• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Moh1336

  1. I started a new career for 1.4, and this time I decided I wanted to be as efficient as possible in regards to delta v so I started to use delta v maps to help me plan out rockets rather than just winging it and over building. Made a nice rocket for the intent of getting a Mun orbit and a bit of basic science stuff. Everything went well, I had a lovely fuel efficient rocket... But I forgot one very important thing. Jeb at some point wanted to come back from Mun orbit. Yep, I completely forgot to factor in delta v for the return trip.
  2. It's not limited to linux either. I have the same issue on Win10. Only affects the icons on the top line.
  3. A few minor graphical issues for me. The tops of all the icons in VAB are missing. And there's this hideous legal waffle on load instead of the beautiful kerbal screens there used to be. I guess I should be happy that's the only things that bother me. (well that and the obvious outdated mod issues) I guess the question is, do I wait for my mods to be updated, or start over again and just add them back as they become available. Hmm. Choices choices.
  4. The decision to de-orbit my Big A(rear) Satellite. When I made it I was so proud of it, it might not be a looker but it was the first manned satellite I ever launched. However because of a weak system at the time, resupply missions became a real pain at 7FPS. I also knew it was going to be an FPS killer, but I intended to take off multiple parts like the side mounted RCS tanks, additional lighting and thrusters used for docking the bits of station together to help reduce part count. So the decision was made to abandon and de-orbit. The tug used to move it out of Polar orbit is still attached, it also contains the Quartermaster, Medic and Technician, the last three Kerbals running the station. With some carefully planned decoupling of the station, most of it burnt up. Only the command section survived re-entry and splashed down in the ocean where it promptly sent itself to oblivion. Admittedly there was no loss of life. But it was still a hard decision when you take into account all the planning and work that went into it.
  5. Beats paying him for overtime I guess. I've never lost a Kerbal in career, came close a few times. I mean there was that remotely flown tourist thing one time, but we don't talk about that.
  6. So I just ran a quick test, a basic rocket with 51 parts (I may have gone overboard with the solar panels, batteries, and comms). This was an unmanned flight. Apo 131k and Peri 80k Kerbal time reported a mission of 3m45s, Real time was 3m51s If you want to share a specific rocket with a specific Ap/Peri I'd be happy to run the test again.
  7. Didn't the ISS switch exclusively to linux back in 2013?
  8. Last mission of the day was to take up the 2nd half of the array. Managed to get a rendezvous with the station of 0.0 separation and 7.2m/s relative speed. Quite chuffed with that. I'm either coming in much faster or I have to force the rendezvous a little. Did involve two orbits to do it though. Messed up the initial orbit burn and went to 350k instead of 250k. Oopsie. If you look carefully you can just make out the command pod to the right hand side of the top/right most solar panel. Gratuitous horribly inefficient rocket shot.
  9. Today I have mostly been building a new space station for Minmus (contract). The main command module was taken up first via shuttle (vertical lift) the array was taken up the following day via rocket. There were slight issues with the array in that someone forgot to include command/control options, so when the command ship disconnected from the 6-way the array had no control and would have been stranded 30 metres away from the Command module, fortunately there was still some mono-propellent left in the Command Module to use that to connect to the array and 6-way. Small blessings. That wasn't the only unfortunate mishap though; the rocket used to launch the array was retro-fitted from an old cargo lifter. The parachute was removed from the command pod to allow the temporary docking port and someone forgot to fit radial chutes. Fortunately the three drogues offered enough drag to slow the pod down to 25m/s and the ablator took most of the impact force on splash down. Jeb and his cohorts survived, albeit a little bruised. Still to come the array for the opposite side, sleep/recreational module with a science lab, the lower part opposite the command module will be for docking only and then the life support units will go up with the first of the crew. Functionality wise, the open solar panels will not be used once the station is complete. The eagle eyed will notice there are three sets of panels on the array.The array will also be used for LFO tanks (6000units contract), Ore tanks (5000units contract), RCS (just because), and a large battery. The thrusters on the array are for emergencies, originally I was going to have thrusters on the living/work quarters but decided having them on the arrays would be better for rescue purposes, and all the life support modules will stay with the kerbals that way. The thrusters produce enough thrust to move the fully laden arrays away at 100m/s and that is the reason for the solar panels on the command module. Although the station won't have any batteries to store power, the kerbals can be moved to the command and sleep quarters and all other areas can be shut down to use minimal power while they await rescue. The only thing I haven't decided on is whether to try and combine the final module launch with a tug, or take the module up first and have a dedicated tug launch later on to move the station to Minmus.
