Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined


272 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Whoa, this is actually happening... I must say that this is something I am actually looking forward to this to an extent (albeit with a degree of solemnity in recognition of 10 years of development). I personally adhere to the "it's not dying, it's reaching completion" mindset, the game isn't going anywhere and, personally I like completed games. To be able to come back to the same game months later (my interests come and go) and it to be the same thing I remember, for mods not to fade away as they become outdated after their developer finishes working on them or for instructions to remain good for years is a kind of stability I crave. While I agree that KSP 2 may very well come to overshadow the original in terms of publicity, shouldering the burden of its legendary predecessor as the game that brings space flight to the masses, the one that started it all is still here. Concluding words are hard and there's still the risk of leaving a bad aftertaste if things go wrong. My greatest hope though is that the developers are able to do a good job in stabilising and polishing the game, they are the final word in its development and the version they settle on will be a major part in this great work's legacy. Maybe I waffle on too much but I've been hanging around this game on and off since 0.20.2 and to see it finally reach completion, I can only hope that it's final version proves to be a great (and stable) game that can be the platform for this talented community can use to ply their "trades" for years to come: Making (and operating) great flying machines, creating stories and even, expanding on the game, turning a single product into an infinite variety of different games we can pick and choose from.
  2. Me and my brother always called them the "44 thousand gallon drum" While I can remember a number of game features that are quite archaic nowadays, the thing that really hits me is seeing when others got their start. While I only registered post 1.0, I was something of a lurker round here from not that long after I got the game (started playing late 0.20.2). As a result, I always thought of the "old guard" as those who had experience in the 0.17 era with 0.18 being rather prominent in my mind as an era before mine, to see 0.23 (a version I consider to be part of my KSP heyday) considered an early era and with all the people who got their start post 1.0 ... all of a sudden, I felt rather old. As for game related memories, well, there is 1.0 aero change, finally killing off (as far as I could tell) the infiniglide bug (which had made the idea of X-20 like spaceplanes feel "cheaty" to me) ... and pretty much negating a good chunk of rocket design and piloting knowledge I had, resulting in me having to pretty much relearn how to do it (e.g. do not turn sharply at high speed unless you are here for a rocket rodeo rather than a ride to orbit). Also, another archaic memory relates to my excitement when I found out that Kraken drives are a thing again (by which I mean the piston type systems as was pioneered by the likes of @Comrade Jenkens, @Rune and probably others I cannot recall), I was absolutely fascinated by the things when they were first invented, I even tried to invent my own (didn't get very much success although the JD Gv2 copy I made was a lot of fun to mess around with). I also remember their disappearance back into obscurity with 0.23.5's joint reinforcement messing up much of the first generation designs if I remember correctly (which as something of an ousider to the situation, I probably do not). After thinking about it some more, there is something that really marks me as from an earlier era: part names. While all engines now have names, I remember back when many of them only had alphanumeric designations, to this day I still think "LV-T30" and "LV-909" more than "Reliant" and "Terrier" for example. AviosAdku
  3. Agreed, nice breakdown @Ultimate Steve Based off said breakdown (and due to the fact that graphical overhauls often cover several versions), you could probably use both systems of sorting in parallel, the gameplay/development direction era and the (much more loosely defined) graphical era. By those terms, my experience with the game (before a long hiatus) was primarily in the 1st & 2nd refinement eras and thus the 2nd generation graphics. AviosAdku
  4. Yes, in fact that was how I came up with some of the figures. At severe risk of sounding condescending and my sincerest apologies if that does happen (I'm not the best at conveying ideas at times and I sometimes people end up answering a different question to the one I was trying to ask, not saying that happened here, just worried it may have happened again), my intention was to see how people subdivided the history of the game as it's aesthetics and "meta" has shifted several times, especially if a person has played during those phases and noted a difference in experience. I had a bit of a hiatus between 1.1.2 and 1.7 and even then, I've mostly dealt with the early career stuff so I don't have a good feel for how the paradigms have shifted since 1.0. Also, I only started in 0.20.2 so while I have read of the development of the game beforehand, I never actually played the earlier paid versions (I have messed around with some of the old free versions) so I'm not sure where to draw the line between the eras as 0.13 is a very different game to 0.20. AviosAdku
  5. Greetings I've just been wondering about the evolution of KSP as a game. While each version often has significant changes, I feel the game has gone through several phases of aesthetics, gameplay capabilities, etc. In light of this I'd like to ask how you would divide up the version history of the game? For example, I am not that well versed in version history before I started and during my long hiatuses from playing but I can note a few distinct "eras": 1 - Early game: Including the early free versions, notable for the lack of planets and early aesthetics such as the FL-T500 fuel tank and the original command pod 2 - The addition of larger (Rockomax) parts and planets, the phasing out of original ship parts (starting ~0.16 or 0.17 perhaps?) 3 - Change of space Centre design to modern aesthetics, SAS change, addition of career mechanics (starting 0.21) 4 - 1.0 release, changing aerodynamics and adding heating concerns From here I'm not sure but with the change of textures at some point (~1.5) would make for at least one new era although I'm not all that versed on the 1.x version history (although I played a lot of it) so there may be another in there. AviosAdku
