Jump to content

Gaarst

Members
  • Posts

    2,655
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gaarst

  1. The dV to orbit from LKO has been 3500 m/s since 1.1. Same as elsewhere, you reach orbital speed. The caveat is that you won't be benefiting from Kerbin's rotation as much and that pointing east will put you in a 45° orbit, a lower inclination is impossible without a dog-leg. Sputink 1 was in a 200x900km orbit with 65° inclination. Launching to an equatorial orbit from Baikonur is technically possible but you'd have to wait until you fly over the equator to change your inclination and the dV needed would be absolutely ridiculous (about the same as your current orbital velocity so ~2300 m/s on Kerbin, ~7800 m/s on Earth; a bit cheaper if you a do bi-elliptic inclination change).
  2. I don't know, if only we had a dedicated mods release section on an official forum to see how strictly this EULA was enforced, then we could see with our own eyes that zero mods have been released since the EULA change...
  3. This is most definitely a mod, Kerbal Alarm Clock in fact. I used to think it was stock as well until I missed a dozen manoeuvres in pure stock while frantically hammering the X key.
  4. I've started updating the mods for 1.4/1.4.1, about 25% of the total number are done. I also have allowed people to leave comments on the spreadsheet, anyone should be able to comment on the spreadsheet, however anyone can also "close" (hide) and "re-open" (show) any comment as they wish and see the past history of all comments (I can't delete comments, only "close" them which hides them but they are still visible in the comment history). We'll see how that goes, in the unlikely case of people abusing comments I'll forbid them.
  5. Life support has been suggested many times already, but it will not be implemented because it would add too much difficulty for newer players. I mean I'd love life support in KSP but that's what Squad more or less says. Now there are many mods that add life support in many shapes and colours. From mods as Snacks! and USI Life Support: very simple and will not kill your Kerbals if they run out of supplies (you do get fines and debuffs); to massively complex mods as Kerbal Health or Kerbalism with many many things to care about, if you want proper realism. Plus a wide range in the middle, TAC Life Support is not too hard and quite popular. The link in my sig contains a lot of life support mods (in the Life Support and Health category) if you're interested.
  6. I'm happy to announce that I have added all the mods released from last October to today to the library! It is finally up-to-date... kinda, I still need to get 1.4/1.4.1 compatibilities done; but at 1085 mods excluding the Outdated section, it's finally complete!! Until like tomorrow when new mods get released that is. Now I'll focus in updating the mods for 1.4.1 and I will try to update the mod list at least once a week to keep track of new releases.
  7. There is a search function built in the spreadsheet as well, it's Ctrl+F on my browser not sure what it would be for yours. I understand your concerns and you have the right to complain, however I am not going to revert to a library hosted directly on the post because it would be too much work and because I personally think the spreadsheet is better. __________ In other news I have started adding the mods I was missing on the library and as of now I have the mods released up until the 17th Feb. After I'm done with this I will be updating mods for 1.4(.1) more consistently. I have also re-established credits to @CarnageINC in the main post which I deleted when I rewrote it. As is said there, he is responsible for referencing and formatting a very large majority of the mods in the library, and it wouldn't be how it is today if it wasn't for him. I didn't want to make it look like I wanted to get all the credit for myself, but it was a terrible decision to remove his name from the library and I deeply apologise for that. On a lighter note, he has been driven away from KSP by other obligations and such, and so is looking for a new maintainer for his Add-on Development Mod Library which is basically the same as this one except for mods in development and more addressed to modders than players.
  8. Because it would be useful in helping successfully manage your missions, can't have that in KSP.
  9. 20th March 2013, so 5 years in four days.
  10. With 1.4 I realised I've become completely dependent of KER and my readouts. To build to a certain extent: while I still can "eyeball" a rocket for up to Duna without calculating anything, I feel like there's something missing. Considering I haven't properly played a stock save since 1.0.4 and the new parts, it just feels like I have no idea what I am doing. I tend to massively overbuild my rockets (thank you RSS), underpower them (because everything is so heavy and I build tall rockets so lots of mass in a small diameter and muh tankbutts) and overall can't get everything the way I want. Say I want to adjust the TWR or dV on a stage, each time I want to do that I would have to recalculate everything because I'm not used to doing it anymore. And it gets worse when I leave the VAB. I love information, I love readouts and I love keeping an eye on every single number at once. My KER preset has over 50 different readouts without the manoeuvres or rendez-vous ones active. And then there's stock where you have altitude, speed aaaaaaaand that's it. The worst is the absence of orbital readouts: I don't know where I am, I don't know where I'm going, I don't know when to cut my engines, when to light them... Sure you can use map view, but come on! Orbital data is literally in the game and you use it all the time, all the arguments you could find against dV readouts don't apply there, what would it cost to add a small window showing your apoapsis and periapsis? Just that would make launching your rockets immensely better. And don't get me started on IVA. I know some advocate the "trial and error" and that absence of information is a part of the gameplay; but with all due respect, I find it's a moronic point of view and makes for an appalling element of gameplay. Give us information, give us data, tell use what we are doing. Rocket science is rocket science: it's numbers, it's math, it's engineering, all of which require accuracy and planning. I just don't find it fun when you have no idea if your rocket will make it back, when you have no idea if you are flying efficiently, when you have no idea if you will even reach your target (because at Squad, porkchop just means meat and window is something you look through); I much prefer planning my mission thoroughly, having the tools to execute it precisely and if something goes wrong well it's okay because I was able to plan for contingencies as well. Yes, manually calculating dV is easy and makes you work your math, great right? No! Because that's why we have calculators/computers for, unless you can't use yours you can't get it wrong: it's not an element of difficulty, it's just time-consuming and tedious. Difficulty should lie in being able to design and build your rocket properly for a mission, not in being able to find the natural logarithm on your calculator every time you take a part off. Not giving the information we need for a mission is literally dumbing down the game (I know what "literally" means and I mean it) and making it harder at the same time, which is quite the achievement. Matching numbers is easier than trial and error, it's also miles less frustrating; and if you want to up your level of gameplay you'll have to understand these numbers anyway. I could go on and on, but then I'll get to the "kerbals r so goofy lul, dem rokets explod !!!1!!!!!!!!" image of the game and I'll never stop. TL;DR: if you want to achieve anything worthwhile, then no, stock game is not very fun without delta-V or TWR readouts.
