• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

22 Excellent

About NBZ

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1,081 profile views
  1. I don't think a single man has ever directly caused so much enjoyment AND public science education as you. Thank you for the best computer game ever created by kerbalmankind!
  2. I usually play career mode, but often find the contracts (including all the add-on packs) shallow and boring, not to mention unrealistic. There is no storyline, and I cannot do obvious side-missions because cash is not paid out until after I finish a mission (at which point I don't need the money anymore). As I compared my missions to those of NASA, I suddenly got an idea that I think could drastically improve the fun of career mode. Currently, KSP contracts are given in accordance with where the player is holding exploration-wise and part-wise. They have a modest advance payment (mostly cash, sometimes reputation) and a substantial reward (mostly cash, some rep, and sometimes a little or a lot of science) upon completion. There is also a penalty which approximately retracts the advance, while giving negative reputation. Part-testing makes the part available as long as the contract is active. Unintended achievements give rewards too. The most important milestones do not have a deadline. However, real-life NASA missions usually go like this: NASA is paid a very large amount to achieve far unprecedented exploration, and for which the technology (parts) does not exist. There is no reward for completion other than reputation. And the penalty for non-completion of a project (i.e. congress cancels it) is just retraction of the funds set aside for it. A new part has to be developed before it can be used. Unintended achievements (like anomalies or mission extensions) are in the news (i.e. reputation and possibly science), but do not result in substantial payouts (only maintenance expenses covered). The most important milestones have a very short deadline. I therefore propose a mod that results in the user being given long term goals early on, e.g. EVA in low Kerbin orbit, Plant a flag on the Mun, Orbit Jool, Test RoveMax Model S2 on the surface of Duna, Place a satelite in synchronous orbit above the Duna face, etc. The player then has to use the given money to reach the goal by proper resource management: He or she will need to decide on spending money on development (i.e. unlocking parts), upgrading KSC, or on side-missions (that he/she will have to decide on) to gather enough science to unlock the tech tree for the desired part(s). All this in order to complete the accepted mission before the deadline. There will be no steady cash flow from completing trivial missions, only from accepting additional long term goals – which all bring new deadlines. Failure has a severe reputation penalty, and most importantly the retraction of the full advance amount. So if the player has already spent the money, it may cause bankruptcy. Non-contract achievements (world-firsts etc.) only pay science and/or reputation, but no cash. Thoughts? Comments?
  3. Feel better. Stick to turkey next time.
  4. You already have the needed textures in CCC, but it isn't a dependency. (Wonder if anyone uses FTP without CCC...) Can map to stock textures if CCC isn't installed, but to CCC's texures if it is? But there is a conical one. It is unlikely that people want a domed external tank (like STS-ET) in 1.25. On the other hand, it would look cool to clip "Spark" engines into a bottom dome...
  5. Hi NecroBones, 1. I have come to absolutely adore these tanks, and though I was sceptical (read: deleted the cfg's) to the color options at first, I now find myself using them so quickly that I anticipate where the blue "next variant" button will show up before my slow laptop manages to render it. However, some tanks have the color variation above the fuel-switcher variation, and some have the opposite. Would if be a huge work to harmonize? 2. Lately, I've been doing some launching and rendezvousing of large-diameter vehicles before researching vernier thrusters. I found myself in need of monopropellant in other form factors than the stock provides. What do you say to 3.75m, 2.5m, 1.25m, and 0.625m MP flat tanks , i.e. half height tanks with respectively 3t, 1t, 0.33t, and 0.11t MP? (It wouldn't really be "half" for 3.75m, as there isn't any 3.75m MP tank, but I think 9t MP is overkill.) I imaging that you wouldn't even need any new textures at all, just map the middle part out of the vertical texture... 3. Lastly, for very tiny probes, I would a half-sphere LFO tank (Looking like half a Styputnik), but with top-node (for antenna), would be a nice addition, fit into the current selection of "bottom"-domes (I use them mainly on top because they have a node for a parachute), and complement the 1.25m-to-0.625m fueled cone (for easy plavement of antenna).
  6. ↠Maybe there's something wrong with CKAN's meta-data?
  7. Love your mini-mods. Why does QuickHide have Toolbar as dependency?
  8. I kind of called it: Congratulations on getting the attention you so long have deserved.
  9. NecroBones, you got me again. This becomes mod #79. Amazing that KSP still manages to load. ModuleManager: 2440 patches applied
  10. Compare the full masses on the two pics.
  11. Hi NecroBones, It's been a while. I've got a new full time job as a programmer, which leaves less time for KSP than my old secretary job (most of the time, I was doing nothing). Rest assured that I have followed your progress closely and update (using CKAN) your mods daily, even though I rarely get to actually play KSP. I noticed an interesting issue with FL-T50, but I cannot seem to find where the problem is in the cfg file: I love the texture switching, and I'm eagerly awaiting CCC adding FTP's color options to the stock tanks. All the best!
  12. Neat idea, and a good place to collect all future additions. But wouldn't "Extended Engineer Report" be a better name than "Extensive"?