  10. For me it depends entirely on the situation. In general if it means going into ALT+F12 and clicking on that wee section called "cheats" then it's cheating. But it also depends what I am doing, if I am just messing about for kicks then there is nothing I would consider cheating. If I am playing career (which I take seriously) then using the cheat menu if I run out of fuel etc is cheating. To some extent using the quick save/load system on a user error is also "cheating" because you are by passing the consequences of your actions. Using it because of the Kraken is fine. That said I sometimes cheat contracts as Completed because of bugs preventing them from otherwise completing. Currently I have an issue with ore related ones, the system doesn't recognise that I acquired the ore, but does recognise that my ship now has all the ore on it. So once all other contract requirements are fulfilled I will mark it completed manually. The bug is probably mod related, I do have a lot, I'm just too lazy to look into the exact cause. Do I cheat? Sometimes. Depends on my mood. As serious I am about career there are times where if I run out of fuel I will just reload and do it again or use infinite fuel. I'm fully capable of doing orbital rendezvous and I find it quite easy, so sometimes if I make a mistake that leaves a mission stranded I will just cheat my way home and consider it a rescue mission. Other times I will do it properly. Once you get to a certain level of career you can spend so long doing certain missions that you end up litterally playing for one mission so it's those instances where I will just say "forget it" and cheat to finish. Is cheating harmful? It's a single player game so no. It just by passes something that I might find a chore in that particular moment. Much like GTA, I like to cheap weapons or invincibility, because sometimes I find in just causing mayhem. But I won't use cheats in the story mode as I feel it cheapens the experience for me. I'm old enough to remember games were you had to put in lengthy codes as a form of level save/load. Heck I'm old enough to remember when you had to type out the game code yourself from a book, so all this "omg he cheated he did this and that in his single player game" is just so trite, pointless, and childish to me. I've always had the opinion that what you do with YOUR game in your room is your business. So long as it doesn't harm someone else's experience, in multiplayer, then who really cares? I mean in my youth "cheating" meant looking at the other half of the screen to see where your friend was.
  11. RCS. I like to keep things somewhat realistic. But it really depends on what I am doing and how much time I have. If I don't have much time, like maybe I only have time to do that one mission, I am more likely to speed things up by using the engines. But if I have plenty of time I will get within 200 meters and then RCS only.
  12. 78 currently and that is after I removed a few I don't feel are needed in 1.3x. Why? I believe it's already been said. KSP is good, but it misses a lot of features that I am really surprised weren't considered for stock. In some cases it's because I just want a bit more variety and options, I also like making planes so many packs are plane packs.
  13. That's generally not true. Most people prefer a game to have content as stock/DLC because they know it means it will work with all future updates without having to wait for modders to update. Read through the forums here in the "what mods would you like to see in official update" type threads. They're full of mods people want as stock and although I'm sure they would rather have them as free updates, you can bet most would pay for it as DLC too. Some people might not want to pay, that's normal. But it's not really about "it used to be free" it's more a case of "It's not worth paying for" and they are completely separate issues. At the end of the day, I hope nothing changes with KSP in regards to mods, if it does change then I will look into what I feel is the best course for me. IF that means following KSP where TTI take it, sobeit, if it means never updating past 1.3 and using mods, then that's fine too. I don't mind paying £2.50/£3 for good DLC content, for example if they decided to do their own life support DLC that would be worth buying imo (so long as it is at least on par with Roverdude's mods) but the small microtransactions like 50pence for a new skin, or unlock X science for career type stuff. Well, they can stick that where Kerbol don't shine.
