Jump to content

pandaman

Members
  • Content Count

    2,316
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pandaman

  1. From my experience KERs suicide burn function works only on vertical velocity. So it gives a very false reading if coming in at shallow angles. It works ok when coming down close to vertical, but I still burn a bit early just in case.
  2. As well as a 'cruise control' where it tries to maintain a set velocity, maybe an option to maintain a set 'g' acceleration would be useful too.
  3. Glass spheres make great lenses. Instead of an eclipse you get a death ray:)
  4. Love the game. Finished? No, but then it never will be. There will always be extra stuff that could be added (or should be depending on ones POV). Needs 'polish'? Yes, I don't really have an issue with the relatively basic graphics when compared to a lot of current games, it looks okay, it works, and doesn't clog up already stretched resources just to make it pretty. That said, stuff like clouds and a several places of 'natural beauty' to visit on each body are obvious by their absence. Balance? Still needs some work here, but no balance setting will please everyone, I quite like it ov
  5. With the imminent release of Windows 10 does anyone know what impact or changes, if any, may be noticeable in KSP? I don't expect any real compatibility issues as it's made to run on '7' machines anyway, and I would imagine the devs have tried it to make sure it works. Nor do I expect any noticeable performance increase (would be nice though, I can dream can't I). Is there anyone in a position to shed any light?
  6. A fairly simple concept. We have the centre of thrust marker in the editors, that gives us the centre and direction of thrust. I think it would be useful if it projected a thin line along its entire axis, a bit like a laser pointer. We could then see EXACTLY where this line passes through the CoM and CoL markers, thereby making it easier to get everything properly in line and balanced.
  7. Okay not strictly a stability function, but it would fit well on the SAS option pop outs. When activated the vessel automatically maintains the current speed, or at least tries to. It will reduce throttle to avoid accelerating more and increase throttle whenwhewhen it can to avoid slowing down. Particularly handy during ascent and atmospheric flight. Probably no use at all in a vacuum.
  8. Much as I was hoping for 1.0.3 soon I'd rather they took time to fix as many bugs and get the best balance they can. So a bit of a longer wait now is sort of good news. Like being told Santa can't deliver your present at Christmas because it's too big to fit in the sleigh with all the others, so he's making a special journey at new year instead.
  9. Like most on this thread (probably) I've clocked up hundreds of hours, so judgement may be a bit biased. But I don't think $40 is over priced. It's cheaper than many games that lose their re playability after only 10's of hours. Like all games it won't be to everyone's taste and those who aren't interested most likely won't buy it. Some who buy just won't get on with it even if they are interested. But once you grasp the basics suddenly you can see the huge scope even if you don't yet have the skills or knowledge you realise that you can have and will have in the future. For me, if I just
  10. Any symmetrical cross section parts will work with rockets, albeit with an adapter in several cases (as do the Mk2 and Mk3 cargo bays and fuselage sections). So where practical I would like symmetry to increase versatility and reduce the amount of extra parts needed.
  11. Nearly didn't read that when I saw how long it was... Glad I did... Thanks. Oh ,and give Bob and Clara my best wishes (when he gets out of the asylum).
  12. I hadn't realised about the camera trick. Thanks. Staging wouldn't be viable for stuff you dock to it after launch (like picking up a rover), but yes action groups should work.
  13. The problem with an unopenable cargo bay (I.e. a tube) is that if you attach to the node at the inner end you lose the option to right click and decouple because you can't get in to click on it.
  14. Actually I agree with you here. Making the 'guppy' parts as I suggested just a shade higher so a 3.75m or Mk3 will just fit with a bit if clearance (4m internal height?), but make them maybe up to 6m wide, either with a symmetrical profile (like Mk2 but more rounded) and/or more flat bottomed (Thunderbird 2 style) would be a better solution. They would also look cooler too Thanks.
  15. This gets my vote. How about Mk3 'guppy' parts? Cargo bays big enough to take 3.75m parts, with 'wiggle room' (maybe 4.5m internal diameter) for a few radially attached bits, and size adapters to fit onto Mk3. This allows bigger loads without creating a whole new Mk(x) series. May only need 1 in line bay, 1 tailgate bay and 2 adapters, one symmetrical that expands the diameter evenly (handy for rockets too), and one offset that bulges on one side keeping the other side in line with the existing fuselage.
  16. No, I don't. I've not kept earlier versions except for 0.25 and 0.90. as a 'just in case', but never looked at them since 1.0 dropped so I will most likely carry on using the newest versions as they appear.
  17. Thanks for that. I can certainly see how that adds a new level of play and gives probes and satellites a real and different purpose. And that is exactly what good mods like that are perfect for. For this thread I was trying more to look at a simple stock method of giving pilots a worthwhile edge over probes, for things like pinpoint landings and tricky docking manoeuvres in particular, as is currently the case IRL. As it is you don't need a pilot at all for them, as a probe core is just as good, and nowhere near as heavy, so there is just no point other than RP to send a pilot. It's cert
  18. @slashy. You are absolutely right, it was all through choice. On many occasion I sat down to start a spreadsheet or chart to give me an estimation on what dv I had without constantly doing calculations, but as much as I enjoyed thinking about it and working out what approach to take, and I know it would have been a valuable learning experience too, I just found I had more fun playing.
  19. For ages I played pure stock and got on okay without deltaV info in the VAB though trial and error. I just reached the point when I felt I would benefit from having that info readily available, and for me it's made designing and building more enjoyable. I can now 'design' rather than just stick it together and try it, which makes going to other planets a lot less frustrating for me. Incidentally, I recall a conversation I heard several years ago. One person was describing a game (don't know what) to a friend, who's first response was 'what mods can you get for it' as if that were more impo
  20. Over the last week or so, following a discussion on another thread, I have been pondering over the differences between pilots and probes, and why pilots effectively become useless when using a probe core unless you want to plant a flag or take a surface sample (which you can use a scientist or engineer for anyway). So... Here’s my thoughts, this is very much a ‘would something like this work in game’ as a foundation for a solution, rather than a final solution in itself, as there are undoubtedly many issues which I haven’t foreseen. Any ‘solution’ must
  21. Assuming you have v1.0 installed and that you didn't just 'not notice' the parts, try re downloading the game. I had this on an earlier version where several engines were missing (I blamed Klepto Kerman), a fresh download fixed it, though IIRC I had blank icons where they should have been.
  22. I often use it for target practice. For testing landers etc. It's a handy distance for a near vertical launch to plop down on as if from orbit. When I first got the demo (18.3) I spent ages just lobbing rockets at it 'for science' while getting the hang of the VAB and basic flight.
  23. One way would be to include an option in the 'pop up' menu to spawn next to the runway or launchpad if it is already occupied, rather than just clear it. A few 'pre-set' locations could be used, say one just off the western end of the runway and one off to either side next to the usual spawn point, then maybe 3 around the launchpad. Only if all 3 extra spots are occupied does it need to clear one. This would avoid the problem of programming in random or flexible spawn points for a relatively small issue, but still give a useful extra degree of flexibility for testing stuff.
  24. I resisted mods for ages as I never really 'liked the idea'. I played pure stock from v18.3 and only installed KER after a while of using v25 as I got really fed up with having no delta v indicator in VAB. I do use a lot of KERs other info 'cause it's there' but if stock had some its functionality I would consider not using it. Same goes for KAC which I have only just installed but not needed to use it yet. When I get a better pc I will consider 'eye candy' mods, and maybe stuff like RSS for a change.
  25. Fortunately I'm a little too young to remember farthings being legal tender. KSP is certainly educational.
×
×
  • Create New...