StahnAileron

Members
  • Content count

    513
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

217 Excellent

About StahnAileron

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer
  1. I was KINDA close, in a broad sense
  2. Part II: If you collected them in Kerbin orbit, de-orbit them; attempt to hit them with a direct rocket launch from the surface. The lower to the ground and higher the (combined?) impact speed, the higher the score. Anyway, back about this challenge: Yeah. I read "Atari Challenge" and I thought it was designing and launching a vessel that looked like an Atari console. Or, now that I think about it more, Atari-era classic characters.
  3. No offense, but are RATs really needed in a game that gives you an even better option: RTGs? Yes, it's not realistic, but realism was shown the door long ago. (Playability trumps realism in many cases... Or else we'd only bother playing Real Life(tm).) Granted, it's not as pretty as a RAT for aircraft design if you don't intend on using a hollow part of some sort (e.g. cargo bay) or just clipping the sucker, but it's constant power without the dependency on forward movement in an atmosphere. (And there's also the bane to many a designer: drag...) Honestly, I can't see the benefits of RATs in KSP when it has better implementations for power generation in aircraft. The only thing I can see going for this is cost (that's just one line of code in a *.cfg file) and for the sake of realism. I think it's too much effort for not enough pay-off, generally speaking. For sim enthusiasts it'd be nice, but I can't see that demographic making up a large enough portion of the player-base to warrant/justify an implementation of RATs that works (well) without some hacks. (Unless implementing them is easy; I doubt it given KSP's development history...) WARNING: The following addresses a point (Career Mode), but contains a mild rant:
  4. Is the mobile launch pad the first step into a stock feature of off-site/-world construction using ISRU? Like the EPL mod? That would make KSP far more playable for me in the long run. I've yet to really do anything outside the Kerbin SOI. (The one thing was an attempt at a DMagic survey contract around the Sun. That game was in 1.0.5...) Exploration of the Kerbin solar system doesn't have much incentive for me without some in-game reward (other than science, of which I have disagreements with concerning how research works...)
  5. Probably clichéd as hell, but any thoughts on the Top Gun theme as an intro leading into Danger Zone? First thing that came to mind. There may be something else more appropriate, though...
  6. To be perfectly honest, I think @linuxgurugamer at this point needs a monument or something within KSP to honor his role of keeping fun and useful mods alive as they get abandoned by modders from lack of time, energy, or drive. (You have to admit it: the breaking changes that come with new KSP versions for some mods must frustrate those modders to no end.) Remember: half the fun in KSP comes from mods. It sometimes feels like he keeps half of those mods alive.
  7. When I do bother with docking, RCS all the way. I once was mucking around with an Apollo-ish-style mission for the hell of it. I realized in orbit I done goofed and forgot the RCS. "No problem," I thought. "I just need to align prograde, decouple, thrust a bit, flip over to retrograde, and thrust again." Yeah, no. I forgot exactly what went wrong, but I wound up either colliding with the other craft or thrust wrong, so alignment went balls. This was with RemoteTech installed; neither craft had probe cores. (It was a fairly minimalist design; as I said, just goofing around.) I had to EVA a kerbal to the other craft first to stabilize it. Then tried to dock. Took longer than I cared for with too much effort compared to RCS-controlled approaches I've done before. (Ah! I think I recall the problem: the separator was in the way and I had to nudge it away. My attempt knocked the lander as well, screwing up the alignment.) Since I was just goofing off and really just testing the design, I reverted to the editor and made sure to add RCS for later runs. I don't think I ever did anything productive with that design afterwards. Just did it to do it; no real objective beyond that in mind. (I don't even remember if I bothered with a munar landing and rendezvous test.) The last set of docking I did was for my first real attempt at a true functional space station, something I always wanted to do by was too lazy to attempt (plus, 1.0.5 was not conducive to high part counts; I skipped 1.1). That was all RCS and MJ's Target Alignment Auto-pilot all the way. The station was built using NFT station parts and ports, so proper alignment was important, both for the aesthetics and for the ports to work. Frame-rate was meh too, so RCS control was kinda important for the precision. It was also needed for orienting the station and fine-tuning its orbit. It was a large and heavy stand-up guy, probably the biggest and largest I've actually designed and put up, either single-launched or assembled in-situ. The few SSTO spaceplanes I've designed and built for docking rely on RCS as well. The docking ports I use on them are rarely ever aligned with the main engines to even attempt engine-only docking. I do recall someone using a bunch of normal engines in each axis as RCS on a massive mothership he built. He had to; it turned WAY too sluggishly otherwise. (Never mind the frame-rate...) He had to map each set of engines to an action group. (I don't recall if AGX had a hand in this. I imagine it would considering the amount of functionality he had in that ship.)
  8. In the very first or second challenge (I forgot which), I suggested they rename the thread series to something more appropriate because I knew the connotations the word "challenge" triggers in the KSP community. (Or anyone who understands competition. A challenge is a type of competition in the end.) I still find it a bit irksome, but it's minor since beyond the use of that word for whatever reason they have, they explain the actual point behind the "challenges": having fun in KSP. Sometimes just having someone else define a goal for you in a open-sandbox game like KSP makes it easier to have fun because you're not limited by what your mind can come up with. (Or lack of motivation; I get lazy after a while trying to achieve goals I set for myself in KSP.) I imagine the term is used to garner more attention to these threads. It may backfire if players associate a "SQUAD Challenge" as "meh" compare to their expectation when seeing the word, however. Even so, turn out for these seem to be decent, so it not a lost cause. If anything, it's a good way to get newer players involve with the community. There's a more typical challenge section here if players are up for it. Otherwise, just ignore these threads if the interest isn't there for you. Hell, it's what I've been doing. (I've been out of KSP for a couple of months now.)
