Jump to content

swjr-swis

Members
  • Posts

    2,631
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

3,382 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Self-proclaimed Groomer of the Orbits
  • Interests
    KSP

Recent Profile Visitors

10,782 profile views
  1. The Readme gives you the answers: Notice the last line. Cue argument about whether the older 'Mk3' parts should really be considered or described as the same parts as the ones that replaced them.
  2. .. some of the pages haven't been updated in a while, and still refer to now-superseded things.
  3. You're asking this question in the general forum instead of the dedicated console one, so you may not be getting the attention of the people that might have a more useful answer. I'll try, but I'm a PC player. Expanding and 'splitting' a symmetric part group in the staging list, on PC: Go to the decoupler icon with the '4', and left-click the icon. The icon immediately expands into 4 individual icons numbered 1-4. All four icons have a green highlight now. Now, left-click just one of those individual icons (same action/button again). The green highlight of just that one part disappears. What that means is, whatever you do next with the still-highlighted parts, the one without highlight will not be a part of. Make a new empty stage by clicking one of the '+' signs. So now left-click and hold one of the still-highlighted parts and pull them into the empty stage. Voila, you just left the not-highlighted part of the symmetry group behind all by itself in a stage... effectively 'splitting' it so you can stage it separately. This is how it works with a PC and a mouse. I don't know how some of those actions are done on a console, with a controller.
  4. I know it's not Kerbal Submarine Program. But it could be. That's all I'm saying. It could be...
  5. And this rather not unimportant information is documented... where? Just how on Kerbin is anyone supposed to figure this out on their own? Thankfully there's always some people around that somehow (by trial and error? random experimenting?) find out such things and are willing to share.
  6. I've seen the aircraft this is based on a few times in the past and always wondered about its dynamics. Downloaded your version; you got a good rendition of it, very nice. Saw much the same performance as what you and @Hotel26 exchanged. Couldn't land it vertically though. So I tried my hand at it too, to get a feel for the aerodynamics of this type of craft and to see if I could get a landable version. Some of the drag/lift effects were as I expected, but it clearly needs a different approach than regular craft. Stock parts only allow so much, but I got pretty flyable results in the end. Supercruise at mach 1.9, wet mode mach 2.9. And I got it landed! Negatives: it's not as maneuverable as I'd hoped, and roll stability is not so good. I wonder how the RL original fared on those points. Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/SWiS-Coleopter-1 More pics: https://imgur.com/a/PmpP6K0
  7. I sat down with a specific nr of things I wanted to do in KSP today, opened the forum, saw a help request... and ended up sending a Crater Crawler to Duna. Sort of.
  8. With a big fairing, obviously. The 3.75m AE-FF3 should do the trick. Stick it with the back docking port on the fairing base, nose up. Docking port can double as decoupler. Maybe a struts or two to shore it up. It's a 13t payload, with fairing around 17t or so. Round it up to 20 for the added core, antenna, descent engine and fuel, chutes, etc. Should be no trouble sending it up and on its way with a fairly simple low-part 3.75m rocket. Quick slap together action, forgot to add a kerbal, few details I'd done different if it had been a career - including try harder to land it upright... but I think it makes the point.
  9. The SWiS kerbals somehow got their hands on an unused prototype blueprint for a small V/STOL jet, gave it their usual rework, and sent Valentina out to test its newly-gained long range capabilities. Valentina was already partway on her 2nd circumnavigation, when she spotted a much more fun way to spend the remaining fuel... Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/Hot-Dog-2 ('2', because a rework of @Hotel26's unpublished Hot Dog)
  10. Clocked my next iteration of a Bonanza V inspired utility craft cruising at mach 1.06... 331 m/s, or 643 kn. Ludicrous speed for the type of craft it is meant to mimic, but it makes the craft feel nimble and responsive, heck even fun to fly, despite being locked subsonic (as it should be). It's almost even starting to look the part. 1.3.1, so using mostly-clipped Junos instead of the absent prop. Nose is just for looks. Pending some peer test results and another couple of tweaks, this might be just about ready for public availability. Craft is now up for public consumption: Beech BV2.
  11. I really hope they don't put any real effort into doing anything like that. It's utterly wasted time and resources. The sheer dedication and number of people intent on being the first to find/unlock stuff prove every such measure completely ineffective every single time. Put that time in making stuff good, please, and stop clogging the game with 'solutions' people are going to find 749 ways to circumvent anyway. You've already lost that game before you even started, proven repeatedly so many times by now that it nears statistical certainty.
  12. I was on a test flight and decide to take a gander. The island I found at these exact coordinates has a tiny bit of reasonably flat beach on the northeast end, but the rest rises pretty abruptly and doesn't have the flat stretch of field your picture shows. What is your graphic detail setting, if I may inquire? This is, unfortunately, an important detail to know when sharing things like airfield locations. I have it set at the maximum. I suspect yours is a lower setting. It would explain why our terrain topography varies so much when up close.
  13. I know (*). Point is, it shouldn't be necessary to 'manufacture' it from a career save - it's how sandbox mode should've been by default. KSP2 gets the chance to correct this. (*): I've been using and recommending this workaround for a while now.
  14. A 'sandbox' mode that arbitrarily excludes big chunks of the game experience and doesn't let me test/design/fly under self-imposed limited progression conditions. If I start a sandbox game, I actually want the full experience at my fingertips, to ignore/start/pause/stop/include/exclude at my whim. So: Don't force-start me into missions, but do leave the triggers in there for me to walk up to and start whenever I choose to (ie. why is Mission Control locked in 'sandbox' mode?). Don't force me to upgrade buildings to get all the functionality, but do leave me the option to choose starting levels so I can self-impose limitations if and when I feel like it (ie. why are all facilities forcibly fully upgraded in 'sandbox' mode??). Don't force me to grind XP and funds just to get certain equipment, but do leave me the option to choose my R&D level so I can build and test with limited set of parts (ie. why is R&D locked in 'sandbox' mode???). SAS modes, kerbal experience levels, etc etc. No limits or disabled functionality on sandbox mode this time, please. A real sandbox mode.
×
×
  • Create New...