Tyko

Members
  • Content Count

    3,095
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tyko

  1. Thanks for sharing the video. It was cool and the build was a creative way to get enough Delta- V for your launch. Just a note, if you're open to some feedback. Your ascent profile (basically going straight up to 55km and then turning to 90 degrees) isn't really that efficient and that's causing you to use more fuel, which means a bigger heavier rocket. A better ascent profile is called a Gravity Turn and can shave off a lot of DV. In JNSQ you should be able to achieve orbit with about 5000DV (What Kerbal Engineer calls "Vacuum DV" in the VAB.) Here's another great thread on Gravity Turns I'm happy to help further, but don't want to clog up the JNSQ thread with this side discussion. Feel free to PM me and we can talk there. Happy Flying!
  2. @HebaruSan with the latest update CKAN is no longer recognizing the current Kopernicus build as compatible with a clean install of 1.7.3 Thanks for maintaining this mod. If you need any other info let me know.
  3. Just write MM Configs to create new parts to the other scales. You'll have to do some mass and cost calculations, but it would work. Check the community database for examples of how to do this:
  4. Near Future Launch Vehicles has some adaptors. I believe other mods do as well, but can't think of them off the top of my head
  5. I think KerbalX has a tool that lets people uploading ships tell others which mods are necessary to use the craft file. You may want to check on that. https://kerbalx.com/
  6. hahaha! that's awesome. Thanks for pointing it out.
  7. I don't see why it wouldn't, it's designed to be stocklike. yep, no problem using RS / RS+
  8. The Oscar’s issue Is its fuel capacity compared to its physical volume. Assuming the same fuel densities - which is fairly consistent with other stock tanks - the Oscar B holds way too much for its physical size.
  9. Same way they survive without food. Or how parts never fail, or how RTGs last forever. - because the devs didn’t write those concerns into the game code.
  10. @steddyj sad news about @Tidal Stream i hope he takes the time to announce that he’s winding down and ask for help. It would be sad if this mod languished in its broken state
  11. I agree with @Snark - reverse gravity assists going into Jool can be really helpful and they’re even better because you can still plot your optimal transfer path from Kerbin to Jool first. Once you’re on your way to Jool plot a midway course correction, zoom in on the Jool system and try out different changes. You’ll find encounters with just about every moon depending on the course change. This is a great way to see how different encounters affect your course and learn which ones are helpful. Is it better to come in behind a moon or encounter it on the other side of its orbit when it’s heading to you? Do you swing in ahead of the moon or come in behind it (answer - if you want to slow down you want to come in ahead of it and swing around heading backwards relative to the moon)
  12. Thanks for doing this work! Just a question....When @Tidal Stream gets around to a permanent fix would you expect your patch to break any in flight craft? I know it's never a 100% sure thing, just trying to decide if I should proceed with your patch or just wait. thanks again
  13. ...but a rocket can make it to orbit in a single stage = SSTO
  14. Add a probe core oriented to align with the antenna - when you want to transmit, control from that probe core and use SAS point towards target mode. If you wanted you could use +PART to make a special very small, very light probe core used only for this purpose.Just scale it down and lower the mass.
  15. I love that it starts at sunset. With the full set of recommended graphics mods sunset looks amazing. Sure you could change it, but players can also just enjoy the view for a moment then click the "move to next morning" button
  16. Is BG science and ground objects supported in JNSQ now?
  17. How does one get a perfect(ish) angle without a navball in the VAB, exactly. Asking just so, you know, some newer player can know - since all us vets already know... *eyeballs the room while sipping coffee* Shift & Left Click to grab your entire rocket. Then hold down the Shift key and use the Q or E keys to rotate the rocket on it's long axis. Since you're holding down Shift each step of rotation will be 5 degrees.
  18. I specifically avoid KSP science in my 30% game. I only collect science from the launch pad and the runway. I really enjoy playing in the early game with 1.25/1.875m craft and find that it's way too easy to bound right past that with higher science levels. My first lunar missions and planetary probes are designed/launched using Gemini era tech.
  19. I love this steak! Grilled to perfection and delicately seasoned...can someone please pass me the tabasco sauce?
  20. I turn the rocket on the launch pad to launch in the desired direction. If I need a 30 degree incline I just turn the rocket to sit at a 30 degree angle on the pad. This way, when I launch I just have to pitch down like I normally would and don't have to mess with trying to do any complex steering on the way up. It works great and it's super easy.
  21. I play with 30% science in a 2.5x or 2.7x system. I do use some DMAGIC science parts, so that adds more ways to collect science. I'm not using BG though. If I were I'd probably have to re-balance again due the the extra science points. I also use Kerbal Launch Failure with a 10% failure rate - sounds high, but failures are actually pretty rare. This forces me to build launch escape systems for any crewed launch.
  22. I did an entire playthrough using procedural tanks and it was fun. That said I've gone back to using normal stackable tanks for large tanks / rockets. The main reason though is graphic quality. ReStock tanks (and even many Stock tanks) just have far better textures. I still use a lot of PP tanks for tiny probes - those are all bespoke designs and the gold foil PP texture looks good on small tanks. Regarding the OP's list: I don't see the value in having configurable LF/O ratios. All rocket engines use the same ratio and the tanks match. This is super easy. If I need to carry some extra of one type or the other, I can add a tank +++ I DEFINITELY want to see switchable fuel types though. I don't know enough about jet engines to know if that would even work, but I don't really care anyway because I fly rockets. Definitely NO procedural engines - having to work with a limited set of engine options is not only a good play challenge, but it's realistic. +++ To the idea of procedural structural parts. This totally makes sense to me and would give a lot more flexibility in designing ships / probes. Love to see PP girders, cone shapes, panels, trusses, etc.