• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

79 Excellent

About CaptainTurbomuffin

  • Rank
    Spaceplane desginer

Recent Profile Visitors

846 profile views
  1. A great answear. Before this was answear was posted, I've added my examples how I tought it could work. I'd be pleased to see your reaction/answear to that. Engines already have some kind of specialisation, but this is quite weak, and could (should) be increased. Most of my examples are about that, keeping the engines' current role, and strengthening their position there. 6-7-8 was misunderstood, and for 5, I meant a rocket engine for this specific role. I mostly agree with the rest, expect your opinion about beginner-friendly crafts. I've been teaching players KSP SSTOs, but it's completely hard for all of them. What you've just described is one of the easiest ways, and still everyone needs a lot of patience and practice to finally orbit a craft I could take to a Mun-flyby. It's just too hard for them. Most players don't even care about the plane-part of the game, saying it's too hard for them.
  2. I meant I either need a 4 seat or a 64 seat one But a 8 seat Mk.3 is also fine.
  3. No, I mean keep the current size and make it double-deck that way. So that there would be passanger-area in the currently unused space in it
  4. Indeed. Altough when I need to move kerbals, I either only have to use Mk.2 module, or four of the Mk.3 ones At least it's not my problem, but separating that crew cabin would definitely not hurt.
  5. This have been on my mind also. Having life support, or IVA movement inside vehicles could fix this, by adding additional cabins and life support hardware in the extra space. This is unlikely, though. My best idea is to make it double-deck. That would also help on kerbals being too crowded in there.
  6. Quite true, but rewriting some parameters is way more easier than creating whole new models. If you want better rocket models, you can only help in that if you create some. Remember that plane parts look more shiny and beautyful because those textures were a mod originally, which got later integrated into the game. I absolutely agree with having "too much spaceplane parts", in the meaning of being disturbing while constructing rockets -when I want rocket parts but half of them are plane parts. The same in the opposite direction. I wish we had a separate category for "plane propulsion" with fuselages and jets in there. Anyway, if I want the revolutionization of plane parts, that could go here, so I've added it. Also, I find the quantity of wing parts too much, as I'd love to have stock P-wings. Of course, that's not likely to happen. On the other hand, one of the points of this suggestion is to make each spaceplane engine usable for orbiting. So guess what, if they were already useful for orbiting, I wouldn't suggest it. Also, I didn't desire strictly new engines, but the modification of current ones. I don't want generally /better/ plane parts, but ones that are better at X and weaker at Y. But I might agree with planes being a bit too op with the recovery cost. Also, what pictures are you talking about?
  7. That's completely true. 9 could be the same as 10 but with no hard difficulity, and high cost wouldn't matter with complete recovery. But still, it requies a greater investment, which can be a disadvantage. Also, losing it is more problematic. But that's all. It's really a problematic part of the game.
  8. In KSP, rocket parts are perfectly balanced around this triangle. They are all equal, having their own advantages and disadvantages over each other. This enables an ability to have good strategic choices and all engines have a use. The opposite with spaceplane parts, and I believe this should be fixed. To have some examples... Not the case with planes. There are six engines, and a vast ammout of intakes and a dumb nacelle/precooler system. 4 of the engines are for sandbox-players, who want to create realistic crafts. The Panther , Juno, Goliath, and the Wheesley are these. Completely purposeless in career, unless you have really stacked up dozens of surveying, as all jet engines are rather expensive, and while you visit these sites with a plane, you could have at least 2 rocket launches for way more profit. The Whiplash is an engine that could be useful in getting to orbit, if you have 2 of them near 8 RAPIERS. Otherwise, they are terrible compared to the RAPIER. Can get to orbit, and further, but unlocking the RAPIER is way more easier than using it (for most players) The RAPIER is the only way of going to space due to its complete superiority It's quite sad that Tier1<Tier2<Tier3<Tier4 and no more variety. I believe each jet engine should be equal*, and be given a part in the career game. *Of course, not compleely equal, as a high tech engine should be only a slightly better than a low tech one, in addition to increasing engine variety and having more useful purposes, such as orbiting instead of atmospheric flight The current engines could be adjusted or even new ones added to fill these categories... 1-VTOL-suitable engines 2-Low-budget surveying engines 3-Beginner-friendly super easy to fly SSTO engines 4-High thrust, SSTO-assistor (Whiplash...) 