  14. Well this is great news. All those people who hated the fact the price per kerbal increases with the more Kerbals you've hired can now rejoice when the recruitment agency offers you a $1 per kerbal micro-transaction options. That started as a joke, let's hope it continues to be one a year from now. If I am honest, it doesn't really bother me, there's nothing I can do about it and as long as it doesn't negatively affect KSP than that's all that really matters to me. But as was mentioned above, I too will start keeping a back up of game files with each update "just in case". Hope for the best prepare for the worst.
  15. TBH I don't care in the slightest. I watch videos to be entertained, his videos are entertaining. I do believe he should have noted in the video that he was using modified parts or infinite fuel, but all in all, I don't watch videos because I want the person to be doing everything by the book. I want to be entertained. Yes I do enjoy videos of that nature that are 100% legit, I specifically subbed to Matt's channel because of his "X Kerbals to X location" videos, I can understand why some people are annoyed, if you watch videos like this because it's something you want to do yourself, only to find out it isn't possible without using the cheats or mods then I can see how you might feel your time has been wasted. So again, I say add a note to videos when that is the case. But generally speaking I fail to see an issue. On that note: to deceive; influence by fraud: He cheated us into believing he did it legitimately without artificial aid.
  16. DLC vs Cost: I have never, and will never, judge the cost of a DLC based purely on the base game or any previous content released for it. That would be like basing the price of your next pizza against a different type of pizza you had 3 years ago. DLC needs to stand on its own as a package price wise, I will always judge the price against the content it contains, I will factor in how much I play/enjoy the base game still, after all if you don't play the game at all any more it's probably wise to avoid paying more money towards additional content. For me KSP is a part time game, it's that game I play for a while, then take a break from and come back to. So for me I will take that into account when it comes to DLC. Not so much 'is the price point agreeable', but more 'is it worth it right at this moment'. For me the answer is probably 'no'. I am currently not playing KSP actively. As for the actual price point, £12 isn't too bad. I've paid more for other game DLCs. But it really depends on the content, I haven't really looked into it too deeply at this point, so I am reserving judgement until I have all the facts. However I am waiting on DLC for another game too, a game I play and mod for on a more regular basis, so as you can imagine that game will take precedence for me. In truth given the price point, I think it is likely I will not be buying the KSP DLC at this time. I will most likely wait until I start playing again, and who knows maybe the price will drop in the meantime making it all the sweeter deal. Now there are times that I will buy a DLC outright simply because I want to support the devs. For those of you who play, or are familiar with Euro Truck Sim, I will always buy the skin packs (less than £1 usually) because it is pocket change. If Squad were to release little skin packs for space suits or additional looks for rocket parts up to £2 I freely admit I would buy it instantly. 1 because I do enjoy KSP and want to help support the game, and 2 because I consider it pocket change for me. But when we start talking £5+ for a DLC that is when I have to really think about it, because I am currently dealing with health issues that prevent me from working and will likely stop me being employed in the near future, money obviously is also an issue. If I was working I would probably just buy it as soon as it releases. But hey-ho, unfortunate circumstance means I have to put thought into my purchases.
  17. As someone who loves rescue missions I wouldn't really have a problem with no monetary gain for them. I do them for the free Kerbals and because I like that sort of mission. Like most people; when I do these kind of missions they are not exclusive. I will be doing other things. Be it tourism, putting a satellite in orbit, science, recovering an earlier craft I didn't have the tech to bring back sooner etc. Another option would be monetary parameters. EG: There's a Kerbal stranded in Orbit. If you launch the mission to recover the Kerbal within 7 days of accepting this contract 'Alternate Agency' will cover the fuel costs of your mission. If you launch the mission as part of a multi-purpose operation (eg: Tourists, Science other than Crew Reports, Satellite mission and so on) 'Alternate Agency' will only cover X percent of the fuel cost. If you launch after 7 days you bare the full cost of the mission. If you optionally recover the kerbal's craft you get the value of the recovered part. If you recover the craft as part of the contract you get a discount off part price for the next X purchases of that part. There's many possible ways to tweak the rewards for rescue missions. But as I said, I'm just in it for the free kerbals. Since the price to purchase Kerbals has been raised again, I will add that I think the system is just plain odd. I see no reason for the price to go up each time you get a new Kerbal on your crew. I would like to see a set price per Kerbal (maybe varied slightly for specialisation) and X% added for high skill levels.
