DStaal

Members
  • Content Count

    3,551
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,984 Excellent

4 Followers

About DStaal

  • Rank
    Flight Director

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. This is a big topic... I'll link to a previous thread.
  2. It wouldn't need it everywhere. Put the solar systems in a 64-bit universe, and make each of them be a separate 32-bit space, and then you have the 32-bit local environment. The only place you'd really notice is when trying to dock ships in interstellar space. But I think we're getting off-topic here... I wouldn't mind a warp-drive or jump-gate as part of a themed DLC. I also wouldn't mind if it was left for modders entirely.
  3. I mostly play in science mode. I enjoy the progression of unlocking parts and having doing science mean something - but I'm not interested in the contracts or tracking every last funds. I'll set my own goals, thanks. (I do use Kerbal Environmental Institute to avoid the early-game grind of going around the KSC sampling science. With the number of mods I run (some of which have their own experiments), that typically gets me about halfway through the CTT before I build a single rocket.)
  4. DLC are mods, but mods are not necessarily DLC - at least by the common use of the terms.
  5. I think it depends on what assumptions you make for both types of drives. Regardless, Metallic Hydrogen would be safer to handle and operate, as there's no pesky radiation to deal with. (Admittedly only 'safer' in that nitroglycerin is safer than a nuclear bomb: Both will explode and kill you if make a wrong move, but the bomb will also kill you if you hang around to long. And even that comparison is bad, since the nuclear bomb has the bigger explosion...) Ah, but for metallic hydrogen we at least know it *can* exist (whether or not it's metastable is up for debate, with it leaning towards 'not'), and what it would take to manufacture it - even if we don't have a way to do so at commercial volumes, it's barely possible within a dedicated lab. Exotic matter we're not even really sure exists - the only real evidence we have for it is that the numbers add up correctly in the theories. Which could be just because math allows you to put in nonsense numbers and get a result, and that our theories are only descriptive of the real world. So, likely neither one really works - but even if metallic hydrogen *isn't* metastable you could make a metallic hydrogen drive. The mass of the fuel tanks would make it a stupid idea as all your dV would be spent moving the pressure vessels, but it could be done. Warp drive... We've no evidence that it exists outside of numbers on paper.
  6. What you want for that is the 'snap' and 'Angle'. Then it will 'snap' to the 'angle' you set. (But note the setting has to match on both docking ports.) In general, I'd want most of the settings to match between both ports, except for maybe the force and torque settings which I might set higher on one.
  7. You can have both in one screenshot - you just need to click the 'pin' in the top-right corner of the pop-up, then that PAW will stay. I generally wouldn't play with that setting, personally. The 'port range' on the top screenshot was probably a large part of the problem: You have to get that dock within 0.5m of the other dock before the docking will kick in. (And then it has to stay there while everything else gets aligned...)
  8. Can you show us the PAW for *both* docks? (The right-click window.)
  9. The main problem with the ports on the containers and MechJeb I've seen is that MechJeb assumes there's only one docking port on a part. Which means for the orbital docking containers it's going to have to pick one - and it tends to pick the node you have for 'moving the container around the station' rather than the node for 'attaching to the station' - which typically in my experience is the wrong one, so it's trying to dock 'backwards'. I tend to solve it by using the docking node on top as an attach node and putting a regular docking node there, which then has to be disposed of when the build is done...
  10. Best to ask this in the KAS thread as there would be the best answers, however: There's no direct replacement. The functionality is however replaced by having a socket on one part, and a fixed telescopic joint on the other. Attach the telescopic joint and to the socket, and you have a de-facto strut.
  11. And note that 'playable' is often subjective: The game will slow down under load, but typically doesn't lock up. If playing at half speed is fine for you - then it's still playable.
  12. Depends on the feature and how much it affects balance, as well as how it's programmed. I don't actually think *disabling* life support is likely to be hard if they programmed it with that in mind. Changing the detail level of it on the other hand requires balancing *each level of detail,* and possibly having extra parts for some of them, etc. That's the part that would have more work.
  13. I'm still not entirely convinced that there will be actual life support in the game - they could just have been talking a colony support mechanic that's life-support like. I'm a little ambivalent about whether they should have a life support system - both in that it's unlikely they'll get a detail level that everyone thinks is correct, and even more that the open sandbox without to much overhead is a good part of the draw of KSP. The latter could be dealt with using difficulty levels, of course. (As could the former - at the cost of a lot more work for the developers.) On the other hand, having a good system well integrated into the game would be better than trying to integrate one of a half-dozen systems into whatever set of mods you want to use.
  14. For 1.7.x, try the 1.6 version. Most 1.6 mods also work with 1.7. (And don't work with 1.8.)
  15. Why has no one else thought of this idea?