Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hotaru

  1. It allows you to set the rotation reference frame to any celestial body. So you can imitate stock behavior by setting the reference body to the sun, or have your ship maintain its orientation relative to the ground by setting it to whatever body you're flying over/orbiting.
  2. My impression is it actually does work for atmospheric craft: it lets you use regular SAS to hold attitude relative to the horizon instead of relative to the sun, which doesn't work in stock KSP. Which is to say, in stock KSP a plane flying level will be pointing straight up after flying a quarter of the way around the planet--with Persistent Rotation, it'd still be flying level. Doesn't do much good if you're on console, and doesn't make this any less a good suggestion for the stock game, but if you're OK with mods Persistent Rotation does help.
  3. Unfortunately there isn't one of the tests... I'll see if I can record the first one to actually go to Eve though.
  4. @[email protected] It was testing the system for jettisoning the rear heat shields on an Eve lander. At this point it's already successfully completed the test... nobody gave much thought to what it would do after that. Oddly, the parachutes survived being blasted by the rocket exhaust and it actually "landed" mostly intact. PS. This is what we're trying to avoid: This one actually ended up working, but nobody liked the idea of just vaguely relying on the rocket to be sturdier than the jettisoned stuff.
  5. My current scheme is, kermanned missions get names related to bravery and/or recklessness (Audacity, Intrepidity, Daring) while unkermanned ones get names related to caution and/or cowardice (Rationality, Timidity, Sanity). Static stations and bases get long spans of time (Patience, Persistence, Immutability), mobile ones--which in practice so far means kermanned rovers--get short spans of time (Brevity, Transience). Launch vehicles, because I couldn't think of anything clever, get made-up words from "Jabberwocky" (Uffish, Manxome, Vorpal) followed by roman numerals for variants.
  6. No, I haven't used them at all yet. But I do like large landing craft... PS. On the topic of both large landing craft and the actual topic: The close call here was that not only did no kerbals die (it was a pretty low-speed crash), but that station the ship is about to crash into was completely undamaged (although it was knocked out of position a bit.)
  7. Yep, they make great lander engines if you aren't bothered about irradiating the landing site. Almost as good as those new nuclear aerospikes from NFT.
  8. Yeah, I haven't tried it yet (looking forward to it!) but to be honest having constant failures early on actually sounds pretty cool. Especially given that (as @minepagan says) in the first few years of spaceflight, that's not far off from the way things actually were. I like the idea of having good reasons to do things like abort tests, static fires, etc.--especially of early-game rockets that are pretty much the same ones I've been building since I first started up KSP back in 0.90. And it is, after all, adjustable. Also, thanks for 1.2.2 compatibility @Angel-125, not a huge deal for me but I'm still spending most of my time in 1.2.2 and I appreciate having that as an option.
  9. Getting this update done turned out to be a bit of an adventure, partly because I wanted to get in the return of Daring 4, which kind of turned out to be further off than I thought, and partly because I wasted a few more days experimenting with my 1.3.0 setup for my still-hypothetical next career. (See boring stuff for more on that.) With the end of Daring 4 and the departure from Jool of Daring 6, I've now pretty much finished all the "easy" targets--only Laythe, Tylo, Jool and Eve remain. Preparations for those missions will probably start in the next update with test flights of the Laythe and Eve landing craft, but the actual missions might take a while to get underway, since I'd like to send a few more unkermanned missions to those targets before risking kerbals on any of them. The current plan is for the next major kermanned expedition to be Daring 7 to Laythe, but that may change. Boring stuff: TL;DR: Uninstalled SVT (too much lag), installed Slingshotter, still thinking about ideas for next save. Dauntless 2101 takes off on its first full crew rotation. Sanity, Philosophy, Lucidity: the Eve probe fleet. Station Permanence: exploration of Duna. Daring 6: departure from Pol. KS-3: an unexpectedly interesting crew rotation. Brevity II: circumnavigation of the Mun. Daring 4: return from Eeloo.
  10. It's not a very good stratagem. Whenever I have to hunt down and click on a link to see an image, somehow whatever it is never quite ends up as cool as I was picturing, so I'm always a little bit let down. I'd much rather they just, you know, embed the picture like all the rest of us do. Also, is it me or is that thing a little... roomy? I've never actually seen the inside of a Vostok capsule but I always pictured them being pretty crowded--might look better if the interior space was smaller and more full of equipment. I mean, how is Jeb even supposed to reach that throttle lever?
  11. Could you check for the auto KAC alarm set by KCT for vessel completion? Granted that would only work in a very specific setup (BARIS, KCT, and KAC all installed, KCT's auto KAC alarms enabled). Just an idea, I'm not too surprised to hear such a thing would be easier said than done. Honestly if given a choice at this point I'd probably take BARIS over KCT for a new career: it seems to be a lot more flexible with things like which ships are getting built how fast, and it has a nice built-in system for random failures as well. The only big thing I'd miss from KCT would be the ability to recover and relaunch the same ship (or at least the same parts reassembled into an identical ship) with a quicker turnaround than stock recovery and rebuilding from scratch--which gives things like having a fleet of several unique shuttle orbiters a little more of a meaning.
