Jump to content

Terwin

Members
  • Posts

    1,645
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Terwin

  1. As a software developer myself, I think that this is a relatively low-bug release. Especially if you take in to account many of the 'bugs' are more balance or personal preference issues than game breakers. Considering that this is only a $30 game(less for some), and more improvements are on the way, I am quite happy with this purchase.
  2. My wife knows that she can come and take me away from my computer at any time(but I am liable to ask for a variance if I am playing a game that does not pause and is time-sensitive). She usually claims the first 30-45 minutes when I get home, then lets me have most of the rest of the evening(mostly for Kerbals of late). Had I not set 'social-time' to be an absolutely higher priority than computer time many years back, I probably would have never had a girlfriend, let alone a wife.(I am *not* a social person)
  3. I suspect that the preferred turn will be similar to FAR, where you want to turn to ~85 degrees around 80m/s and turn off SAS so that gravity will cause your vehicle to slowly turn(aka a 'real' gravity turn not this 45 degrees at 10Km thing I have been doing in 0.90) note: from what I understand, you want enough fins on the bottom of your rocket so that you pass 45 degrees around 10km (tail fins slow your turning as they try keep you straight)
  4. I see no need to backup my ksp or ksp_interstellar directories, after all I am creating a KSP1.0 directory later today...
  5. a few things: 1) the cost and difficulty in retrieving the asteroid in the first place 2) the frequency of small asteroids 3) the time/energy/other requirements to mine/refine the ore 4) The added mass of carrying around an asteroid 5) the need to return the asteroid to a dockable location/condition at the end of missions if you intend to reuse it I can see how carrying an asteroid around can speed up some transfers by allowing more burns, but unless you are visiting lots of planets without landing, I am not sure that you save much over just mining on the surface of the various bodies you visit.
  6. Remember the time I tried to drive a rover into the docking-claw of the lander on the launch-pad and the planet disappeared? How about the time Minmus vanished because the Minmus rover was closer to the docking claw than I though?
  7. looking at your representation, I noticed something: 1 10 100 1000 next in the sequence would be 10000 with 4 zeroes. So, perhaps the puzzle is: in binary, how many zeroes follow the next one?
  8. Actually 0x is the lead-in that indicates that the following digits are hex. As such 0x348 translates to '348 in base 16' It seems a little odd that it is an odd number of digits long however, so I suspect it is really 0348 base 16 (every digit is 4 bits, and 8 bits makes a byte, so Hex is usually in pairs) In binary: 0000 0011 0100 1000 One thing that jumps out at me is that there are 4 1's, and if we add them together we get 4.
  9. Currently I use my labs to store redundant data(3x surface samples, gravity, seismic, materials, goo, atmosphere), wonder if there will be an alternative or if I will need to start bringing along extra pods. Would be nice if larger pods could hold redundant data(perhaps 1 copy of the same test per seat?), especially now that scientists can clean experiments... (I foresee collecting 4 copies of each experiment and leaving 1 copy of each in a capsule attached to a lab, transferring it over whenever the lab runs low on data to process... I suddenly have a good reason to leave those stations with labs in place instead of bringing them home afterwards, at least for a while)
  10. We currently have: Cargo bays that protect their contents (in 1.0) Improved aerodynamics that will hopefully only cause drag-heat on parts with leading edges (in 1.0) Most of the stock parts tolerate temps of 3000 K+ (Including all stock wings at ~3400 K, structural panels at 3200 K and some parts up to 5000 K such as modular girders) While I can see that this may not be adequate if you want an impactor to hit Kerbal a multiple KM/sec, I do not see why this should not be sufficient for most other cases. From this page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_thermal_protection_system "The Space Shuttle thermal protection system (TPS) is the barrier that protected the Space Shuttle Orbiter during the searing 1,650 °C (3,000 °F) heat of atmospheric reentry. A secondary goal was to protect from the heat and cold of space while on orbit.[1]" So, that 3400 degrees for stock wings and 3000 degrees for stock MK2-3 parts seems like it already includes at least as much of a heat shield as is used by the space shuttle. So, if you find that your reentry vector is such that it could not be survived by the space shuttle, then I would agree that you probably need a dedicated heat-shield, but I also suspect that there is not really anything realistic that could help your craft survive in that situation. Add in that LKO is much slower than LEO(LEO is close to 8km/sec, while LKO seems to be a little above 2km/sec) and additional heat-shielding starts to seem pretty silly. Correction: I failed to notice that Kerbal part temps are in Kelvin, 3000 degrees kelvin is 2726.85c or 4940.33F As such the only stock parts I have found that do not make the space shuttle thermal protection system look like easily flammable kindling are the probe cores that can only withstand a measly 1200K (1700F or 926C)
  11. I hope so, I'm trying to use a claw as a means to dock my rover with my lander(trouble getting docking ports to line up, expected to be worse in different gravities due to shock-absorbers), and if I drive my rover into an activated claw, the planet Kerbin disappears.
  12. Hmm, having just finished the tech tree and KSC upgrades in my latest career game, I was considering starting a new career with Interstellar and resources(install is all set up in it's own dir), but I think I'll spend this next week finishing the interplanetary missions I have out and try an unmodded career on 1.0 first... (trying to keep my excitement level in check as my wife is tired of hearing about delta-v and little green men)
