• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

18 Good

About CocoDaPuf

  • Rank
  1. Well that's certainly fair. Most of what I've done so far with robotic parts has been simple "fold up for transport in fairing" and "deploy to useful shape at destination". But after I deploy it, I just want it to stay that shape. At any rate though, a toggle for an auto-locking mode would still be nice.
  2. It seems like an oversight more than anything else, turboshafts are an engine just like any rocket or jet engine, there's no reason they shouldn't also have an alternator to run electric parts of your crafts. Without this, I can't see any way to make a prop or rotor craft that isn't range limited by it's battery capacity. And while we're at it, Since the robotic parts introduced the idea of an adjustable slider for engine strength/weight, you could also have a slider for alternator power/weight. At the moment, this is just one of many issues that make helicopters extremely frustrating. It's not game breaking or anything, but if you're going to add helicopter rotors at all, it seems important to make using them feasible.
  3. It is good to know that there's a way this can be done, but it still feels a bit ridiculous. I mean, it would make sense to me at least, that when a robotic part's actual orientation meets its target orientation, at that point it should lock automatically until the target orientation is changed again.
  4. Ok, so for everyone trying their own ad hoc mix of values, could I possible get a progress report? I know StainX, Beetlecat and NikoKun have all tried their own values. StainX says it's working great for him, how are the rest of you doing? I'm just trying to find a bit more of a consensus on what sane values might be. I'm hoping you fellow Kerbonaughts might have found something that actually feels balanced, offering some level of challenge without inducing pure frustration. So have any of you played around with the values further? Specifically, have you compared the same crafts with different aero values? I'd love to hear about any comparisons you guys may have done regarding parachute effectiveness, rocket thermal deconstruction tendency, approximate dV to orbit, airbrake effectiveness, that kind of thing. ps. I think we need a new word to represent the "rocket thermal explosiveness" metric.
  5. Wow, pretty lame. But good to know! - - - Updated - - - Well, wouldn't an active rocket (more than) completely mitigate that low pressure area? I mean, rockets generate thrust by expelling gas at high pressure, that's the whole idea right?
  6. Well that first part sounds familiar. Is there a service bay on that particular ship? I've found that if there's any clipping at all inside a service bay, the whole ship will occasionally start shaking uncontrollably until it risks tearing itself apart. You can temporarily end the tremors by opening and closing the bay, but it will happen again. So at any rate, that might not be your problem, but it is a known issue.
  7. Hey Foxter, great post! I'd also love to see how what drag is like with the new fairings. Could you try this again with the same configuration as you have in the original post, but using a shaped fairing on the tail piece? Maybe once with a sharper point and one rounder?
  8. Also, I just found out it applies to service bays as well. To be clear, while not game braking, I find this incredibly annoying. This is definitely a bug worth addressing, if only because otherwise the gizmos are such a fantastic feature.
  9. * KSP version (though I also encounterd the bug in KSP 0.9 & 0.25) * Problem: This is a part bug that affects all mk2 and mk3 cargo bays (edit: and also the new service bays). In build mode, (both in the VAB and the SPH) when you attempt to use the offset tool on any part directly connected to an inner attachment node of a cargo bay, the part you're attempting to offset is instantly displaced along the X and Y axes. This makes it basically impossible to accurately offset parts inside a cargo bay. * Screenshots: * System Specs: I use two computers to play KSP, one relatively high end gaming PC and one much lower end all-in-one desktop. Here's the DxDiag file from the lower end computer. I can post the DxDiag from my home computer later today, but neither are likely to be relevant; I experience the bug on both systems and expect it will be easy to reproduce.
  10. You know, that's actually not a bad idea. Although alternatively, you could also bring a LV-N engine, as they've been rebalanced to use only liquid fuel, no oxidizer. But the fuel cell is a lot lighter... - - - Updated - - - And?! Does it work well? Compared to batteries? Details!
  11. After a long wait, Coco Space Systems & Conglomerated Snack Foods is back and they've brought all the snacks! From the initial testing phases, all the way to putting kerbals into space, the following images offer a delicious taste of the latest developments by the CSSCSF team: Wow, flying around Kerbin at 120km, now that's what I call a treat! But you may be wondering, "what's next in store for CSSCSF"? Well that's why we'd like to introduce you to our latest in high impact snacks delivery, the Burger heavy lander (Altair) and the Bratwurst Heavy Cargo launcher (Ares V). Points Summary: previous design points: 25 previous mission points: 0 added design points: 30 added mission points: 10 new total for design points: 55 new total for mission points: 10 Mission Points: Research and Development - Max 22 points +7 Launch a boilerplate Orion capsule/EDS on suborbital flight using Ares I (+1) Perform an abort and recovery (LES) of an un-Kerballed Orion capsule using