  12. So I looked this up and apparently the answer is "if KCT is installed, BARIS's vehicle integration feature is disabled"--which would seem to mean losing one of BARIS's most interesting options (the reliability/quick readiness trade-off) since KCT has no equivalent as far as I know. Would there be a way to have both--that is, to launch a vessel you have to first build it with KCT and then integrate it with BARIS? Granted I have no idea how easy or otherwise that would be to do (since it would cross the line from simply checking for KCT to actually changing its functionality) but it'd be extremely cool.
  13. I suspect one of two things is going on here. Either A. there's a very good reason for leaving these effects turned off (like, if you turn them on on one particular OS, your computer catches fire) or B. it's such a small feature that the devs have simply forgotten about it (not least considering practically the entire dev team has been replaced since it was originally implemented and left disabled). I'd be curious to know which is the case.
  14. You can't fix it per se, but a workaround might be to use something like Tweakable Everything to disable solar panel tracking (and then manually orient your spacecraft so the panels are facing the right way). You still won't get automatic tracking, but at least the panels won't be actively fighting you.
  15. Might be worth losing the stock-scale option since I think it's safe to say the vast majority of players spend most or all of their time in that scale--the more interesting question being which of the other options is most preferred. I voted for 6.4x, which I've done some playing in and which I might try and do a career in one of these days, although the truth is I've spent 99% of my time in regular old 1x scale.
  16. I really like the look of this mod--don't know if I'll install it in my HSP save or not (I like the idea but none of the ships in that save were built with the possibility of part failures in mind) but I'll almost certainly use it for my next one. If you don't mind a suggestion: one thing I'd like to see would be the possibility of a catastrophic failure any time during launch (for some definition of "launch," be it "first 10 minutes of flight" or "altitude hasn't exceeded 70km yet" or whatever) rather than just during staging events. Partly cause I think it'd be cooler and more realistic that way (plenty of real rocket failures happen mid-stage and are unrelated to staging events) and partly cause it sounds like you could dodge the issue by using action groups or right clicking to stage. PS. Question: for parts like engines or drills that are sometimes on, sometimes off--does MTBF refer to time since launch or time in operation? Or both?
  17. My understanding is the boosters will always return to the launch site; the second stage basically goes into orbit along with the payload, so if it were to be recovered it could land pretty much anywhere, possibly a once-around flight with a landing back at KSC; the Dragon 2 would've made its propulsive landings on land but now that they've given up on that idea, I believe it's planned to parachute into the ocean like previous capsules. So no, there should be no need for more than one barge per ocean.
  18. Well, I've seen all the (extant) Shuttle orbiters: Enterprise and Discovery at Udvar-Hazy, Atlantis on the pad (before STS-122) and Endeavour going up (on STS-123). Up until a year or so ago I could only count Discovery by virtue of having watched it go overhead one time on its way to the ISS, but now that it's in a museum I finally got to see it "properly." I've also watched a few Minotaur launches from Wallops, the one I'm most pleased with myself for being the LADEE Moon probe on the first (and so far only) flight of the Minotaur V. I mean, it didn't really look much different to other launches, but how often in this day and age do you get to see an actual moon rocket go up?
  19. @EvilEmotaku Thanks! My current visuals are SVE/SVT, I've never tried KSPRC. AVP is also a good one; I used that back in my 1.0.2 save, and I believe there's an updated 122/130 version out there somewhere. I've used DMagic in the past as well, and while I haven't thought much about using it later in this save I almost certainly will in the next. Boring stuff: TL;DR: the usual. Defiance 38 approaches KSC at the end of the program's final mission. Sanity, Philosophy, and Lucidity: unkermanned probes. Defiance 38: final shuttlepod mission. Station Immutability: next-generation torus module. Starbus Phoebe and Dauntless 2101: crew rotations. Daring 6: Bop and Pol.
  20. My personal suspicion is that the reason (or one of the reasons) why we've never gotten a graphics update is because that's planned for KSP2--add clouds on the planets and revamp the parts and it'll look like a shiny new game, as anyone who's played with EVE or Ven's Revamp knows. Not that that would necessarily be a bad thing, as long as there are other substantial improvements as well. Personally I'm still OK with the shift from free updates to paid DLC, as long as the prices are civilized and the promise of free DLC for pre-April 2013 purchasers continues to be kept.
  21. Here's an old one: my first "landing" on the Mun 6.4x scale. The problem was it didn't have any reaction wheels; it relied entirely on RCS and gimballing the main engine for steering. MechJeb's landing autopilot did not approve. I just barely managed to get it turned around tail-first before impact, which probably saved the capsule.
  22. Boring stuff: TL;DR: Thinking about my next save: planets, parts, etc. Passenger shuttle Dauntless 2101 cruising back to KSC at the end of its first unkermanned test flight. S210 and crew rotations: a new passenger shuttle. Daring 6: on to Bop.
  23. If you were around for the change in forum software your rank will have "stuck" at whatever it was then. I think just deleting it in your profile makes it go back to whatever it should be.
  24. I think my two favorites so far are Munvan and Addon.
  • Create New...