V7 Aerospace
-
Posts
218 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by V7 Aerospace
-
-
1 hour ago, Nivee~ said:
Ugh.. it's not available in my country...
Look for second hand copies?
-
So all that rocky debris from the burn poses no threat to any delicate components on the exterior of the spacecraft?
-
6 hours ago, Kerbal7 said:
What was so amazing about it?
We've been launching rockets and docking spacecraft for over 50 years.
Yeah, I agree.
I just hate when I go to a theme park and see people screaming and enjoying themselves on rollercoasters, don't they know we've been operating rollercoasters for over 100 years?
/s
-
Calculate where it'll land, and if it's at sea, send out SpaceX's Mr. Steven to play catch...
-
On 2/23/2019 at 10:08 PM, ARS said:
Just like whenever aircraft in movies instantly plummet into vertical nosedive whenever the engine is shut down instead...
As well as the fact that all aircraft apparently have Jericho Trumpets when they do any sort of dive.
-
-
It all depends.
Obviously the 2950 metric ton Saturn V will not stand on 5 F1 Engines, but model rockets that only weigh a few kg will happily sit on their bells. Gravity as well is a large factor, if you built a strong enough engine bell on a descent stage for a light lunar landing craft, it may well be a suitable alternative to a separate landing gear system.
-
10 hours ago, MikeO89 said:
Updated to 1.6 from 1.5.1 with all my mods and it was a pretty smooth transition. Some mods have to be updated to stop the beginning errors but that's to be expected. I have to say, in a pretty short time I could see/feel the game runs quite a bit smoother with 1.6 than it did with 1.5.1. 1.5.1 was the worst performing version of all I had used to that point. 1.6 is much better. Squad did something under the hood that my system likes a lot better.
From the looks of it, there's been some extensive fixes to some memory issues
-
4 hours ago, qzgy said:
Kerbals, that's who.
Well, yes. But I meant what company, group manufacturer etc? Do we know of them yet, or are they already known?
but then again in probably giving it too much thought
-
Fast travel?
Accelerates time (equal to time taken to get there) and spawns the Kerbal at the destination.
-
Who built the stock craft in KSP lore-wise?
The space station core's description mentions that it is in the Kerlington craft catalog, but are there other contractors who built other craft?
This space station core, assembled by Kerlington contains parts from various other manufacturers. How does this whole system work? I always thought the manufacturers only existed to supply parts for the space program, who would then do the job of constructing craft. But it seems they also provide their own craft, using parts from companies that they haven't collaborated with (at least not confirmed, unlike C7-Rockomax RAPIER). Who built the Learstar? the Kerbal X? The Bug-E-Buggy?
-
3 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:
Developers - Should we add more animations that reflect gameplay and bring more life to the world?
Players - Add wacky dances!
I'm all for wacky dances...
as long as we can toggle them off.
-
3 hours ago, FahmiRBLXian said:
Oh, I thought Ballistic Missiles were around during that time.
I mean even if they were, ground based observers wouldn't really be able to give much warning as it's very hard to spot them and they move so quickly. That's the job of radar, which in the 1940s was still being improved upon.
-
9 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:
BAM
For those curious, all I needed to do was download a map of Kerbin, flip it horizontally so it was backwards from what it really is (for reasons that are mathy and I don't understand), then Filters->Polar Coordinates in Gimp. Then some quick resizing etc.
It would probably look better rotated 90 degrees so KSC was directly south but you can do that part
Absolutely byotiful
-
Jet engines that can only operate under water.
The deeper you go, the higher the thrust.
-
10 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:
Skyhooks.
Willy Wonka style.
I thought this was a thread for the impossible?
After all, the Fulton Recovery System does exist
-
To be honest, I think the solution to most problems here is just to have more variant textures available for most parts.
The 1.25m fuel tanks are probably the best so far. 4 texture choices with each of them not being too far a step in any direction, I'd like to think that all other structural parts and fuel tanks will follow in that regard.
-
Interesting stuff!
Just a slight nitpick:
On 11/24/2018 at 1:30 AM, FahmiRBLXian said:Note the two men in Civil Defense outfit observing the sky for any bombers or missiles.
"Bombers or attackers" would be more suitable here as missiles weren't around. Closest thing was flying bombs like the V1.
-
9 minutes ago, Xurkitree said:
This sums up my anger at the nosecones well. We want the old versions now.
Well, Mk.7 is a major improvement, the old blue nosed nose cone now fits the game's colour scheme, the advanced nose cones have just increased the contrast on the details, the NCS tip now has panels.
I agree that some of the decisions are strange, too much detail can be a bad thing, but overall? we now have a far more coherent art style, and the removal of some of the older, more muddy-looking textures. But there is room for improvement, and time before the update arrives for improvements to be made.
-
7 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:
Nice job...I tried 0.13.3 and barely got into orbit. SAS in old versions is so annoying!
It's quite firm in how it points the craft, unlike modern SAS which thinks that only half gimbal is appropriate for a Learstar spinning out of control.
-
6 minutes ago, XLjedi said:
It won't be able to go between planets... the poodle wasn't enough to make it work. Sadly... I think I'm done now. how depressing
I don't think they'd drop it from it's current 412s down to the Poodle level of 350s. I'm guessing around 380-400. Though all of this is still speculation, remember. They might not even touch it's ISP.
Edit: worst case scenario, can't you just change the cfg. back to it's current values in the case the update changes it?
-
8 minutes ago, XLjedi said:
-snip-
It's likely that if it does receive an ISP change, it won't go too far below 400. I'm sure your craft should still be capable enough.
@klgraham1013 you make a good point. It would be nice if there was more included about bugs in KSP Loading. This recent bug tracking push does show some sort of recognition of the issues on SQUAD's behalf, let's just hope it continues further than this and we can actually start rooting out some of the games longer standing issues.
-
5 minutes ago, XLjedi said:
Ohhh man... you're gonna nerf the Wolfhound?
I just built a new favorite craft around that engine.
Everything was sounding so good up to that point too.
You have to admit, it was an engine with very few downsides. I don't like the idea of something in the mid tech tree (in the same node as the completely inferior Poodle, no less) making basically every other chemical vacuum engine obsolete.
As well as that, it's to early too see how it's changed. Who knows? The changes could be minimal.
-
Just now, klgraham1013 said:
Oh course. I think the issue is all we're seeing is new parts and wiz bang shiny features. Have they said anything about the memory leak from 1.5 at all? News of actual bug fixing is few and far between and over shadowed by the things that provide better marketing potential.
From what I can remember, while SQUAD has always mentioned bugfixing in update plans and patch notes, they've never been massively transparent about what exactly has been fixed or what has been done (correct me if I'm wrong, been away from KSP for quite a while). I think we're seeing improvement, albeit slowly, with the recent upvote system for bug tracking and I agree we do have quite a ways to go. As you mentioned, from a business standpoint, what's more likely to bring in new players, shiny new stuff, or behind the scenes improvements? From that point it's hard to tell if anything will ever be done in that regard.
For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted · Edited by V7 Aerospace
I'd imagine the main problem with using existing missiles to launch payloads on the moon is that being designed to work in atmosphere, the lack of air for control surfaces means that they'd be unable to stay on course. Unless the missile chosen already has some sort of thrust vectoring or such.