MR L A

Members
  • Content Count

    412
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MR L A

  1. I too would like more scientific parts in the base game, but as people have commented above, the science points system is pretty broken in its current state. There's many ways to solve this I think, but I can't really be bothered to explain them seeing as they stand virtually zero chance of being implemented.
  2. Yeah. First thing to do: Show actuation toggles, Yaw, Pitch, Roll -> OFF, on every thruster available. Not only does keeping the orientation using SAS work, especially in 'precision control', with SAS on and rotation control through RCS active, monoprop is leaking like crazy. Wow. 2k hours in and I'd never thought of this. Currently hanging my head in shame! Just goes to show there's always something new to lean with this game
  3. I cut the rest of your response here because it is entirely irrelevant to my post and the post (yours) that I was responding to - which, I seem to need to remind you, was your comment about NASA and not going to do with OP. I’ll reiterate, you are right that NASA didn’t manually adjust fuel loads or thrust, this was done automatically - but they did NOT build a craft that was asymmetric around CoM and CoT, it was balanced in terms of where engines were placed and how much thrust was produced - they did not construct a wildly unbalanced craft then fix it with computer piloting - it was balanced mechanically from the outset - with thrust vectoring to pick up the slack as fuel depleted, shifting the CoM over time - CoM and CoT were accurately aligned at launch. in summation, my suggestion was that OP simply build a better shuttle than rely on mods to fix a poorly built craft.
  4. Erm not manual no, but they did automatically. As well as design the craft in the first place to have a proper placement of CoM and CoT. You really do not need mods to build a working shuttle. You just need to build it properly.
  5. You could also use a mod like scansat to get altimetry data might be useful, who knows?!
  6. I could have sworn it used to be possible to actually use that small optical telescope and zoom in on things... or am I thinking of a different mod?
  7. That’s actually one of the coolest things I’ve seen for a while! whats the computer terminal mod thing called? I’ve seen it used before and I think it might be the next step for me... Edit: also cool first post and welcome!!
  8. Well, the RD-107 to be picky, that's why its called the RK-7 (not 8) in KSP. The RD-108 is pretty much a twin sister though. Yeah, the RK-7 is pretty much a more expensive, later tech and worse performing version of the Reliant engine... I really think the MH parts need a balance pass.
  9. I always think this argument is entirely redundant in the suggestions section. Why? Well we've had mods for virtually everything Squad has implemented as stock/dlc recently. We had multiple mods for communication networks, mods for Apollo parts, mods for Soyuz parts, mods for particle FX and mods for texture swapping. I especially find it somewhat annoying when someone is suggesting something that would help fix a stock game issue i.e. contracts for building bases but no base specific parts and no way of building bases that isn't horrifically messy.
  10. I spend most of my time in career mode so my rockets are designed carefully around cost/performance/part count (for my abysmal PC) with the "cool" factor placing last... and honestly I've not found a use for them so far.
  11. yeah it bothers the heck out of me too
  12. They've been like this for as long as I can remember =/
  13. Is it??? Honestly, I don't think I've ever felt I need to get to orbit especially quickly. Obviously I have some designs that do so rapidly but... they don't really have any practical use other than role play.
  14. Unless you're playing career mode or have a slow PC that can't handle a huge SSTO with a huge payload. Besides, if we all used that logic, no one would ever build traditional rockets.
  15. That isn't a negative or how negatives work. That is neutral. We're essentially trading one thing for another. If we just lost one thing, that would be a negative. Yes, this is exactly how science works. Something that, despite the game being science based, people seem to forget is that science makes things easier. If we want to add irl science progression to the game (or even science now half a century old) it will make the game easier. It depends on what you want from KSP tbh.
  16. This is KSP. Do you really expect the amount the balloons would be able to lift to be anything like irl? Plus a "few" probably translates to "as many as my computer can handle" or just one GIANT one using procedural parts or something. Point is, an extra mechanic or part is never going to be a negative thing really. People can simply not use it if they don't like it OR they can get creative like the rest of us. Thinking about it, I bet a balloon part would come in SUPER handy for Eve returns.
  17. anybody can strap a few boosters to a rocket... I'm failing to see your point with that one. It's just yet another thing to do in game plus im sure the community would find some really unique ways of using them
  18. Hmm.. I don't really find launching utterly huge contraptions or 1000 part rockets impressive. At all. I was, however, hugely impressed by this cool design.
  19. That's a very very high TWR and 1.5 isn't really a low TWR... it's quite normal. The below thread is still relevant for 1.4.x
  20. Same, though I think ALL of mine are 1.5 or lower. My kerbals have an easy G experience.
  21. no but you won't be EVA'ing whilst skimming through an atmosphere. I agree though, this is an annoying experience sometimes.
  22. Disagree with that entirely. At least balloons have been used in concepts for atmospheric rocket launches and upper atmosphere/edge of space study. High atmosphere balloons are MUCH more closely related to KSPs intent that submarines, not further away. @Cassel you should also note that balloons do NOT reach orbit. They go to the edge of space and that is it.
  23. I'd sooner have the ability to select multiple craft at once in the tracking station... I only delete debris on suborbital trajectories
  24. beyond possible OR... I imagine OP has something like Skyrim's Creation Kit in mind. Doesn't seem that inconceivable, though obviously models and textures are created elsewhere.