5-A rocket motor for planes, rocket SSTOs, and Eve landers 6-Advanced, really efficient OP engines but supporting strictly only orbiting 7-Advanced engines supporting interplanetary SSTOs 8-Cheap, efficient, but incredibly hard to operate engines for SSTO masters 9-Pay-to-win engines (I mean expensive but otherwise OP, so losing them is disasterous) 10-Electric propeller/rotor Be welcome to share your ideas about the entire point: making jets equal and balanced, and direct suggestions about which category could be assigned to which engine through what modification. Or even suggest new categories that you feel are desperately needed from the game. These are: Own plane propulsion category (me) Fix recovery issue (being able to recover expensive parts with 100% cost) (Nich) The solution is probably some maintenence cost or attrition (life span) both for plane and rocket parts. My ideas for assigning those categories to engines:
  9. Just red the title and came to rate this 5 stars. Also, a plane category should be free for all crafts, just as it is with all other categories.
  10. Destroyed over 900?! Stop complaining about the game if you are playing on ultra-difficulities. At 100% re-entry heat, My planes never explode below 1300m/s. One more thing: if you suggest scramjets/ramjets, engines, 1300-400 is strictly the maximum with the current jets If you want to reach it, use RAPIERs, and a lot of them. The more TWR the better. Of course, I'm not sure if you want engines or only intakes or only to change the current intakes. But I guess you know this... Anyway, I guess more types of jet engines are necessary. It's just not strategic enough to have a tier1 jet < tier2 jet< tier3 jet<tier4 jet. I guess in a balanced game, each unit is equal, but they have their advantages over each other... And that's why some high-speed op aircraft stuffs should be significantly nerfed during low altitudes and speeds. It would even be more realistic. So that one is a good suggestion with the intakes. The thing I didn't get is why a ramjet intake should have much air? After 1.0, we no longer need more than one inake per engine. The more-air the better system was completely scrapped. Now, flame-out depends on your engines' parameters only. A super-high capacity ram air intake would only cause more drag. But anyway, I guess, to be more realistic and balanced again, the lower speed limit should be applied to the engines, not the intakes. But anyway, we have dozens of identical air intakes. I wonder when will squad repurpose this diversity as well. I'll go and suggest it right away. And for plating... That would be great, but couldn't wotk with the current system. Maybe with procedural wings-something that should be stock.
  11. Completely pointless and useless. 1)As I know, when multiplayer comes, players will have separte leunch sites(and probably could be outside MP), so this feature will be implemented, suggesting it is pointless 2)Lightning rods are completely pointless, as there are no lightnings in-game. The mod ones also deal no damage. Suggesting lightings would be even more pointless, as both dynamic environment and random malfunctions are being downvoted 3)If somehow lightning rods were necessary, they wouldn't be on the launch pad, just as in real life, they would be on the rockets. This is the worst possible attitude of all when suggesting. Sorry If I was too offensive.
  12. A lot of people copmplained about the career game several times, that once you've maxed out the tech tree, the game is over. In every game with a tech tree \ {KSP} at the very end of the tech tree there is a tech that's generally called 'future tech', that can be researched many times, and it gives you money (or other valuable in-game rescoures). There should be one in KSP, researching wich would requie you to research all previous techs, and it would give much more money or reputation than what strategies currently give.
  13. I concur, you are. They are dirt cheap, altough quite unfriendly, and have a limited use, as SRBs have a pretty bad DeltaV-mass ratio, (terrible efficiency), so they'll ruin your craft's efficiency, unless they are the lowest stage. If they are placed in the lowest stage, their inefficiency is not a problem, and they'll give you some extra DeltaV, but most importantly, thrust, nearly for free! Always use them as the bottom stage/booster stage.
  14. IVA has no real potential currently. I think this would help that, and, custom cockpits could have a real use. It could be like selecting from forks in RPG games.
  15. Just the title is enough: MOAR BOOSTERS!! On the other hand, you want more variety in the wrong way. There could definitely be more boosters, especially with gimbal, but more size? Definitely not. Even the kerbodyne one with a long name is too big, I nearly never use it (in career games, not SRB-to-Duna-sandbox-challanges). I'd rather like a 6,25m SRB. Going too big is significantly inefficient. You have to carry the large mass of dried-out fuel tanks needlessly. To counter this, staging was invented. The Kerbodyne stuffs are so big that they hurt this way: It's a lot more efficient to have smaller tanks that you stage. If it would be too much, and even more truts wouldn't help, you've reached the limit, and you need to do separate launches. Also, current SRBs offera wide range of variety, as they are highly customisable. Even the 6,25m booster would just be different in aesthetics.