• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

53 Excellent

About Kosmognome

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I had one leg blow up after running into it, yes. But that will happen on any body, it can happen on minmus as well (I had one lander flip upside down after touching a landing gear on minmus, it was propelled several hudred meters away in the process).
  2. You don't need a scientist when you only land in one biome. A hopper that goes through multiple biomes is not something I would suggest for a new player, neither on minmus nor on the mun. a new player would probably try to land in one place and then return before attempting a multi-biome hopping scenario. and even i don#t bring the scientist to the surface. I bring the pilot to the surface and keep the scientist on orbit to reset the experiments. Yes, in fact I did. Several, actually. Just recently in a new career with kerbalism. four small legs + terrier engine work reasonably well for a small lander.
  3. No it isn't. Its not as easy as on Minmus, but its not "brutal". No you don#t. people have landed on the Mun since long before KER and continue to do so without KER even today. With the ability to simply set SAS to "follow retrograde" a munar landing has beome much easier then it used to be. Its still slightly more difficult then on other bodies, but you exaggerate immoderately. We are talking about beginners and you are talking about slingshots. Great. a beginner who has never even landed on another body will in 99% of all cases not bother with slingshots.
  4. The whole thing was build on the premise that it is for new players.... A Mun fly-by is far easier then Minmus. No Inclination, much bigger SOI to hit etc. So I#d say in terms of orbit & fly-by, Mun is still easier. In terms of landing obviously Minmus is easier (I man c'mon, you can land with the Jetpack alone), but you need to reach it, first. And new players will have more problems with inclination changes and hitting the smaller SOI then seasoned players that know what they are doing. I regularly land on the mun without upgrading *any* building (So I neither have maneuver nodes, nor see the SOI changes ann the patched conics), but I wouldn't expect any newb to do that. I wouldn't do that on Minmus.... hitting the Mun is easy (Just hit 95° transfer angle) hitting minmus without nodes is just plain annoying So tl;dr: Landing is easier on minmus, getting there is easier for the Mun.
  5. Landing on the Mun first aligns better with the contracts when in career. You get Fly-by Mun / land on mun / Explore Mun / Plant flag on Mun usually long before the Minmus ones. Furthermore if you can land on Minmus, you can land on the Mun. You only need the first pad upgrade and some basic science, and you are good to go.
  6. Convert to funds via strategy from administration building. That way you doN#t have to do contracts but get your own "budget".
  7. I'm playing with RSS, so my take might be a bit different. In real life, we use simulations to find out what works and what doesn't. We also use computers and fly-by-wire. For those reasons, I see no shame in using KER, MJ, GravityTurn, kOS etc. This also means that I use quicksave to evaluate rockets. I usually use MJ to help with the ascent, but end up writing kOS scripts for it. When all is set and done and I'm confident that I have simulated everything about the rocket that I need to know, then I do the "proper" mission. And yes, that is usually done without qiucksaving/quickloading, except for some bug in the game (which can happen, sadly).
  8. No. And if you feel its exploiting, then simply don't? Its exactly the kind of ting I avoid doing in my games.
  9. I've played through career mode multiple times, and landed on all bodies. not once did I use landing gear. You are exxagerating quite a bit. Yes, planes are somewhat in a bad position, but they are bad for getting science and funds anyways (exception are SSTOS, which are viable only in the endgame).
  10. 1. Leave no man kerbal behind 2. Don't kill anyone 3. Do not deliberately harm or injure anyone 4. Do not destroy the KSC 5. Don't do anything unreasonable (using nukes inside the atmopshere, bringing kerbal alone in a small compartment for a multi-year mission).
  11. Do you have SAS on? If you, disable SAS, warp a tiny amount and go back to normal (or stay on the lowet warp setting). SAS constantly applies tiny amounts of torque, and thus encounte wobble. Its much bette without SAS, and warping kills any rotation.
  12. Yeah, this could be great fun. It would create incentives to build re-usable rockets and to save as many parts as possible on non-reusable ones. If done right, I'd see it as very compelling gameplay.
  13. This is an excellent idea. But the ramp up in production should be due to economics of scale - the more often you use a part, the faster it gets produced. If you do not use a part for a long time, its production lines get cut down and aquiring new ones after you have gone through your stock takes longer again. The problem with that is again that it only costs time. Don't have the supplies for your rocket? Just warp! As long as time-warping is as inconsequential as it is know, the supply limit will never have any actual significance.
  14. No one wants to disable or remove time-warp. Just to make time-warp a decision with consequences. Making time a resource that is worth managing. There are lots of ways to do that. Have contacts expire much sooner for example. Life Support would be another example. Salaries (time based) would yet again be another. There are a lot of creative ways to make sure that time-warping is something you have to think about, without making it so hard or punishing that nobody would want to use it.
  15. What you are suggesting -- having contracts expire -- would be a drawback to time warping. What I mean by a drawback is simply give time warping some consequences. If you do it, something happens - e.g. contracts expire. That would add good strategic reasons to be time-efficient. Currently, time-warping is a no-brainer. There is no downside to it, no consequence at all. Every mechanic that involves time is made impossible through that, since time itself isn't relevant to anything.Time should be relevant. It should be a resource you manage.