Jump to content

thereaverofdarkness2

Members
  • Content Count

    126
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

29 Excellent

About thereaverofdarkness2

  • Rank
    Account obliterated in the forum rework of 2015

Recent Profile Visitors

977 profile views
  1. I can't say for sure but I believe it does based on some videos. Interesting, I'll have to check that out.
  2. Thank you for a constructive and well thought out post. I'll agree that your points pretty well demonstrate that my idea wouldn't work very well in the stock game. [snip]
  3. I had an idea for a part which would enable simulating the Korolev Cross in KSP both for roleplaying and strategic purposes. This part should make for a useful type of decoupler/sepratron. The part is a small radial piece much like a radial RCS thruster, and it can only attach a fuel tank to its root. When activated, it detaches like a decoupler but then adds a radial point of thrust to the separating (away from root) fuel tank, causing the fuel tank to expend its remaining fuel at very low dV to produce non-damaging thrust. This will use the fuel remaining in the tank to push the tank aw
  4. It affects performance. But you know what affects performance more? The little trucks driving around on the floor. They affect performance a LOT more. And they don't affect it much. The performance impact is probably orders of magnitude smaller than you're capable of imagining.
  5. The jetpack is already going to be less fuel efficient than the EVA pack even if it uses the same fuel (monopropellant) merely because it has a higher thrust. If that thrust isn't high enough, it won't be able to lift the Kerbal far enough to be useful on Kerbin. I feel like an adequate amount of thrust for use on Kerbin would be high enough to lift them on Eve, even if it's not high enough for you to want to use it on Eve.
  6. I feel like I suggested this once before, but I can't find the thread. Anyway, with Kerbals getting parachutes, I feel it is time to revisit the idea! The basic idea is to give the player backpack options for the Kerbals, so you choose whichever backpack type suits you. The default backpack is the EVA pack, and if you change the backpack for a given seat on your craft, it will save that setting with the craft. Perhaps you could store extra backpacks in the command module and switch while on mission, with each command module having its own backpack storage limit. EVA Pack: The vanil
  7. Why would you get 10 points, and all costs are in increments of 5? Why not divide those values by 5?
  8. A vessel parachute is very different from a small personal parachute. Kerbals should be able to repack their own parachutes, but it makes sense that it takes an engineer to repack a spacecraft parachute. Also, there needs to be some reason to ever bring an engineer along!
  9. Poll: do you think KSP: good (10/10) bad (0/10) Pass on your binary vote now, it's the tiny bit of info that makes all the difference!
  10. Surface temperature should transfer heat much more quickly than atmospheric temperature, but only to the parts in direct contact with it. KSP already has a system for transferring heat between parts so the same system could transfer heat from the ground to the parts that are touching the ground. Your spacecraft could get very cold when flying in space a long ways away from the sun or in the shadow of a planet, unless something on the inside were generating heat. RTGs should generate heat at all times. I'm interested in giving a few parts a minimum temperature, but I think most things sho
  11. It's way too much effort for such a simple program. Plants vs. Zombies offers the same thing, but it comes with the game and is easy to use. As it is just a program that allows you to dress up a Kerbal and take screenshots, it's not worth the effort it takes to use it, let alone the money it costs. It probably cost Squad a significant amount of development resources to provide the tool, given it has advanced 3D models. I think perhaps Squad should invest a bit of time and resources to salvage it, mostly by making it easier to access but also by adding more options for what you can
  12. I'm happy with the way they look now, but I've always been happy with the remodels so I'm not invested in a change but I won't get bothered if one happens.
  13. What's wrong with the currently existing 1.25m and 2.5m flat disk probe cores? Are they not what you're looking for? They are pretty advanced and high in the tech tree, but their monetary cost isn't very high.
  14. I'd like to see it be a toggle on the navball. When it's set to atmospheric flight, it'll have horizontal prograde/retrograde markers, up/down markers, and horizontal sideways markers. These would replace the orbital markers that you see on the orbital navball. When you use the atmospheric flight navball, your Kerbal or probe core pilots would follow the new markers.
  15. RE-N2 "Nuke" Atomic Rocket Motor Width: 2.5 meters Length: 6.0 meters Mass: 24.0 tonnes High Thrust Mode - Max Thrust: 720 kiloNewtons - Engine Isp: 600 seconds - Thrust to Weight ratio: ~3 High Efficiency Mode - Max Thrust: 360 kiloNewtons - Engine Isp: 1200 seconds - Thrust to Weight ratio: ~1.5 Real-life experimental rocket technology extends pretty far beyond the techs you can research in KSP, if you count unfinished projects that we know will work. The end game in KSP gets a bit dry. I think it'd be nice if some experimental tech were added to stock KSP. There are a
×
×
  • Create New...