the Launch Escape System, while first stage is firing (+1) Launch and dock an unkerballed Orion Block 1 to the orbiting space station, for use as a lifeboat (+2) Using an Ares V and EDS, send an un-Kerballed Orion spacecraft into a free-return trajectory orbit to the Mun and perform a high speed re-entry test. Re-entry g-force must exceed 9g's (+2) Perform a LKO test of an Altair Munar lander. With at least one Kerbal on board, fly an Altair Munar lander at least 100km away from the Orion spacecraft. Dispose of the descent stage, then fly the ascent stage back to the Orion. Transfer the crew to the Orion then robotically control the ascent stage into a re-entry orbit (+3) Perform the above Altair test in Munar orbit using EOR mission (+1) Using an un-Kerballed Duna lander and an EDS on Ares V, perform a high-speed re-entry from at least 15,000km Ap. (+2) Launch an un-Kerballed Duna lander on Ares V into low orbit. Perform an orbital test and descent of the lander (crewed or uncrewed) (+3) Use an Ares I in at least one space station docking mission (+1) Use an Ares I in at least one Munar mission (flyby, orbital or landing) (+1) Use an Ares I in at least one Duna mission (flyby or landing) (+1) Use an Ares V in at least one Munar mission (orbital or landing) (+2) Use an Ares V in at least one Duna mission (flyby or landing) (+2) Space Station - Orion/Ares I - Max 3 points +3 Have already successfully orbited an Orion with full crew and returned safely to Kerbin. Launch an Orion to the orbiting space station with at least 4 crew. Perform a crew exchange and return four Kerbals from the space station to Kerbin using the Orion. (+2) Return at least one Kerbal from the space station to Kerbin in an Orion which was docked robotically. This is a "liferaft" scenario intended to use the Orion left at the space station in "Research and Development" above. (+1) Design points: Heavy Cargo Lift Vehicle (Ares V) - Max 11 points +11 Five or six liquid engines on first stage (+3) Does not jettison any radial liquid tanks/engines (+2) Uses and jettisons at least two solid fuel boosters on first stage (+1) Two stage rocket to LKO: After the first stage is dropped, the second stage (EDS), carries payload to orbit (+2) Can carry the Earth Departure Stage (EDS) and Orion Block 1 to low orbit without using any fuel from the EDS (+1) EDS Bonus: Second stage can put Orion Block 1 into Munar free-return trajectory (+2) Munar Lander (Altair) - Max 19 points +19 Supports 4 crew (+4) Each crew over 4, up to 6 crew maximum (+1 each; max +2) Can perform un-Kerballed landings without the use of an Orion spacecraft (Altair and EDS launched on Ares V) (+1) Can perform Munar orbit insertion from Kerbin-Mun trajectory for both an Altair and and Orion capsule (either Block I or II) without using any Orion fuel (+2) 2 stage lander with separate ascent stage (descent stage stays on Munar surface) (+2) Rover bonus: Can deploy at least one rover with seats for at least half (round up) of the lander crew (+3) Addition rover: Can deploy a second rover (same or different than first rover) (+1) Pressurized rover: Develop a rover that can seat at least two crew in a pressurized pod. This rover can be delivered with a crewed or uncrewed Altair lander, an Outpost Variant lander or a specialized Cargo Altair that brings only the rover (+2) Outpost Variant: Develop a version of the Altair that can land robotically and has enough room for 1.5 times your Altair landing crew size (round up). Eg. If your Altair lander seats 4, the Outpost Variant should have pressurized seats for 6. If your Altair lander seats 5, your Outpost Variant should seat 8. The Outpost Variant can have, but does not require, the ability to return from Munar surface. (+2)
  12. Well there was a KSP tournament. I don't have the save, but I can probably describe it. Here's the gist of it. We all started in a science mode game with only three techs unlocked ("survivability", "basic rocketry" and "science tech") Just enough to give us a science jr and a mystery goo. Our goal was to rescue three kerbals who were stranded in orbit around 3 different planets in the Kerbol system, one around Duna, one around Eve, one around Moho. We had two hours to get all three Kerbals back to Kerbin. Basically that meant there were two phases, phase one: gather science as fast as possible, phase two: rescue kerbals. Long story short, after the first hour nobody was even close, so the win condition was changed, first to rescue any one kerbal wins. Then it got changed again, first to just get to a circular orbit of Moho wins. I could have rescued the kerbal around Duna before time ran out, maybe Eve too, but I was never going to even get to Moho in time. Also, It was all a lot harder with an unmodded game. Kerbal Engineer would have helped a ton... Needing to guess the dv of my rockets made me redesign things a couple times.
  13. Are any other Kerbonauts going to be attending PAX in Boston over the weekend? I know I'll be there proudly sporting my KSP T-shirt on day 1!
  14. Well I guess I'm throwing my hat into the ring. Meet the Star Hawk I designed this just now for this thread, I've never really designed a plane specifically to look good before, but here it is. Of course it also flies like a dream, not hard to control even without sas. It gets to space with 3000 dV to spare, plenty for hoping around the solar system! As for my vote, that's hard, this thread is full of awesome crafts. I guess on looks alone, I'm going with Majorjim's Eagle. But I also have to say RayGunDan's Cormorant Is the pretiest Heavy lifter I've ever seen! And Drewscriver's Alaflux is an engineering masterpiece.