  6. At the moment, my Launch vehicles are typically "Stage and a Half" affairs with a large core stage with a decently efficient (but atmospheric capable) core stage that burns all the way to orbit (vacuum upper stages are primarily used for deep space work and as such are considered part of the payload) with boosters (usually SRB's) to make up the needed TWR at liftoff. This may be related to the fact that my first orbit mission in career is usually an SSTO with the LV-T30/45 (whatever they're called now, the old name is pretty ingrained as they are my favorites) and I like to base my launchers around it as the idea of a family of launchers is appealing to me. For bulky or similarly aerodynamically awkward payloads (like spacegliders), I usually go for multiple core stages wrapped around the payload, booster style although I don't remember if these are boosted as the only thing I've built like that vaguely recently had a built in rocket stage that made it into the second stage. AviosAdku
  7. Well for a start there's landing aircraft ... well, on a runway in one piece that is. I have done it don't get me wrong but lining up to a runway with KSP instrumentation (One thing I miss from Orbiter was the Horizontal Situation Indicator MFD, once you learned how to use the confusing looking thing it made runway approaches so much easier, even in space gliders) and then managing vertical speed while trying to get on the runway quickly is a high time pressure situation which is never my forte. Though the most frustrating for me is coming up with visually interesting designs and/or implementing them. I typically design heavily for function, as in I basically put together a collection of parts which add up to the performance required and I understand there is a niche for that but even then, they are usually laid out in such a bland way and even my attempts at asymmetric design (thanks to RCS build Aid) don't even result in an appealing brand of frankensteinian, instead looking even more slapped together. AviosAdku
  8. I just checked my oldest screenshot so I'd say I started somewhere in July 2013 although I mainly think of it in terms of version. I started playing in 0.20.2 but it wasn't that long until 0.21 came out. AviosAdku
  9. Greetings While designing my latest craft, I was trying to work out what parachute setup will be required but I soon discovered that there seems to be a relative lack of information on this topic that can be easily found with the majority of information being vague rules of thumb for Kerbin sea level or an admonition for a simple "guess and check" approach. My hope is to find some more general purpose formula I can use to calculate the required parachute area for a given desired terminal velocity, vehicle mass and atmospheric density so that I can perform these calculations for other bodies or more exotic environments and manoeuvres (and perhaps find a way to work out the usefulness of a drogue chute in certain circumstances) without going through the laborious task of using cheats to test an as yet incomplete design, a prospect I am somewhat averse to, particularly in my career game. So far, the following forum/reddit posts and subsequent discussion have provided some information as to calculations but unfortunately they don't seem to provide any hard numbers with regard to the relationship between parachute spread in symmetry grouped radial chutes and their effectiveness. - https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/156287-boring-maths-on-parachutes-in-12/ - https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalAcademy/comments/7cfwab/parachute_calculations/ As I lack the needed understanding of the physics or the ability to figure out how to work out the game's calculations to figure out the formulae to perform the necessary calculations (Spread angle effect and parachute calculation). I thereby make this request for assistance in finding said information. I apologise if this is in the wrong forum as I felt it could fit into either gameplay questions or general discussion AviosAdku --- EDIT --- While performing some quick tests with RCS Build aid (thank you @luizsilveira for the suggestion of the mod), I can confirm that the spread angle is actually a factor for all parachutes and can affect individual parachutes as well as symmetry grouped ones. However I was unable to determine the exact effect of the spread angle which seemed to tail off with the higher symmetry levels (in testing with Mk2-R Radial Mount Parachutes, the cutoff where further angle had no effect was around 8 degrees with 6x symmetry and a 577t mass but around 6 degrees for 8x symmetry with the same mass). Thank you so far
  10. Well, in addition to some casual flying in some planes I made in 1.9, I decided to take another crack at my old Flying House project from a couple of months back. After completely redoing the engine pod system (dropping the nacelle rotation functionality and attachment system) and adding some reaction wheels when I discovered that the Thrust Vector control provides zero yaw control, I finally managed to get a flying house that doesn't flip over and explode within the first 3 seconds, then I took it for a test flight hovering above the KSC. That said, while it didn't crash instantly, it still had all the handling of a drunken elephant (and aerodynamics to match) but I was however, able to put it down again (relatively) gently. While I wouldn't call the thing elegant by most stretches of the term (not helped by my piloting skills), I am quite proud of the bonkers contraption. AviosAdku
  11. It depends on the definition The in game folder: empty That said I regularly empty it out, keeping the ones I find interesting/useful for remembering what happened on that mission before naming them and saving them to a separate folder. (in fact I just cleaned it out as I was reading this thread) That folder currently stands at 2.88GB and 3,104 files (although at least one of those is a brief text file, I don't know if there are any others) since version 0.20.2 AviosAdku
