EdFred

Members
  • Content Count

    840
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

324 Excellent

About EdFred

  • Rank
    Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

720 profile views
  1. Seems like just another KSP release. Not really ready, but Squad went with it anyway.
  2. IPS doesn't place a lot of emphasis on anything that vBulletin did. And that's not a good thing.
  3. Looks like there is a large need to fix things. Looks like all the image tags are broken, quote tags are broken, etc... Really? The enter gives me double spaced text? Come on guys.
  4. I had struts, and there was a command pod and landing craft inside the fairing. It wasn't just empty space in there. It just barely enclosed the two. Funny thing is, take the fairing off (and increase the drag), and it works just fine.
  5. [quote name='ExtremeSquared']Hmm... I was having aerodynamic problems that seemed to be caused by the contents of the fairing rather than the fairing. The rover was getting yanked around inside the fairing by aero forces from what I could tell.[/QUOTE] I had that happen as well. I rolled back to 1.0.4 until they fix it.
  6. [quote name='Rocket Farmer']Please enlighten me how fairings don't work? They seem to work fine in my game. [/QUOTE] [URL]http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/139219-Fairing-CoL-Offset-%28also-staged%29[/URL] I experience the same issue: [spoiler="whaat?"] See where that center of lift is. Makes it impossible to launch. Even if you go ridiculously slow. I went back to 1.0.4 because of it. [IMG]http://webpages.charter.net/edfred/kerbal/2015-11-12_00015.jpg[/IMG] [/spoiler]
  7. [quote name='Yasmy'] Yes, yes. Of course. But this question equally applies to short duration burns, like 5 degrees instead of 40 to 90 degrees, where there is a small difference between following prograde and following the maneuver node. One method is theoretically better under some situations. I wouldn't advocate using a method with no practical difference, but I would always advocate learning the difference. Until we have a corpus of tests, or a set of well founded equations, this remains an open question which gets asked again and again here.[/QUOTE] I would assume the multiple burn technique would be the most efficient. Anything not exactly at the node is wasted on orbital. But like was said, I don't think anyone really wants to develop the formula. Probably involves some pretty deep calculus.
  8. I can't believe the thread went this long without the blatantly obvious solution: MOAR BOOSTERS! If my TWR isn't sufficient enough that I am going to end up in the atmosphere, I burn in a higher orbit - minimum required to complete the node in one burn.
  9. [quote name='Red Iron Crown']The new Vector fits this niche pretty well. :)[/QUOTE] Is that in 1.0.5? Because until they fix the lift problem the enclosure fairings, I'm staying at 1.0.4 Hey, where did all your rep go?
  10. Get rid of female Kerbals. Now, let me crawl behind this 3.5m heat shield. Story lines. Where choices have to be made, and depending on the choice you make the story line goes a certain direction. Something where you can actually "lose" the game. An AI: Rather than being the first in space while competing against, oh, no one. There's an AI that you compete against to be the first in orbit/the Mun/wherever. A mode where nodes and parts are unlocked based on what you do, not where you put your science points. Procedural Easter Eggs/rewards. The Armstrong memorial isn't always in the same place. Same with the things on Duna. A parts editor/creator. I don't know how many times I've got a craft that is stuck in between Skippers and Mainsails thrust wise. (Yes I know I can limit the Mainsails, but they aren't as efficient then). I don't see the need for more planets. We have most of the possibilities there are. High G with and without atmo. Low G with and without Atmo. Unless you want to throw one into a 60degree inclination or something. Maybe make more discoverables.
  11. [quote name='magnemoe']Your problem is that your bots will get problems getting deep, as you will have an mile deep layer of bots, this will insulate frying the lower bots even if the planet was cold all the way trough. Technically you could build an bunch of mass drivers trowing away stuff continuing until the planet was gone.[/QUOTE] Self replicating magnetic bots. The first wave of bots consume the atmosphere eliminating all friction from the atmosphere. Then as the planet is consumed, the nanobots pulse rail-gun style, firing off nanobots that have consumed their portion of the planet. No need to build another mass driver. :D
  12. After reading the ways to (and not to) destroy the earth.... [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80hj8qvRplg[/url]
  13. If the nano-bots eat from the outside in, there won't be any pressures to withstand when they get near the core. You'll also want atmosphere consuming nanobots if the planet has one.
  14. I'm fairly convinced that dark matter is just us detecting matter/energy from dimension 5 and up.