Jump to content

swjr-swis

Members
  • Posts

    2,622
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by swjr-swis

  1. 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 Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/Hot-Dog-2 ('2', because a rework of @Hotel26's unpublished Hot Dog)
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Your capacity for subtle understatement is noted. After a brief intermission with less-than-adequate hardware to play KSP on, I'm back in business. Naturally, this meant entering the (apparently blooming) market for Bonanza V-inspired utility craft with my Beech B V. With a carrier deployed just off the coast, what better way to spend a casual nightly test flight than assessing STOL potential with a carrier landing? Valentina is happy with its performance... if perhaps a bit plussed. Now to face Jeb and explain the unannounced visit.
  8. Good. We were starting to wonder what we would season our Martian potatoes with.
  9. That's ok, I don't think it was alive to begin with. As in, you didn't actually post a challenge - as defined for this forum. Note: In particular:
  10. Just turn the key. Welcome to the KSP forum.
  11. Don't worry, someone will post the CSS code/style sheet adjustment soon to get rid of it, so we can see our own icons again. (hint: cAuthorPane_badge)
  12. Been a while since I posted here. Let's see... apparently the R&D kerbals were busy until the wee hours last night. A local news channel opened this morning with some mysteriously leaked photos of an early prototype being tested from the secretive island test site: More speculation followed after the morning broadcast released a second set of photos leaked by the same anonymous source: What are they working on over there? Does it explain the UFO sightings of late? And what in tarnation *does* Minmus taste like? It's a good thing our intrepid reporters are on the case.
  13. Ahh, but are they in fact, potatoes? For that matter, how do you know they were before...
  14. Go to http://kerbalx.com/ Click 'stock', 'craft', 'airplane', 'spaceplane', and 'Hide craft without pictures'. 10864 planes with pictures and/or videos, including craft files, all in a few clicks. Did I win this challenge?
  15. 3 actual fixes (maybe), 5 dozen changes that didn't need to be changed, just for the sake of changing...
  16. I realize you meant this seriously, but... best spontaneous belly laugh I've had in a good while. Anyway, carry on.
  17. I don't use the mod myself, but you can turn off deferred downloads in the KX site settings, under 'KX Mod': https://kerbalx.com/settings
  18. If there's one thing I hope they do better with KSP2... it's making the Kerbin surface look like a living populated world. All props for the craft, but that surface shot totally makes this. Tiny, cute, fast and maneuverable, VTOL capable, fun to fly... all the things a young flyer needs. So why not pure stock? I submitted the variant specs to the original manufacturer for evaluation.
  19. I don't remember any such question in that survey. At least, not about KSP2; that question just said 'Kerbal Space Program'. So, hopeless optimist that I am, that is exactly how I answered it. The only questions specifically about KSP 2 are whether you plan to buy it when released, and what would make you more likely to buy it.
  20. Well, that's partly why I said 'setting aside the perhaps bigger issues'. The focus of his question was elsewhere. I may not always play it safe in KSP, but I still try to ensure Kerbals leave with reasonable means to either survive or return already included in the package I send up. And this is a game, with green pixel creatures for which 'death' just means a short moment of inexistence until their next respawn. Not sure I would consider fusion to be the make or break issue though. We haven't needed it for anything else yet. Ok thank you, I missed that part.
  21. Ok, so if I understand correctly, you disagree with their idea of a returning vehicle, and posit that the material and machinery of the vehicle itself should be used in one-way traffic only, effectively making most of itself part of the payload they move to Mars. Presumably, as a solution for the -at least initial- lack of locally sourced high-grade parts/materials. I can see how this would offer more bang for the buck of a single flight, especially for the first flights. And it's not like the pioneers expect to head back home anytime soon after first landfall. Would this lower the longer-term cost of the whole endeavour though, during the timespan between first landfall and a self-sustaining colony that can build its own vehicles? If the spaceships cannot be reused in that time? How many one-way ships will be sent on a one-way trip? Is there any way to quantify, back of a napkin style, whether the local assimilation of a one-way vehicle clearly offers more value/costs less than delivering a bit less total payload, but continuing to reuse the same, largely already paid-for vehicles?
  22. Ok, so getting back to the actual topic of this thread (Elon's request for help/ideas in a tweet to KSP): I interpret this as inviting feedback on SpaceX's plans/roadmap, with a specific focus on the achievement of actual colonization of Mars. It looks to me as a genuine request too - it's not worded like a typical KSP game challenge. Input from the KSP community, and by extension from all that have their interest in space enterprise sparked or renewed by KSP, is apparently welcome. The question I think he's asking, somewhat rephrased for clarity: in what way are we -SpaceX specifically or humanity in general- most likely to succeed in setting up sustainable residence on Mars? Currently the main focus seems to be on 'cost per ton to the surface of' - in this case Mars. So. Setting aside for a moment the perhaps much bigger issues involving the creation of a self-sustaining ecosystem on an as-of-yet lifeless planet (not much of a backup if all we do is land a few craft and people and build a station/colony that cannot survive independently from Earth): Do we -the extended KSP community at large- have any helpful ideas or suggestions on how to optimize 'cost per ton to the surface of'? Maybe even something that SpaceX or the other players aren't yet even doing or trying yet? There's been tons of challenges over the years in this forum and in other parts of the community, focused specifically on launch/lift efficiency. Lots of different approaches, some very hands-on, some very down-to-the-math, others very experimental. Is any of that useful to the real life equivalent?
  23. A few things: To use as flaps - place them near the CoM/CoL to add lift and lower stall speed, which can help with both taking off and landing a (space)plane. To use as spoilers/airbrakes - in high deployment angles, and especially when used in opposing-deployment pairs, they can help to slow a (space)plane down in the air and on the runway. To change the natural pitch attitude - this can help maintaining a nose-up attitude when re-entering a spaceplane, or inversely, force a shallower climb rate during the ascent/speed-run. EDIT: To use elevons as variable-angle-of-incidence wings - sacrificing some lift efficiency compared to fixed wing parts to let us adapt/optimize AoI in flight (PAW slider!). To induce spin - when done on radially-mirrored fins/elevons, it can be used to start and/or maintain a stabilizing spin on a rocket. To control jet thrust without suffering from slow spool-up/down - place them near the jet exhaust so they obstruct it when deployed, and you have a handy near-immediate on/off switch to thrust. As actuators - they can push things! Use your imagination as to what that can do for your craft. Al the above, at the touch of a configurable action key, and sometimes, combined too.
  24. With mixed feelings, considering 1.12.x is the last major update we're going to get, I still have to say 1.3.1. It's the best performing version, and I can keep it running throughout an entire day (or night, most often) of continuous editing, testing, and reverting, without problems. Not a single update after that will run for longer than an hour or two of that before performance severely degrades, graphics start glitching, screen freezes, or the whole thing outright crashes to desktop. Yes, a lot of QoL has been added since then. And it'll be grand to finally have a 'stable' (as in no longer changing) version that the community can try to fix up as best as possible, allowing mods to stabilize too. I just had the -admittedly very thin by now- hope that the final official update would be a serious effort at polishing and finishing the pile of half-implemented or less-than-optimally-working things still left in the game. I really, really wanted 1.3.1 to get a proper successor. My motto for the past few years has been 'Maybe the next version.' Time for it to become 'Bring on the UKLEP (Unofficial KSP Last Edition Patch)'. Maybe then I can finally retire 1.3.1.
  25. Unfortunately I couldn't solve the hatch obstruction for this particular variant. I honestly can't riddle KSP's obstruction code in this instance. I really like how it flies though. Fun little plane.
×
×
  • Create New...