the tricks to cut down delta-V.
  4. I have a contract to put a satellite into a highly inclined munar orbit. I could just do a transfer on the ecliptic and change inclination upon arrival, but I'd really like to save delta-V and go for a more direct approach. I'm having a hard time finding a transfer orbit that even puts me in the same plane as the target orbit. So: 1. At what part of the Mun's orbit do I want to arrive? When the target orbit is aligned towards Kerbin, or perpendicular to it? 2. What type of parking orbit do I leave from? Try to match the target inclination, or just stay equatorial? 3. Where is the most efficient spot for a mid-course correction burn?
  5. Thanks a ton. I totally agree with the idea - I was thinking about trying to set up a surface-based system for that very reason. That would have been super boring. Good to know that it's not a bug!
  6. I am having a few issues with LoS - namely, LoS not having any effect on vessels. I have a single satellite in LKO with several Com16, and it receives a signal even when opposite KSC. I have double-checked my settings, and I can't seem to figure out why. I have no craft on the ground that might be relaying the signal somehow. Has this issue been reported before? I am running 32 bit .24.2 on Windows. I have a pretty heavy mod list, including Dmagic, TAC LS, RealChute, FAR, KER, and KW.
  7. Perhaps my favorite thing about KSP is how intuitive/organic much of the game is implemented. The VAB/SPH is probably the single best example - it really appeals to Lego-style design, while still making complex/interesting/unique craft possible. I also love the map mode, with patched conics and maneuver nodes. Obviously, these things can always be polished, but the central idea behind them is fantastic. Science, Contracts, and Funds, and Reputation are essentially a meta-game on top of craft design and piloting. I think the system (as far as we understand it) has a lot of potential. I'd love to start some discussion on how these features could be implemented in a way that is creative, organic, and intuitive. I'll start with a few of my thoughts, what I imagine it might be like: Science- I don't see too many changes coming to science, other than the addition of biomes outside of the Kerbin system. I'm still curious if there are some small adjustments or features that would make it a bit more lively/interactive. Contracts- My fear is that contracts could just turn into lifeless, randomly generated missions like "Launch 5 Kerbals into LKO," "Land a probe on Tylo," "Achieve orbit around Eve." I'd love to see contracts that perhaps have a "backstory" or description, with unique, creative goals. Perhaps Rocktomax (or some other Kerporation) wants a simple communication network in LKO - 3 satellites in the same orbit, spaced out. Or a contract to explore a certain biome on Duna with a rover. Or to design a reusable craft. (I'm struggling to think of ideas at the moment - I need something to eat!). Funds- I have seen two basic ideas: A budget-per-mission system, or a total "bank account" system. At the moment, I'm somewhat favoring the per-mission system, even though it's somewhat unrealistic. I think the tech tree/Reputation system would contribute to the sense advancement and improvement in the program. I could see it either way. Also, I don't want a cheesy name for Kerbal currency. Just stick with "Funds." Reputation- I get the sense that it will be a meter, with failures/loss of life pushing it down, and success bringing it up. Seems fairly simple. I just think that a solid meta-game is really important. The gameplay can be great, but a bland or cumbersome meta-game is a big turn-off. I'd love to hear your ideas about the system. How do you see it shaping out overall? How will individual contracts function? Any ideas for specific goals for the contracts?
  8. Another quick question or two. I think my final list is going to be: Definite: Kerbal Alarm Clock Enhanced Navball RCS Build Aid FAR KER Procedural Fairings Texture Reduction Deadly Reentry Possible: Remote Tech Visual Enhancements Chatterer 1. I am running a Windows 8 laptop with an i5, 8GB ram, Intel 4000 integrated graphics. Would this list of mods bring my computer to its knees? I am thinking that Visual Enhancements/FAR/Deadly reentry would be the worst memory-hogs. 2. Does RemoteTech make things more annoying, rather than interesting? I like the idea a lot, but I don't want to make the game so complicated that it feels like work.
  9. I am fairly new to KSP and to the community here. I've done a good amount of browsing through the forum, especially through the add-ons. Lots of them seem really cool. I'm not obsessed with hyper-realism, but I love the idea of additional functionality through mods. I am currently running texture reduction, KER, and Procedural Fairings. What add-ons do you consider "essential?" Be it graphical enhancements, UI tools (like a docking tool), part packs, or gameplay changes (RemoteTech, Deadly Reentry, etc). I don't want to overload with mods and lose the "feel" of the stock game - I'd just like to augment it. I especially appreciate add-ons that are polished and "play well" with other mods. What are your thoughts?
  10. I was thinking about the current Science/Tech Tree system today, and had an idea. I (like others) would like to see more to science than points. I'm sure Squad has refinements coming through the pipeline - so I'm confident that the final-release version will be great. But, why not post an idea anyway? There's a disconnect between gathering generic science points, and unlocking technology on the tree. Why would detecting Negative Gravioli particles on Minimus lead to developing a bigger engine or a larger crew module? How does recovering a Kerbal from Duna lead to designing a better solar panel? My idea is to split the tech tree into two parts - Science, and Engineering. Each would have their own points system. Science points would come from current science experiments - surface samples, materials studies, goo, etc. These points could be spent on related technologies. I'm not quite sure how to define "related," though. Obviously - better science instruments. Maybe more efficient solar panels, or new types of propulsion? Engineering points would come from successful recovery of craft from various locations (implying that there is innovation with rocket design). Other sources could be milestones in payload size, crew size, efficiency (in parts, fuel usage, etc). Perhaps there could be separate categories for stations, probes, landers, and bases. These points would be used for bigger engines, crew modules, etc. Just bigger, better stuff. Basically, my main point is that large-scale rocket engineering could become it's own thing with regards to the tech tree/science points. Thoughts?
  11. Updated. Ocean/water-draw lag is GONE. For me, that's the best part of the update!
  12. First Mun landing, in career mode. Previous attempts ended in disaster - running out of fuel while burning retrograde while still at 3km up, landing on a slope and tipping over, accidentally switching to ROT mode several meters off the surface and spinning wildly out of control.
×
×
  • Create New...