Terwin

Members
  • Content count

    762
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

455 Excellent

About Terwin

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer
  1. You people are getting me worried, so: 5th asteroid added JQL-056-E at 2669t it is the biggest yet! Added to ECQ-291-E at 1202t, EWT-435-E at 2419.4t, SMW-714-C at 64.2t, and DCM-533-E at a 1764t that puts my total rock mass at 8363t and 5 rocks gives a total score multiplier of 4x for a grand total of 33452 points. (and if anyone manages to top that, I'll need to go find another rock of at least 1650t so I can top 50K points with my last easily available linking unit) note: Same album, but the previous post is far enough back it seemed unproductive to update it Edit: ok, so perhaps I just can't stop fiddling with some things. 6th rock collected: YRD-633-E at 3155.78t. I did not realize they got bigger than 3000 tons, but apparently they do... Looks like that brings the rock mass up to 11518 tons with 6 rocks for a x5 multiplier and a total score of 57,590. I really hope I am done with this, as my only remaining options are to either discard the dinky little 60 ton class C for something bigger, or to decouple the two original asteroids and try to re-connect them in a way that only needs one link as opposed to the two I originally used due to the claw sinking too far into the rock and wanting the keep the asteroids from clipping when they connected. What is more, all of these rocks were collected on a single load of fuel which was harvested from Dres before I captured my first rock, meaning that my ~70t ship used only 5137 of the 12345 units of liquid fuel on board when it last launched from a planetary body to collect all these rocks(counting a unit of ore as 2 units of liquid fuel).
  2. hopefully not for very long, as there supplies are being produced(although if some of the kerbals are greedy and do not share, I could see some going tourist while others are perfectly happy)
  3. Might we be able to get either a screen-shot showing the masses of the asteroids(if you right-click on them they show you mass and ore fraction, unless that is part of KER), or a couple of shots showing the mass of your vessel(one docked with the cluster and one undocked), it is not really feasible to judge the mass of your asteroids just based on apparent size. It helps that I do a lot of clipping. I have 3 Mk3 LF tanks squeezed into the space of one, and 4-6 2.5m reaction wheels in addition to the 6 1.25m wheels on the grabber arms. Aside form a relay satellite(not yet in place) to relay a control signal to the dark side of Dres in case I need to land and refuel again, and the possibility of using my Mk1 vessel for rescue refueling(the grabbers were both oriented wrong and unable to properly disengage, possibly due to clipped drag-cubes or something, but it has a full fuel load and plenty of ore to share), this ship is completely self-sufficient(the drills down by the engines are the ones used to refuel on Dres, along with a 2.5m ISRU, batteries, and 16 pb-nuk generators in the cargo-bay, somewhat obscured by the small radiators) Even if it were not for the 1m/s cap on claws activating, I would be afraid to go much faster than 0.5m/s when trying to dock class-e asteroids together, just too big and unwieldy to react quickly to something going wrong. Also, speed kills efficiency, and I am quite content to time-accelerate as long as needed, as this is my only on-going mission in this game. (I also tend to over-do preparation and efficiency as it is not uncommon for me to off-load or otherwise dispose of excess ore and fuel after returning from another planet so that I am light enough to land safely back on Kerbin)
  4. Good to know, I was a little uncertain about capturing desteroids since linking them into a chain is so much easier than wandering bits of rock that just happen to get close to Kerbin. (The rendezvous has generally required under 10m/s/s of dv when bringing a rock over to the others, even if it may take > 100 days) I aim for longevity, so I have plenty of reaction wheels and 3 nervas. So long as I go slow, I have plenty of time to change facing and this way I do not find myself needing to make as many refuel runs down to Dres(which is good because relying on unmanned drills it can take over a hundred days to refill the tank when it runs low). Of course I also generally use reaction wheels and main engines for docking in my main games, so I have had some practice.(I also use claws for docking there as not having translation would suck for docking with a normal port) Big engines take big fuel, and as I said above, I aim for efficiency(another reason I went to Dres). I have over 6km/s/s even with some ore left in the back-up tank, and when I was pushing around the 2400t rock, I still had over 120m/s/s in the tank. (down to 66m/s/s with 5400 tons but I have no intention of trying to push that!). Would you believe I have not refueled yet since starting my chain? and with 300 ore still to be refined, I have not even used the first quarter of my fuel... Efficiency is a great way to go if you have the patience for it...(I did fully refuel on Dres before I started though)
