Jump to content

Snark

Moderator
  • Content Count

    9,361
  • Joined

Community Reputation

14,350 Excellent

About Snark

  • Rank
    E Pluribus Boojum

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

19,002 profile views
  1. Looks good on your forum post here, and on your SpaceDock page. However, I note that you don't appear to have updated your downloadable file with a new version-- don't you still need to replace the license file that's inside your downloadable mod?
  2. Thank you. When I look at those two links, I see that RVE64k Kerbin Clouds for Spectra is licensed CC-BY-NC-SA, whereas you've licensed your mod as MIT. That's a license incompatibility, which is a problem-- since CC-BY-NC-SA is more restrictive than MIT, that means you can't take CC-BY-NC-SA content and re-license it as MIT, since that means you'd be erasing part of the original license. Fortunately, CC-BY-NC-SA is still a fairly permissive license-- it's just not quite as wide-open as MIT is. You could solve that by changing your license from MIT to CC-BY-NC-SA (though if you do
  3. Hi @Benjordy2, and welcome to the forums! A question-- when you say this, ...what exactly do you mean by that? Did you work with these people and they made content for you to include in your mod? Or did you copy content from someone else's mod to include in your own? If it's someone else's stuff that you found somewhere and included, where did you include it from? Could you provide a link?
  4. Looks as though that option's only available when you're creating a new game-- if you have an existing game, that particular option is omitted from the difficulty settings. It may be worth manually editing the save file to see if that will do the trick. WARNING WARNING Make sure you make a backup of your persistent.sfs file for the save game BEFORE you do any tinkering. Editing a save file has the potential to corrupt it and render it unplayable if you accidentally mess anything up, so make sure you keep an unedited copy so you can go back to what you had before, in case of any p
  5. Some content has been removed. Let's please stick to the topic at hand and avoid personal remarks, please. Thank you.
  6. Yes, correct, you should do this, for precisely this reason. If I'm understanding you correctly, I think you're saying "well, if I burn all the time, initially I'm thrusting slightly downwards in this picture, and later I'm thrusting slightly upwards, and those two things cancel each other out!", is that what you're saying? If so, then no, that's not how it works, that's not a thing, nothing is "canceling" anything. You're going "down" and then "up" (in that drawing" because the planet's gravity is curving your path, there's no loss. You add energy by thrusting , and only the
  7. The way I normally design propeller planes and helicopters in KSP: Set torque to maximum and never touch it again. Tie the RPM to the throttle. Pick a reasonable angle for the blades, then do either the simple or the fancy: Simple: add "Toggle Deploy" for the blades to an action group. Fancy: tie the blades' deploy angle to an axis group and bind that to a key pair like I/K. ...and that's it. I use "adjust the blade pitch" the way I'd use the gear shift in a car. The "simple" approach (toggle between two positions with an action group) is like
  8. As folks have said, "It's complicated". But it basically boils down to this: Decide what mission you're going to run. (Take a kerbal to LKO and back? Land on the Mun? Land on the Mun and return? etc.) Figure out how much dV you'll need to do that mission. Design a rocket that has that much dV (plus a reasonable amount extra as safety margin). For the parts of the mission that involve landing or taking off from the surface of a moon or planet, make sure your TWR is appropriate, given the local gravity. (Until you start visiting other planets, taking off from t
  9. "Reducing costs" really isn't a thing, for me. I design the right rocket to carry out the mission, and it just costs whatever it costs. The reason that I don't worry myself about the cost of the rocket is that the cost of the rocket is basically irrelevant. Income from contracts is much higher than the cost of missions-- I just wait until there's a lucrative contract that's reasonably quick to do, and that'll pay for scads of missions. If I just play the game, money flows in. For example, "launch a new station on a solar orbit" contracts can pay well over 500K funds, for a craft that
  10. Just to note that the original thread here is from 2013 and the game has changed enormously since then. If you've got a problem with current KSP, the best thing to do would be to open a new thread about it. That said, the following things could prevent fuel transfer: If you have any parts other than the fuel tanks selected (as Reactordrone points out) If you have the "Fuel transfer obeys crossfeed rules" option turned on (which it is, by default), and there's a non-fuel-transferable part in the path between the two tanks If you're in career mode, you can't transfer fue
  11. (never mind-- was going to suggest "could you please post a screenshot" but then I saw a later post where you said you're on console)
  12. Yes, it is possible for someone to post a recompiled version of the mod, because the mod's license permits it. No, it is not possible to "just post a link" to a download, because that wouldn't satisfy all the add-on posting rules. Posting a recompile = publishing a mod, so anyone posting a recompile has to jump through all the same hoops as a person publishing their own mod. So they'd have to state the license, include a link to their own source, include a license file in their distributable, etc. Also, anyone posting a recompile can't include any of the art assets, since those are A
  13. It's clearly a heavily modded install, and this doesn't look to me like an orbit that can happen in the stock game. Perhaps best to ask about it in the thread of whatever mod is doing this?
  14. Sez you. And anyway, even if it did... so? Now there's a challenge. I respectfully submit that designing a spaceplane to loft a 1000-ton payload is substantially more challenging than designing a rocket to do the same. I just think it would be very enlightening to see what sort of solutions people would come up with for such a challenge! I'd say launch cost is more interesting, personally, though of course it would be up to the challenge author.
  15. As @OHara points out, what you're doing isn't actually a reverse gravity assist. It's just that the somewhat misleading way it's displayed in map view is tricking you into thinking it is. OHara gives a pretty good explanation above, but perhaps a picture or two might help illustrate it. Here's the image you shared: It really looks like a reverse assist, right? "See, I approach the Mun heading from Kerbin in the direction relative to the Mun, and then it deflects me in the direction. Reverse gravity assist, yay!" ...Except that that's not actually what happens. Here's my
×
×
  • Create New...