JAFO

Members
  • Content Count

    630
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

448 Excellent

1 Follower

About JAFO

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Profile Information

  • Location Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

2,668 profile views
  1. Dunno.. I'm an Aussie too. So.. feedback goes on the bugtracker page as well?
  2. JAFO

    One handed gaming

    In addition to the many excellent suggestions above, consider using the GravityTurn mod as well. It can automate the entire liftoff-to-orbit process for you, leaving only a final circularisation burn needed to reach orbit. (If you have MechJeb installed, it will hand off to MJ for the circularisation burn as well). MechJeb can get you to orbit, but GT does a much better, more fuel-efficient job of it than MJ)
  3. I see... Hmm.. it's a little more of a tough call when you put it like that. Because orbital lines do 'intersect' each other. But physical objects 'intercept' one another. I guess that's why, particularly for non-native-English speakers (as is the case for the core devs), there was an apparent need for consistency. But in proper English, there is no consistency issue, as they are talking about completely different things. Lines are imaginary, objects are not, and the different wordage reflects that fact (intersect is a purely mathematical term, whereas intercept is a physical term). So since the ultimate purpose of these markers in-game is for objects intercepting other objects, I'd have to go with making 'intercept' the consistent term, even though both are actually correct within their usage parameters. I'll see about putting all that into a formal feedback entry. Agreed.. though in this case I'd argue they went with the wrong term.. see above for why.
  4. While you're at it, for your first round of 1.7 bugfixes, you might want to note that in the Advanced Manoeuvre Node editor, the word should be spelled "intercept", not "intersect". I guess that, given that @UomoCapra confused "too" with "two" in the announcement above, I shouldn't really be surprised you messed it up.. but really? This is rocket science guys.. accuracy is important!
  5. While I like and support the idea... you mean you don't just regularly delete debris in-game, from the tracking station interface, like the rest of us? (Haystack ReContinued helps with this) (Edit.. wow.. your first post. Welcome to the forums!)
  6. Hmm.. that is REALLY odd. I'm inclined to agree with @linuxgurugamer Windoze somehow borked things. If you still have the file, I'd take him up on his offer, if only to figure out what went wrong, so you can ensure it doesn't happen again.
  7. And this is why you should always edit a COPY of the savefile, and not the original.. or at least make a backup copy first. It would probably help if the "Instructions, Hints, FAQ" section of the OP made this clear. (Not that anyone ever reads instructions!)
  8. JAFO

    [1.3+] Community Delta-V Map 2.6 (Sep 29th)

    Ahh.. well.. better late than never. If you bought KSP direct from the store, it's pretty simple to make as many installs as you like. If you bought on Steam, the trick is to leave your Steam install as stock, and copy/paste the entire KSP folder to another location on your hard drive, and mod/run the game from there. Repeat as many times as you like. This has the added benefit of Steam updates not breaking ongoing games due to mod incompatibilities. The only thing you lose out on is having Steam track your play hours.
  9. JAFO

    [1.3+] Community Delta-V Map 2.6 (Sep 29th)

    By which I hope you mean 'making another fresh install alongside my existing install(s)' and not 'wiping out my old install'. You do realise, I hope, that KSP allows you to have as many individually customised installs of the game as you like?
  10. JAFO

    [1.3+] Community Delta-V Map 2.6 (Sep 29th)

    I find it generally takes 5-6 launches to get GT 'dialed-in', and some craft (rarely) it just can't seem to get right. So if necessary, I manually tweak settings until I find what works best. If you can upload the craft file (ideally to KerbalX which will deal with any modded parts properly) and post a link, some of us could check your results and see if we can verify them.
  11. JAFO

    [1.3+] Community Delta-V Map 2.6 (Sep 29th)

    As I asked in the edit to my post above, are you using GT correctly? Are you doing multiple sequential launches of the same craft, to get GT to optimise its settings as much as possible, or just going with the first couple of launches of a new design?
  12. JAFO

    [1.3+] Community Delta-V Map 2.6 (Sep 29th)

    You absolutely will get different (almost certainly worse) results with MJ's ascent tool, because MJ does not fly optimal ascents, just "good enough" ones. And yes, craft design and the altitude at which you pop off the fairings will make a difference (I find higher is better - I generally go with 62-65km). But with the right design, GT is capable of excellent results. For instance, the usual dV quoted to reach 80x80 orbit of Kerbin is 3200. Using GT (and MJ just to circularise), I have achieved it using just 2800 dV. Edit: Just to be sure, you ARE going through the entire multiple-launch iterative process with GT to optimise settings as much as possible, yes? Because the first few GT launches of a craft will always be far from optimal, in terms of dV.
  13. Ain't none of us "like" it.. it sucks, and is always a PITA. But it's better than the alternatives.
  14. I don't see any reason to forbid that.. so far as I'm concerned (and as the mod page itself states), it's merely a bug-fix.
  15. First pic of your science jet, for a moment I was wondering how on earth you'd gotten two Kerbals into a Mk-I cockpit.. then realised the tail of the plane was made from a second Mk-I cockpit! Clever idea.. don't recall seeing anyone do that before.