Rocket In My Pocket

Members
  • Content count

    1041
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1018 Excellent

About Rocket In My Pocket

  • Rank
    Senior Rocket Scientist
  1. Oh I agree, and I'm in the same boat. I just regret how much it...distances us from each other as players. I'd wager most people on the forums have their KSP so heavily modded that we might all just as well be playing entirely different games.
  2. Stock. Nothing worse than meeting someone else who plays but still having nothing in common to talk about because you use entirely different mod sets/universe sizes. I mean mods are great...but I really miss when playing the same game meant having the same experiences.
  3. I could see doing one randomly generated planet as a DLC. Bill it is as the "hardest of challenges" because everything about it is unknown, make it the hardest planet to reach so newbs don't get confused by it. As far as fluff, I can imagine it being a rogue planet that get's captured by the Kerbol system, which explains why everyone gets a different one.
  4. I'll admit, it would be kind of fun to meet everyone from the forums that I've come to know. To put faces to the avatars as it were lol.
  5. I like it! Also, it's a little early to complain about the price tag on a prospective gaming variant of this mouse. I'd assume they'd try to hit a cheaper cost for the gaming model as compared to the professional model.
  6. Same, seeing a mod support the theory definitely had me convinced.
  7. Hmm, so it might still have some effect for gimbal engines? Very interesting. Thanks for doing the testing, I was just about to myself. All this talk about it was making me curious. I actually haven't done it since I was a new player because I just got better at balancing the planes in the first place, lol.
  8. I never said anything about downward force, I'm just quoting what a moderator said about it since it supports my conclusion that this is an actual tangible effect others see in the game and it's not just me being crazy. Lol. As I said though; who's to say why or how it works, it's just a video game with a very arbitrary definition of physics. The important thing for this conversation is that it does actually produce a noticeable improvement in stability which players can utilize.
  9. I'm certainly no expert on stock propellers, but I do use quite a few stock bearing designs. (Mostly on rover's with trailers.) Lots of images follow so I'm going to put the rest under a spoiler tag, just click it to see.
  10. Agreed, this can be just as frustrating depending on what it is you are trying to do. Lol. The OP wasn't specific but if he's making a rescue ship with a probe core and wants the seat left empty, it's a valid solution.
  11. As far as stock goes, just don't make the command module/cockpit the root part/first part you place and it won't be auto assigned a Kerbal.
  12. No worries, that's what forums are for, discussing ideas that are often conflicting. I'm never against the idea that I might be wrong, which is why I had to go digging for some kind of evidence that it wasn't all in my head lol. (And who's really to say why it works, I might still be wrong about the wide pillar of thrust thing as Val says it's more about the engines producing more vertical thrust when tilted.)
  13. Let's say you have 4 lift engines placed around the COM, if they are straight up and down your plane is being lifted on a very narrow column of thrust making it tippy and unstable. Angling them out widens the base of this "pillar" and provides more stability. It's basically the same reason that having multiple lift engines is more stable than just having one.
  14. I feel like I've definitely seen landing legs get damaged in game, once they are they won't deploy/undeploy and they are stuck in whatever position they were in when they broke. Maybe I'm wrong though and I just imagined it lol.