  13. * I have never calculated my own Delta-v, I always use the KER readout or something similar. * I can never let my Kerbals die or be stranded(that is what revert, F5 and mod-F5 are for) * I have re-loaded some games more than a dozen times trying to get the same landing right(on Minmus even) * I landed on the dark side of the Mun without illumination before ever getting a ship to Minmus(but it took many game-loads to get down safely) * Half my trips to the Mun or Minmas haul along the second stage because it is not yet out of fuel(first 2 stages get me into orbit using fuel cross-feed) I have even brought it back because my nuclear engines never finished burning the last of the 'get into orbit' fuel(with 5Km/s in the lander stage never even touched) * I can't seem to land on Mun or Minmas unless I zero my orbital velocity and fall from at least 1 km up * My jets all have parachutes and only one of the designs has ever landed intact without dangling from a parachute(it has 9 small wheel pods: 1 on each of 4 wing-tips, 1 in the front, 2 in the back, and 2 more on a modular girder sticking out of the back past the engines, and I still need to parachute it half the time) * in my first science career(I started in March with 0.90), I visited almost all of the KSC biomes for science before I ever went to the Mun or Minmas * I uninstalled FAR because it messed up my rockets(uncontrollable spinning mostly) * I have only once visited a body outside of the Kerbin SOI(Dres, in a sandbox game started for that exact purpose, and he ran out of fuel before being captured by Kerbin) (I have sent ships, but I don't like to time warp more than a day or so at a time)
  14. Sorry it took me so long to share them, but here are A few pics of my own platform Shared from my google drive as there are about 30 of them and I don't want to slow the thread loading for others.
  15. Cool idea, but you are not using it to it's full potential. Why not add some horizontal speed as well? Above 14000m it should not be too difficult to get a horizontal velocity of around 1000m/s and that would put you at nearly half of orbital velocity... With more air intakes you could probably also get higher and faster. I'll need to look at building one of these as a first stage money saver...
  16. Was this ever done? I am using contract pack v0.5.0, Contract configurator v0.7.9, and SCANsat v10.0 (all up to date according to CKAN) and every time I go back to my scan probe it says I have 1 day 29 minutes and 59 seconds to go, even if it was lower the last time I left.
  17. What exactly is the distinction between a vehicle with full self-repair functionality and one that is 'organic' or 'alive'? What if it can fully develop from a small pod, and such pods can be produced from a fully developed vehicle? Could we even tell if an advanced alien ship was alive vs having really good self-repair without a detailed examination? What if the ship started as a lithovore that exudes a metallic shell? I think the distinction is not so clear as we might think, and as our technology gets better the distinction will get to be less and less. (which is more 'alive'? The self-repairing vehicle that can bud off new ships like itself with no organic heritage or the heavily modified, but still technically 'alive' giant crustation that has an exoskeleton currently in use as the outer hull of a ship with no ability to reproduce or even repair the outer hull?)
  18. Is that an issue? I recently had a contract with 2 'surface' actions on the water, so I parachuted my jet down on to one of them then checked to see if I could get to the other by just going along the surface. I was pleasantly surprised to find that I could easily skim along around 20m/s without a problem. I was not surprised by the fact that I could not lift off form the water because that jet design can't even lift off form the runway until I hit the down-slope after the end.(I think I need more lift) Of course having the bottom of my jet lined with Structural air in-takes may have had something to do with that.(They are not the same air-intakes featured in the videos I watched, but they are similar intakes and may have similar behavior)
  19. How specific can you get with Mod generated missions? So long as you can designate the activity and the coordinates of check-point(s), it seems like it should be reasonably doable to make a mod where you could have buttons like 'designate landing site' that will generate a mission to land on the surface under your current location and make a crew report, with rewards based on the science multiplier for the body in question. Other buttons could include 'Station/Satellite in low/polar/geo orbit' '[science] on surface/in flight(high/low)/in orbit' etc. I'm not sure how difficult that would be, but it seems like all the data should be present for those to work... And the 'you need a new craft after you accept the mission' should prevent just spamming the buttons to get all the science and funds you could ever want from the launch pad. With the per-game modable tech tree, you could even generate 'test tech X' missions for all currently researchable tech, and reward the player by reducing the cost of that branch as part of the reward(which may have been artificially inflated to account for this discount). Not sure if that would require loading the game before you see the effects though... One of the great things about a game that supports Mods well is that you need not rely on the developers to add in any specific content that you want. Especially with an active Mod community.
  20. Speculating on the 'Lose' condition, I wonder if there will be an asteroid on a collision course with the launch facility that will need to be redirected before it smashes your facility(and perhaps your planet) into bits... (sort of like the movie Armageddon, but more scientifically accurate) It would be pretty sweet if you could put it into orbit as a third moon and mine it for fuel...
×
×
  • Create New...