Laie

Members
  • Content Count

    2,642
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,179 Excellent

2 Followers

About Laie

  • Rank
    Periapsis Kicker

Recent Profile Visitors

3,795 profile views
  1. You and many more. But as said elsewhere, world size has ramifications all over, from how heavyweight the rocket parts need to be, to which airspeed is "reentry" and must be dangerous. You cannot simply move all KSP stuff to a bigger world and expect it to still work in the same way,or at all. RSS as a stock option would require the devs to essentially provide two games that are similar yet different... somehow I don't see this happening. From what I pick up from the videos, the new devs are aware of how the game is being played and what will be desired. This gives me hope that plugging in alternate solar systems may become easier than it currently is (and maybe the new game will even know about axial tilt -- I'm keeping my fingers crossed). But as to stock world size, the die seems to be cast. Incidentally, on the off chance that someone is listening: I'm of the opinion that real scale isn't inherently more tedious or difficult to play. What makes the RO experience so daunting is the lack of throttling and limited ignitions, compounded by hundreds of propellant mixtures to get lost in.
  2. Don't hold your breath. World size has ramifications all over, from how heavyweight the rocket parts need to be, to which airspeed is "reentry" and must be dangerous. You cannot move all of that to a bigger world and expect it to still work in the same way,or at all. Just BTW, I'm not convinced that a bigger world as such makes the game more difficult or tedious to play. But be that as it may, this ship has sailed (again).
  3. The world seems to be no bigger than good old Kerbin, still requiring the funky physics we're familiar with.
  4. I doubt it. Most everyday missions play out exactly the same with or without N-body. Lagrange points and the interplanetary network are pretty special use cases, and you buy them at the cost of a lot of CPU cycles. Not sure how many people will appreciate the former... as developer I'd be more afraid of people complaining about the game being slow. I sure do hope they anticipate "realism" mods and have the game ready for them. (side note: axial tilt, anyone?) In the case of N-body, being prepared means that the planetary system should be up to it. I've never used Principia in stock, but heard the Joolian moons reorganize themselves real quick.
  5. Yes, that works fine. Also best practice. Ripping out the old module, then inserting your new one often is easier and less error-prone than trying to modify it. I've got a question of my own: what's the smart approach to applying a patch to each and every part from one particular mod?
  6. Sure? I'm away from KSP so I can't simply check myself, but IIRC any close encounter with the Mun will fling you into a solar orbit (which is all the OP seems to care about, so... useful enough I'd say). @rikieboy1Beyond that, you may be able to shave off a few more m/s by doing a direct ascent, that is, not stopping for circularisation in LKO. Getting that right requires a lot of practice, though, and the savings are slim. So I guess it boils down to "just how bored are you"?
  7. In terms of tipping, falling, and so on, it will only affect the currently loaded vessel. For purposes of orbital mechanics, it will affect everything. Check map view for a few surprises. The beauty is that it all goes back to normal as soon as you unhack gravity.
  8. [nope] Not the way you describe. Some more recent LVs throttle down some time after liftoff, but at launch time you typically want all the thrust you can get. The key phrase is "terminal velocity" -- going faster than TV on your way up is a waste of fuel. Ideally, you want to accelerate to terminal velocity instantly (requiring very high thrust at launch) and then just stay at TV (requiring less thrust). Under the old aerodynamic model (when the tutorial was written), terminal velocity was an everyday concern for any rocket. These days, it would need to be very un-aerodynamic to begin with. If you ever want to move a large space station to orbit in a single launch, terminal velocity may still be a practical concern.
  9. The standard 1450m/s figure already has generous room for low TWR, bad aerodynamics, or both. No need to increase it further.
  10. Yeah, that was the idea... Now that we've officially been told about a few more parts, I can easily imagine pistons bringing it back into firing position. Maybe also motors (sorry, rotors), if there is a torque-speed slider. Either approach hinges (heh) on the availability of a repeatable lock/release mechanism, however...
  11. The contract system is supposed to be auto-tuning, isn't it? With 1.7 I've played a stock career for the first time since ...0.90, perhaps? I've concentrated on tourism, ignored all part tests and surveys, and rescued the occasional kerbal here and there. Very quickly, this was reflected well in the contracts I was offered: mostly tourism, several rescue, little of anything else. There's upper limits: "no more than X contracts of type Y at the same time". If your favorite is "world firsts", you're out of luck: there can be only one at a time, and the game will fill the remaining slots as best as it can.
  12. I'm not blaming RO, I'm coming to the RO thread because that's the obvious point to go when something about the RO suite breaks and you don't quite know what or where or how (if I did, I'd open a proper issue on github). Even hearing whether I'm the only one helps a lot. I've suspected RF as well, but as far as my git-fu goes, there don't seem to have been any sweeping changes in the past year. I couldn't think of anything else, either; hence my reluctance to speculate. Reason found: Due to the netkan hiccup I had a choice of which KJR flavor to install, and picked the wrong one. Re-install today went without manual intervention, served me the right KJR, and made the problem go away.
  13. If you are in the situation that you don't have any World First right now, try declining contracts until a World First shows up. That shouldn't take many attempts. You may also wait a few days until they expire on their own. You can only have so many contracts at all, divided into one, two and three-star contracts. When a one-star contract expires/is cancelled/declined, the game will hand you another one-star contract. I'd recommend to actively make room in the segment where you want your new contract to pop up. If you already have World First that you don't like, well, those can't be declined, can they? In that case the Cheat Menu is your only option. Though I've heard that this will forever taint your savegame on console.
  14. Looks as if the 1.6.1 RO won't play nice with kRPC anymore? I can't get vessel thrust, or available thrust, or any data about engines. Not even their count. All of that still worked with RO for 145. I've tried to figure out what has changed but... well, I'm so out of my depth that I better keep my theories to myself. It used to work and now it doesn't, that's all I can say.
  15. I've seen this coming but then thougt "nah, I don't have to specifically point out that I've seen the clamp and am aware that it won't fire twice -- Snark knowns that I know, no need to waste time on that." Asking the same Q in more words: Will it be possible to return it to a pre-firing position (attitude? configuration?) so another Kerbal can take the seat and have a go? Without making it (say) more than twice as complicated as it currently is?