Jump to content

Sudslv

Members
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Sudslv

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer
  1. I guess you didn't look at any of those photographs. you can clearly see that in the real life picture there is detail, which isn't present in KSP. You can see rivers with certain shapes,grass, distinct mountains, clouds, ect. meanwhile in KSP it is just a very bad quality texture spread over dune-like land with no detail in it. Im not asking KSP to be looking exactly like real life. I just want there to be some kind of detail in it (mountains that resemble mountains, lakes, ponds, rivers and so on). it doesn't have to be very detailed either. We clearly see how good is the modder community fo
  2. I am skeptical about squad releasing any major map improvements because of those huge version leaps. As well we can never know who could take on continuing improving the KSP. After all it wouldn't be the same working on a dead project. I really hope that squad wont abandon it so early (or maybye not that early - 4 years). Time will show us.
  3. I would disagree on that, by making the game FEEL finished the devs will start to think that it IS finished therefore as i mentioned previously - abandoning the project. there are some inconsistencies in game mechanics but really for us - the people who know about KSP longer than 0.90 it feels like we have seen everything, i like building stuff, in this case spacecrafts, but once they are built it would be good to make some use of them by doing something progressive/fun. in previous post i talked about the map, but aswell just by adding lets say 10 unique science parts that do some actual scie
  4. The game is not even done and they do 2 big jumps from 0.25>0.90>.1.0 its like saying "okay we are done with this game, most of the people who would buy the game have already done it, so lets speed up the final version, fix few bugs and start a new project". the game is FAR from 1.0 Other than making and flying rockets/airplanes/rovers there is nothing to do. Its like all these bread simulator/goat and what not simulators where they just give you few features, suck out the money and abandon it as the hype goes over. What they really should do is add all sorts of things to all the planets
  5. i cannot agree more on the career mode, its completely broken and doesn't make sense ( thats why im sticking only to science mode untill career is fixed). All these part testing contracts and what not, don't make sense. There was a mod which added some game objectives like dropping a bomb in certain location and getting money for it, so it would add weapons to the game (Which in no way possible could break the game mechanics, only open new possibilities, what the player can do). So it would make moderate amount of sense if once in a while some army kerbal character would show up and ask you to
  6. Got the answer on different thread - http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/119044-How-do-I-make-a-collision-mesh-for-ksp-1-0-%28for-my-own-mod%29
  7. To the OP: Parts mod-http://www./download/mw...+Parttools.zip / http://kerbal.curseforge.com/ksp-mods/230125-part-tools-0-23 Tutorial- Tested and working.
  8. Could you give a download link to KSP part tools (1.0)?
  9. same problem, can any of all those modelers help out? btw, this should be moved to Modelling and Texturing Discussion
  10. So i spent a lot of time search around internet and couldn't find any tutorials on how to make models for kerbal space program using blender. im confused how to get the .mu file out of .dae/.fbx/.obj anyone can point out some kind of tutorial on how its done? i tried getting the part tools provided by ksp but all of the downloads lead to ksp main page. any of modelers here can simply share how they get from blender to KSP? Im interested in making buildings to be placed using kerbal konstruct.
  11. it was a very fast and simple build and i think i will redo it and create an actual working 120+ t eeloo orbit and return however i dont plan to go 100% reusable on that, thats overkill for me. it was a 100% vanilla build so i wont use these "nuclear generators", the solar panels was just for show and a bit for making it 125~ tons. As well the thread seems to be [Answered], the OP splitted his ship or went with something like i have displayed. i think i could have increased dV by swapping engines for aerospike, but that would increase burn time.
  12. so i spent a bit of time calculating and experimenting. i ended up building a massive interstellar ship which gives me 7.2k dV and probably someone like scott manley could make Eeloo land and return 100% reusable. to assemble it in LKO it requires 7 launches (can be less). i would never suggest to do single mission for such a massive payload. split it up 3-4x. P.S. there is a dV limit for all engines in ksp! back front The big 2 front fuel tanks weight 124T
  13. is kerbtown open source? it should be as the dev seems to be inactive. this is the best way to place static objects in game, hopefully squad will make something similar to this with extra features (terrain editing,ect).
  14. is kerbtown open source? it should be as the dev seems to be inactive. this is som
  15. i would like to see all stock engines have 1-4 fairings. probably: tiny 1 , small 2 , medium 2-3 , big 3-4. it feels more realistic other than having these ugly covers over them.
×
×
  • Create New...