• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

459 Excellent

About Jovus

  • Rank
    Junior Rocket Scientist
  1. Also, maps of the near side were better, so it was a lot easier to choose and aim at good-looking landing spots.
  2. Nope. Wouldn't fit in my freezer, and the warranty doesn't last that long anyway.
  3. The recent historical answer has been spy satellites. Some of thos suckers are really big.
  4. KSP Acquired by Take-Two Interactive

    Also, I could easily see DLC covering areas of the game that people want but that have been off the table for a while now, all without changing anything truly core to the game and without harming craft intersharing by releasing new parts. For example: New Planets and moons (we finally get that second gas giant) Storyline content (either sandbox puzzle-clues leading to some culmination like the original story idea for KSP, or even something more scripted to fit an actual 'campaign' Factions to work with/compete against Some kind of multiplayer support
  5. KSP Acquired by Take-Two Interactive

    I for one look forward with cautious optimism to the future. There are companies who specifically purchase IP in order to ruin it, but that exclusively happens when that IP is in competition with something else the acquiring company offers. That's definitely not the case with KSP. It's possible that Take 2 will somehow flub the KSP market, but I don't think they'll set out to do so. Big companies aren't evil by virtue of being either big or companies. They sometimes make decisions you might disagree with, because they prize different things (revenue, for example), but it's not like Take 2 is staffed by a secret cabal of sith wizards who extract continual youth from the tears of gamers. And the funny thing about caring about revenue for a product is that Pareto optimization is automatically psuedo-democratic. Maybe with fresh collaboration efforts, someone will finally have the bravery to fix some of the established warts in KSP, like the career system. Probably not, but a man can dream.
  6. know what, sure, I'll give this a go. Though don't be surprised if I just drop off the radar. I've got an RP-0 save that needs my attention, and, you know, real life keeps interrupting. Important mods: [x] Science! BetterBurnTime Docking Port Aligment Indicator Interstellar Fuel Switch. This might get moved to ModularFuelTanks. I have this because I want to be able to use the NERVA, eventually. Kerbal Engineer. I'm aware this makes things way, way easier. Kerbal Inventory System. I never use this, and maybe this save will force me to finally do something with it. PreciseNode - I might drop this. Procedural Fairings TAC Life Support Universal Storage - I've never used this before, and it looks interesting. I also have a number of other QoL/visual mods, but nothing that should change gameplay. This will also be one of the very few times I play the game without Kerbal Construction Time. We'll see how that works out; maybe KCT has been holding me back and contributing to my KSP fatigue. Settings screenshots: Hopefully I'll get a chance to fly later today or tomorrow.
  7. Realism Overhaul Discussion Thread

    You beat me to this post by about ten seconds.
  8. Realism Overhaul Discussion Thread

    Thanks. I was hoping for some specific link hinting for a resolution to the problem; I know where to find Heat Pumps. I'll look about and see if I find something. (I'm not upset or snarking at you; just explaining that I didn't intend to use you as my personal LMGTFY)
  9. Realism Overhaul Discussion Thread

    You happen to have a link? Last I checked the HeatPump thread (yesterday morning) there was still a problem with timewarp over 1000x, which for me personally isn't worth the trouble. I suppose I could just bash together an MM cfg to remove all boiloff from cryogenic tanks. Also, thanks guys for answering my question above.
  10. Realism Overhaul Discussion Thread

    I'm one of those masochistic guys who likes to build planes in RSS/RO and try to get them to space, not because it's a good idea, but because I want to, damnit. I was surprised to find in 1.2.2 that the runway now has huge gaps that like to catch my gear and toss my plane into the air. I vaguely remember some blog post about Squad trying to fix something with PQS modeling, so I suspect this is a stock bug that just gets hugely magnified by the real scale, but I figured I'd ask: does anyone know a fix, patch, or workaround for this issue? T'anks.
  11. [1.3.0] Cacteye Optics Community Takeover

    Saw on the last page that the tutorial (and the whole project) is being reworked, which is really cool. However, I've never used CactEye before; does any one of you end-users have a quick-and-dirty run-down of how it works? I've just realized in my save I have no idea what I'm doing. I searched for CactEye tutorials, but what I've seen so far is from 2014 and doesn't appear to have much to do with what I see in my game. (That said, the telescope I'm using is in Solar orbit, and I saw an off-hand comment that the telescopes only work in high Kerbin orbit?)
  12. Hi all, I've recently discovered I'm not as clear on how to launch into a specific orbit as I thought I was. I'm talking about in the simplified case provided by Kerbin; you launch from the equator into an orbit with Kerbin at the centre. I'm not concerned with off-equatorial launches, not orbits around bodies not the launch body. What I thought would have worked would be: time warp until the longitude of your ascending node is (roughly) the same as the LAN of the target orbit. Then, offset your launch angle from the East according to the inclination of the target orbit - so if the inclination you want is 20 degrees, you launch at 90-20=70 degrees on the navball. Unfortunately this didn't work. My orbit ended up in a vastly different orientation, though the same inclination. What did I do wrong?
  13. Boring company

    True, to a point. There's a difference between 'the ground is leaky' and 'we want to tunnel underwater' as a matter of engineering. I'm not claiming this makes it unfeasible, just that it's maybe a reason to consider it uneconomic. If that's even the case. It's a question.
  14. Boring company

    Someone else who knows better than me: isn't LA only just above its own water-table? Wouldn't boring holes underneath it require you to constantly evacuate said water? Not that this is impossible (see: Chunnel), just maybe not an awesome idea (see: Chunnel).
  15. Some cool orbital mechanics I learned

    So, OK, it's clearly impossible with real materials. But what about whatever-it-is that Kerbal planets are made of? And, for those who don't want to do the integral proving that the outer shell imparts no gravity on anything inside it, you can get halfway there by thinking about it in terms of subtending angles. Choose some spot to look out from the inner body, and some angle of deviation for your gaze (say, 10 degrees). Then, when the inner body is in the centre, the cone of your gaze will cover (subtend) a certain amount of the outer shell. Now move the inner body further away, by having it drift in the opposite direction of your gaze. Then, the outer shell on that side will be further away, and therefore impart less gravitational force - but the same angular cone will subtend more of it, meaning that more of it will pull along that cone. It so happens that the amount of less pull because of distance and amount of more pull because of greater subtension exactly cancel one another. Also, for those who have done undergrad E&M: gravitational potential works exactly the same way as electric field potential, so you've already done this proof.