  18. The administration building. I have never seen a purpose for this building. I used it once out of curiosity, but I have never seen a need for it in career. Maybe it is more useful in later careers?
  19. Today was a good day for Kerbal kind. The original mission was take two tourists to the Mun and rescue a stranded (landed) Kerbal while I was there. A successful launch found me reach orbit a couple of hundred Kms from another Kerbal stranded in Kerbin orbit, since there was room on ship I allowed two orbital passes so that he could catch up. No major delta-v loss, 3 second burn on the ascending node to match up, another 2 second burn on the apo to lower the peri to get a provisional 0.1k distance from target. What I failed to notice was the manouver put me at 68k thankful I skipped back out of the atmosphere without any major maladies. A target burn to slow relative velocity and a Gere Kerbal was saved (though I still need to return to salvage his vessel as part of the contract). Gere got on board just in time for me to make an immediate burn for the Mun. A Munar orbit was reached without any maladies, and some orbital corrections to line up with the stranded Kerbal's landing site near the northern polar region was made. During decent Jeb had a wee oopsie when he jettisoned the empty side tanks, you know, the ones with the landing gears... Every mission has to have it's oopsie moment. Fortunately the area Jeb was landing in was flat, so after some precision flying, Jeb managed to gently land on the engine a mere 314m from the rescue spot, and on the dark side of the Mun. Before leaving Gere, who just happened to be a scientist, pointed out that we were only a couple of kilometres from a previously unexplored part of the highland craters. So Jeb did some nifty flying to get to the spot, and a couple of aborted landings until finding a perfectly flat spot. Naturally when visiting the Mun for any reason, an assortment of Science equipment goes too just in case. Over 800 science data recovered from the Mun, orbit of the Mun, and Kerbin as well as 1 unintentional rescue made for a great day on Kerbin (well 9 if you want to be accurate). And the science brought back was just enough to unlock the group with the rapier engines, so now I can build some more efficient SSTOs, which will come in handy when I go back for Gere's craft.
  20. I should probably read the change logs more carefully then, I wouldn't have known if you hadn't said anything. I update the game as they're pushed through Steam, so it's taken me from 1.2 launch to now to find out about it.
  21. I hate these types of topics, mostly because they remind me just how utterly hopeless I am when it comes to designing things like that. Some awesome bases there, guys.
  22. The problem with this system is that you get negative rep for declining, so I very rarely decline anything early in career if I am able to do it. But once I start to advance I am more likely to say "No I don't want to part test X on an escape trajectory when I haven't even made orbit yet." So the game decides I hate all part tests. 90% of my contracts are rescue or tourist now, I want to do other things, but the game seems to think I only like those. A very flawed system. It would be far better if when you have a free contract slot, it just offers you one of every type of contract and just let you pick the one you prefer. Next open slot refresh all and give one of each type again. Makes far more sense to me. I've come to the conclusion that when I want to do something different, just use the cheat window to force a specific type of contract. I don't see it as cheating, so much as fixing a broken contract system.
  23. 0 unless you count the guy I have a rescue contract for. It is something I plan to do, I just haven't gotten around to it in this career yet. At which point it will probably be a 6 Kerbal operation.
  24. Today I have mostly been making planes. The resemblance to the A-12 Oxcart is not an accident. Max speed is around 1,360m/s under 20k and can reach around 26k. Turning under 400m/s is surprisingly good, though any manoeuvring above 600m/s needs to be done carefully or it will start to shed parts. Mostly the wings, and that is apparently a bad thing.
  25. Super secret feature? A Delta-V calculator as stock in VAB please. I like most of the suggestions here. I would love an official Life Support addition though, currently use Roverdude's mods, but having an official system could lead to more community parts based around it which is always nice to have.