  9. That might be tough because (A) I'm still on 1.2, (B) run a mod-heavy installation, and (C) haven't really touched KSP much over the past 2-3 months. I could create a stock 1.2 install (I'm waiting on mods to update) to do it for you, however. I just don't recall what KSP had for stock part selection. It probably won't be as pretty(-ish; I'll admit the cockpit I used wasn't really befitting).
  10. This is old, built in KSP v1.0.5: https://kerbalx.com/StahnAileron/Vector-Mk1A-BDA Not sure if it would be viable now (the main concern is the engine; the engine worked in 1.2, but that WALL of gimbals it uses for the animation...) Well, I guess another concern would be BDA itself since it's changed hands and I have no clue how the newer versions handle and what changed, if anything.
  11. Assuming you mean purely stock. If you get into mods, there are some decent choices. I've built a couple of Mk2-based drone SSTO spaceplanes. One was just a basic crew shuttle. The other was just a glorified SCANsat "satellite" that was easier to retrieve once Kerbin was fully mapped. (I don't remember if the design was capable of Mun or Minmus orbits...) The Mk2 Expansion mod was the bulk of the extra parts needed to make them look nice, but I vaguely recall toying with Mk2 parts from OPT and QuizTech for the design.
  12. First one: ActionGroupsExtended is the closest thing I can think of. It gives you up to 250 action groups to work with. You have the option of displaying the action groups with customized names. Clicking on them will trigger the group (because groups 11 and up do not have hotkeys assigned by default; you can assign them however.) You can even edit groups in-flight rather than just in the editor. Trajectories would be the one to look at for landing on atmospheric bodies as it takes into account drag, though it assumes a few things (mainly AoA; there are settings to adjust that and get a better prediction.) I don't know if either have been updates to 1.3 yet. (I wait after a major update to let modders get up to speed before I even think of updating myself.) The last set is harder. I don't know any mods that calculate trajectories like that from the launch pad. GravityTurn and MechJeb can get you into space easily enough, but direct interception/rendezvous launches I have yet to see a mod for. Mods like KER and MJ give you the info you need to figure this out yourself to some degree. (Mainly the phase angle.) Sub-orbital hop trajectory planning I haven't seen anyone attempt a mod for. (Has far as I can tell, most people just use a plane instead after a certain point on Kerbin and wing it on non-atmospheric bodies.)
  13. Just to make sure I get this right from the info released so far: T2 has bought full right and ownership of Kerbal Space Program while SQUAD has been left alone. Essentially, SQUAD is now a "contract studio" working as a "third-party developer" on a property T2 now owns. For the time being, T2 is simply a publisher for KSP, backing SQUAD with resources for KSP development/support until such time that they (T2) can do something original with the IP. This is NOT just a simple licensing and publishing deal where T2 gets a cut of profits in exchange for support and promotion/advertising while SQUAD still have rights to and/or ownership of KSP. KSP was actually sold-off to T2 wholesale. (Kinda like how the Fallout games were completely sold-off to Bethesda by Interplay.) Next: any plans regarding T2 reps directly involved with KSP to join THIS forum at some point in the (near-ish?) future? The thing about indie game development is have direct access to the actual developers by the community. I think it might placate some of the community if they felt they had similar accessibility to the new party involved with KSP. If anything, it could be a gesture of goodwill and faith by T2 and acknowledging the established KSP community. (IMHO, half the enjoyment of KSP came from the community in the form of mods and Let's Play-ers.) If there's one thing a community like KSP dislikes, it's probably feeling like they/we are being ignored. (I think nearly everyone has had that feeling at one point or another with large companies in general, if not within gaming specifically.) I have a few other things I could say, but I think it's best if I just keep my mouth shut for now. In any case, cautious optimism during this "wait and see" period. (And let's admit it: at least it's not EA or Activision. Though on a half-joking note, I kinda wanted Elon Musk to buy KSP if it was gonna happen ^_~ Guess he was too busy investing in ACTUAL rockets and didn't have any funds to spare. His loss, I suppose. But just imagine if we had rocket scientists and software engineers available to KSP.)
  14. If I recall, that part requires KAS as a dependency because it attaches to kerbals for usage. Installing KAS should let it show up. Without KAS (and probably KIS), it's pretty much a useless part, so no reason to have it otherwise. TL;DR - That part needs a dependency, KAS. Do you have that installed as well? (KIS is also recommended if you intend on actually using it. It's easier to added to inventories and using it directly rather than attaching it to the vessel and needing to un-attach and re-attach it.)
  15. The "ore" bit is just the same abstraction as Liquid Fuel and Oxidizer: generics names applied to resources for the sake of simplicity. LF/O could be many things; it's not specified what exactly (seems many just assume RP-1 and LOX). "Ore", as much as a misnomer it can be (I associate it with metals first), is about as generic as you can get with mining. It's just one of those things I try not to think about too hard for a game like KSP. Besides, it's not like this is the first time something got implemented in a sorta half-assed way. Abstraction of terminology is not compared to the lack of meaningful or poorly implemented gameplay mechanics in career mode, IMHO. But that a whole other can of worms I won't get into here.