  11. Soyuz 6/7/8, except it actually happened.
  12. It's not really hard to make a half-decent Soyuz with the DLC parts. Pic related, threw that together from memory; with a bit more attention you can make one like that a few posts above.
  13. Where is this quote from? I don't think I remember this, if it mentions 1.3.1 it's definitely newer than 2 years.
  14. No, I'll say this once more: Multiplayer. Will. Never. Happen. Fin. Not since over 2 years. And in these two years not the smallest effort has ever been made to slowly make KSP ever so slightly fitted to multiplayer. Or in the 5 years before for that matter. Who knows? Squad never had a public roadmap, and looking back at the history of KSP I don't think they ever had an internal one either. We'll know what's next when Squad announces what's next, they rarely let any information through before official announcements. Edit: also, asking about multiplayer tends to start heated debates and people get mean. Sorry if my reply was interpreted as such.
  15. It's manually updated when I happen to randomly click on a mod that has been updated. I apparently happened to update the status Colonists, now both your mods are written as compatible with 1.4! The forum post will still contain notes about the library and occasional updates if I feel they are important enough for them to be there. But the thread gives a place to discuss the library with people, and it will contain a lot more updates on what I'm doing. As Murdabenne said in the post above, it's a lot easier to maintain for me and actually gives more options when searching for mods (which besides from archving is supposed to be the main goal of this list: make finding mods easier than going through pages of Add-on Releases). I realise it may be a bit less intuitive than the previous format in plain text but the effort to learn it worth it. I'm happy you like the library, but as I said in another post recently: I'm just copy-pasting mods while modders actually make your game better. The library is just me trying to be useful to the modding community because I know I'll never be bothered learning how to write a mod so I do this because it's really simple, just tedious. I wouldn't accept a penny from T2 before I was sure that every modder got paid first, I feel like they deserve (and get, justly so) a lot more recognition than I do because they make content.
  16. And if you can't decide between the two:
  17. Thanks for the appreciation, it's always welcome! However, I feel like you should be thanking modders more than me: I'm just copy-pasting links, they are the ones who make your game better. Don't hesitate to ask questions, even if they might have already been asked, worst case scenario someone scolds you for not using the forums' terrible search function and links an older relevant thread. If you want to help with things in French, go take a look at the French section of the forums (it's pretty empty right now because it's new) or propose your help for translating mods in the thread below.
  18. Have you tried making big rockets out of them?
  19. These are very good ideas. I was waiting a bit for that one because the spreadsheet used to be quite outdated (and in a way it still is). I'll enable comments when I will have added the newer mods that are not listed, so that I don't get flooded for something I'm about to do. I wanted to avoid having 1000 columns but this actually makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the list, I'll update the Russian translations when I get the time to. The link column is a bit useless I agree. However deleting it means getting through every single mod to move the link, I may do it some day but not now. Edit: translation columns splitting is done, that wasn't really hard.
  20. It's an SPS analogue... The "actual" J-2 has something like 340s Isp, I know it's stupid. As for the Poodle, I personally find it sometimes too powerful as an orbital engine and not enough as an upper stage engine. Plus it's ugly; so I usually end up using Terriers or boosting my first stage/boosters so that it does most of the work to orbit, and use an orbital stage with abysmally low TWR once up there. It's not the most efficient way to get to orbit, but I prefer my rockets looking nice (ie realistic) than to cling to a few more decimals in my payload fractions.
  21. The original ports were rated for being KSP first and broken second. EE didn't have the argument of novelty so it was mostly rated for failing to correct all the mistakes of the original ports.
  22. Doesn't "Duck dich" mean "Get down!"? It's not exactly "stay put" but you keep the meaning. But yes you are probably right about the reference you can't translate. It is already a rather obscure reference in English, maybe it's not worth keeping it in German.
  23. Stayputnik is actually a reference to Vanguard TV3, a launch that was supposed to be the US's first orbital satellite but that went down in flames when the first stage lost propulsion a couple seconds after liftoff and crashed onto the pad. Stayputnik was one of the nicknames the press gave it, in reference to Sputnik 1 which had successfully launched a few months earlier, because it "stayed" on Earth. While DuckdichNick doesn't sound good, it is pretty much a literal translation of "Stayputnik". Spucknet would sound better but you would lose the original reference even with the pun. In the French translation, the Stayputnik probe is called "Spoutbrik", it sounds very much like Sputnik and can be interpreted as "Crashing brick": "spout" is the sound something makes when it splatters onto the ground (not a very common onomatopoeia though) (Edit: on second thought, the "spout" part might not have been intended, it is just the way you would write the /u/ sound in French) and "brik" reads like "brique" the French word for brick. IMO it's a pretty good translation since you keep both the sound and the meaning of the original name, but I'm not sure you could find something similar in German. Edit2: looks like the editor doesn't like [ u ] without the spaces, I can't underline things now, a remnant of BBCode I guess...
×
×
  • Create New...