• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

373 Excellent

About moogoob

  • Rank
    Junior Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Is it just me or are all these re-balancings just nitpicking? I'm not trying to say that squad not do it - by all means, it's your game. I mean people complaining. The reason being - even moderate changes in ISP, at least at vanilla scale, make very little difference. For example, people used to complain about how useless the Thud was. So I, curious, made a bunch of launchers using only Thuds. For an awful engine, it worked great. Sure, I had to carry a bit more fuel but some of the other strengths (TWR for one) made the launchers very practical, and I still sometimes use Thud-based launchers to this day. In regards to recently-added engines, I'm talking mostly about the Wolfhound - which is an engine that going to (or has? I'm not on top of KSP news much these days) receive a buff according to this chart, which makes it, like the Thud, a "terrible" engine. I use it all the time. Its ISP is more than sufficient and its TWR is in a nice sweet spot. Plus, it looks cool. I think it's a great engine. Which means either two things - either I'm crazy. or shaving 5 seconds of specific impulse and a few kilos mass just doesn't make much of a difference. (Side note: a part's place in the tech tree and cost DO make a huge difference, however. I just ignore those like I ignore the "Science mode" and "Career mode" buttons when making a new save file. )
  2. ...are you suggesting that simply melting salt produces a time dilating effect? Extraordinary claim MUST have some extraordinary evidence.
  3. Working out a horizontal-takeoff SSTO that was reliable over multiple missions and could land back on the runway with no dropped tanks or stages. I've been playing KSP for a long time and this type of craft always eluded me. I mean, I could make them once in a while, but they never really worked consistently or easily. The HITAIL below is both.
  4. Reminded me of this UNDER-engineered lander that I sent to Minmus: And I did it again on Gilly: Hey, I was in the area, spent a lot for the engine and probably needed the "landed on Gilly" science to unlock some node or another.
  5. Digging up old screenshots we find amusing? Back when Nukes used LF & O and fairings weren't yet a thing this guy, the SpaceM Interstellotron, powered all my early interplanetary flights. It had WAY too much delta-v because I didn't trust my flying skills. Served me well, but in the era of post 1.0 aero and fairings it's a nightmare to get to orbit. This tiny shuttle amused me. What amused me more is that I actually managed to fly a proper mission with the thing, launch, orbit, docking with a space station, re-entry and landing at KSP's ruway intact. Not to brag or anything. Oh, and the time I flew a Nastybird to Duna for no reason other than to see if it could be done, stranding Val and Bob until I deleted their save. EDIT: OK, one more: I designed this for a Stock VTOL challenge I posted in the challenges section. Thing went through iterations where each one was just me shoving more intakes where ever I could until I could ensure the engine always had full airflow no matter what direction or speed it was traveling. The parachutes are there for a reason.
  6. Dead? Doom hasn't received an official update since 1995 yet still isn't dead- there are mods, source ports, speedruns, multiplayer servers etc to this day. For a quarter-century-old game. Sheesh, this topic popping up four times a year was one of the reasons y'all haven't seen me around here in a while. Things haven't changed much.
  7. Mechjeb and (as of recently) Ven's Stock Revamp. That's it. I used to use a few visual mods and stuff like chatterer, but a few caused performance issues for me so I tend to run mod-light nowadays. Now my Skyrim install, on the other hand, is more mod than game at this point.
  8. I haven't been around he forums in a while as I've been going through it too - just not very inspired to play KSP at the moment. Though from time to time I'll still do a moon landing or just spend time liquiding around in some jets for a while
  9. I get a ton of use out of the small cubic octagonal strut. I've landed on it, used it to attach skycranes and command pods (so as to spawn with a crewmember even though I used the rover seat) to rovers, made roll bars out of it, and even used it as an ultralight aircraft's framing. A close second would be the almighty strut. The two combined are quite useful indeed:
  10. Yeah, not too hard if you keep it light and efficient. It's when you've already got like 8/10ths of the tree done that these types of things are at the most valuable - if all you have left are 1000+ science unlocks, that saves you some grinding when one gets unlocked.
  11. Someone has been playing Planet Coaster, it seems. It has the best terrain editing I've EVER used in a game, but one that I'm sure would be a bit hard to handle at KSP scale. If you use a Minecraft-like density of 1m cubed/voxel then Kerbin alone would need... *googles* 905 million voxels. Assuming that voxels are like pixels (my expertise) say 32 bits each to depict colour/texture would not be out of the question, and may even be a low estimate. 32/8=4 bytes per voxel, or in other words a 3.616 GB file, MINIMUM. That's just for Kerbin - you'd need equivalent amounts of data for the other planets, moons etc too. That's one good reason to not use voxels. If anyone with more specific info had input, I'm all ears.
  12. As said, you're gonna need more intakes:
  13. This thread's been going forever. I like. I still use the Tarot naming scheme - half my launches are by Fool, Magician or Strength rockets, with Emperors only being used if I REALLY can't get it up there any other way. The Empress (Rhino-based) has been mostly relegated to super-heavy upper stage status since the adjustment that halved sea-level TWR, but once in a while I'll make a boosted version of it. My shuttles all have the name -bird somewhere. Nastybird, Angrybird, Cargobird, Bigbird, etc.
  14. Because the extra bits at the side are wing segments, not tanks. It's why the Mk 2 parts generate lift. If you look in the middle of an unattached mk 2 tank, you'll see a mk-1 sized circle where presumably the tank is located.