  5. I will go ahead and start my entry with just 2 class E's to for now: ECQ-291-E at 1202t and EWT-435-E at 2419.4t for a starting score of 3621 But as you can see, I am equipped to attach up to an additional 4 asteroids(probably smaller) to this starting chain... Added a dinky class C(SMW-714-C) for an extra 64.2t bringing the rock mass up to 3685t and the score up to twice that for 7370. Passing the first entry on page 1 and taking first place(for now). After wrangling that 2400 ton asteroid around, that 62 ton pebble was hardly any effort at all, my acceleration was even above 1m/s/s(as opposed to 0.07m/s/s) Clearly I am a glutton for punishment as I went after another Class E, this one turned out to be 1764t(DCM-533-E) bringing the tons of rock up to 5449T with 4 rocks that gets a x3 for 16,347 points. Looking at the results thus far, that seems like a pretty safe bet, but I still have 2 more chain links should there be a need...
  6. That is probably an issue where the ship with hungry Kerbals docks with a 'superior' vessel, and as such the kerbal vessel becomes a component of the other vessel. Much like transferring kerbals to a new vessel without bothering to space-walk. Kind of makes me wonder if you were to have a vessel with hungry kerbals, remove all kerbals from the vessel, then put them back in(possibly doing a scene switch first), would they re-set their starvation timer?
  7. I believe Ground Construction(or making something similar) was a prerequisite because he wanted base modules that were of a size that is infeasible to launch. So no reason he could not start including larger structures in his next release, if he has time to work on them.(I think I even remember some potential models being shown at one point)
  8. Plenty of space in there for an earth-sized planet once they get their detection sensitive enough to see if one is actually there...
  9. The amount of information must necessarily be related to the amount of context that the recipient has. I would tell my wife "I got [a lot|a little|less than I wanted] done today" I would tell my boss "Paid Enhancements for the Alaska project" I would tell the Alaska Project owner "finished up CISADOTEMS-90, and starting on CISADOTMMS-156, with some rework on AA-9896" Those issue numbers would mean little to my boss, and nothing to my wife, but tell the project owner exactly what is going on. To my eye, we are getting the 'Paid enhancements to Alaska' level of detail, because: 1) we do not have access to the internal bug repository, making the more detailed report either useless or a major burden on the developers who would need to translate it into something a majority of users can understand 2) the exact technical details are not really relevant unless they have something that is completed that they can tell us about, 3) it is more informative to the majority of forum readers than a highly detailed technical report that could only really be done by taking a developer off of working on the game for half a day or longer each week. I think a highly detailed technical report would be great, but I also know that if I had to do one of those every week, it would slow me down quite a bit, and I would rather the developers make as much progress as they can, even if it means we get a higher level report.
  10. Threw together a quick Duna and back ISRU vessel. Could reasonably go to just about every low-gravity body in the system(at least if you wait for windows) note: chutes only used for Kerbin landing, Duna landing was all nukes.
  11. You should have a R&D button on the toolbar, click that and the last clicked part will show up in the upgrade window.(you may need to add a part to the work area to be able to do research on it, but I do not think it even needs to be part of a vessel, just the last part you drug around on the screen.
  12. I tried enabling gimbal to help with to an unbalanced load I was not aware of until after I lifted off from the Mun. It only worked within one degree of freedom, and once it just flopped around wildly within that arc. I also remember seeing the one degree of freedom problem in 1.2 which is why I always disable the gimbal. I have not yet tried adding the update patch to see if that fixes the issue.
  13. If you turn off the engine gimble, you can use the lightbulb from the most recent Atmoic Age release without problems in 1.2.2 or 1.3(the gimble can go wonky, but everything else works just fine)
  14. If your hab time if 50+ years, then timers stop and it is listed as 'indefinite' for all kerbals at that base. At that point I think the only benefit of using colony supplies in hab modules is to let you use Kerbal Reproduction. Except it is the EVA'd kerbal that needs the material kits, not the craft, so if they do not have access to the kits(local resources), they cannot expand the module. For specific child parts(mostly collapsed ranger modules, I think) the mass gets moved to the parent with 'mass transfer' enabled, but I am pretty sure that aerodynamics are not ignored for those parts. I believe that there is a specific attribute that indicates if a part can be affected by Mass Transfer on it's parent, meaning that it will mostly affect USI parts.
  15. Sorry, you said Pioneer module previously. I was referring to the Duna, Tundra(2.5) and Tundra(3.75) Kolonization modules. I think he larger ones require less Colony Supplies per kerbal that they service. The main reasons for having a kolonization module would be if you are space restrained(can't fit/carry enough hab-space/multipliers to get to 50yrs) or you want kerbal reproduction(a bonus feature of hab modules that you can turn on)