  12. Impressive Off the top of my head, I can think of one thing although it may be stretching definitions. A couple of years back, I designed and launched my first craft to be reused several times: a 2-Kerbal Mun lander with a detachable Munar Transfer module. The idea was that the craft would take on crew and fuel in LKO before departing to the Mun (or Minmus) for a mission before returning (no aerobraking) whereupon the crew would be retrieved and taken back to Kerbin. Unfortunately, the Deep Space Utility Module as I called it was rather lacking in Dv and in the end, I had to ditch it during the return to Kerbin. However, I had also designed a disposable bulk tanker craft but by coincidence, the design was functionally similar to the DSUM (a big fuel tank with docking ports at both ends and twin LV-909 engine nacelles) so I got the idea of using one of those (with a few modifications) as a replacement. As it turns out, the Tanker was better at the job than the specially designed piece of hardware, with a more generic purpose, the fuel load was significantly larger and, being designed to manoeuvre independently, it had its own reaction wheels and a much more effective RCS layout. As a result, the lander/tanker stack was much more manoeuvrable (especially when the parts were detached) and had a significantly improved range. Not only that but for another Mun mission, I needed to land a habitat or the like and no prizes for guessing what delivered the payload to Munar orbit. Designed as a crucial but specialised piece of deep space infrastructure, those tankers became my workhorse space tugs as well, arguably better even than the later nuclear powered reusable tugs I designed specifically for the role. AviosAdku
  13. Wow... I've been puzzling over what to say for way too long but I'll say that this story's last few chapters did not disappoint, a rollercoaster that actually made me feel … quite a few things actually. That alone puts it up with those relatively few works I consider greats and I am deeply honoured by the mention in the end notes. Since I first started visiting these forums years ago, I've tended to gravitate toward the fanfiction section (a common trend with me), yes I visit other places but here is where I come back to (event though I actually look at very few) and in particular, this story is what I would return to whenever I decided to come back and look around, as I did today. To see a work of such quality reach completion is … (I can't think of a word). Too often a great work like these will be swallowed by circumstance and fade away unfinished. I know the praise is all so common here but I would also like to add my thanks for this work to you and those who assisted in the creation, especially the PDF release. I don't exaggerate when I say that I was incredibly excited to see a neat, well formatted manuscript and the appendices! I love worldbuilding and with the various explanations all in one place is much appreciated. As a final thought, I must also thank you again for sharing your writing process back in 2017, I still keep those notes handy. And now, I submit my addition to the tide of tribute rendered to this titan of KSP fan fiction and bid it farewell*. to @KSK I thank you Sincerely AviosAdku * Not that I won't read this again (although it will probably be the PDF version that gets the most use going forward). The end of this era deserved, in my opinion a degree of flowery sentiment.
  14. Ever since I read/listened to the Randall Munroe book How To, and in particular the section that mentioned the logistics of moving a house with jet engines, I've wanted to try it. Today I did. After 3 evenings of work (last week, yesterday and today), I finally finished the house in question and fitted some jet engine pods for VTOL. This has probably got to be one of the least airworthy things I have made that wasn't some ground test platform (and as a furnished aesthetic build, something outside my typical style). Once it was finished came the testing and refining … … there's still a ways to go on that front. Possibly the most surprising thing I've discovered so far is that with the notable exception of the solar panels, this house is remarkably resilient, often coming to a rest in one piece (minus the jet engine pods and solar panels) and with no injuries to the two Kerbals on the verandah. AviosAdku
  15. Well, one thing that inspired me just now was going through my old screenshots (not a bad idea in and of itself) and in particular the reminders of the time I made some multi-mission craft. To briefly explain, the AEV Shadrach was a 2-crew Mun lander that, when paired by a deep space propulsion module (swiftly replaced with a standardised tanker spacecraft) would fly to the Mun and to perform the landing mission I had at the time, return to LKO where the crew would return using a simple capsule type crew shuttle. When another Mun landing mission came along, it would receive a new tanker and a new crew would be flown up and it would repeat the process. To me, remembering the storied history of that ship was something I really want to recapture. Also another idea from that game was an idea I tried: a general purpose spacecraft (able to land on the Mun, re-enter Kerbin from Minmus or beyond without ablative shields and coming in several variants), it's quite a challenge, trying to balance multiple conflicting requirements to create such a "jack of all trades" design but to some there is a sort of appeal to be able to perform almost any mission with an "off the shelf" design. Also, if you are so inclined, you could chose to roleplay it with various subplots going on and factions within the space program competing for budgets and support of the administrators and Kerbinauts or even the major contractors influencing decisions regarding what parts to include in a program for example. In the end, making a game enjoyable depends on what kind of things in this game appeal to you. Sometimes I enjoy some intensive engineering problem solving and sometimes I've found that simply taking a plane out for a joyride, cruising serenely and just watching the scenery go by or taking a Kerbal up in a rocket and paragliding around on the way down can be a nice diversion from the more "gamey" play that I find it easy to slip into in career. AviosAdku
  • Create New...