Mjarf

Members
  • Content Count

    303
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

205 Excellent

1 Follower

About Mjarf

  • Rank
    Norwegian Rocket "Engineer"

Profile Information

  • Location Norway
  • Interests KSP (duh), airsoft, car stuff, sound systems (car and hi.fi), general tinkering.

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I put 12 of the smallest rover wheels on it and it's a surprisingly good offroad vehicle.
  2. Mjarf

    Engine plate staging?

    If that doesn't work you could "trick" the staging list by moving it up to the top so it won't necessarily be staged at all.
  3. Mjarf

    Mun - Orbit and landing

    I almost never bring any Science Jr. modules, they're so damn heavy, also definitely replace that nose cone with a top mounted parachute and then ditch the radially mounted parachutes. It's not really necessary to bring the science modules back down on Kerbin, you can retrieve all the data on EVA, unless your Kerbals can't do EVA yet. You should be able to more or less copy this design with your current tech tree: It has close to 8 km/s delta-v and will easily make it to the surface of the mun and back to Kerbin with a soft landing. You can add a Science Jr. to the design and still have decent delta-v margin. I agree with the others, you're clearly learning as you go, you'll fly huge nuclear powered beasts to Jool and back in no time.
  4. I was a bit skeptical about the new "Terrier" and "Poodle" designs at first, but they look pretty slick and I do like the new glow effect on the engine bell.
  5. Yeah, but I imagine it would be slightly easier to implement.
  6. I guess the engine plates is a start, maybe they could simply add a built-in decoupler to the fairings?
  7. KSP is a very CPU intensive game because of how it runs. In most games most objects are "physics less", you can't really interact with tables and walls other than walking into them and on them. In KSP pretty much every part on the rocket has simulated physics and can be interacted with, and the Unity game engine is probably not the most efficient and this adds up to a huge CPU load with big rockets. That being said, the game runs quite well even on my little AMD Ryzen 3 1200, but I do notice that it's a tad under powered for the game even when OC'ed to 3.9 GHz. It's probably difficult to optimize the physics in the game because of how complex it is and as far as I understand the Unity engine isn't necessarily optimal for the game, but re-writing it from scratch in a different engine would be a huge task. This game is still among my favorites though, despite it's flaws.
  8. That's what fairings and engine plates are for?
  9. It'll run KSP just fine if you don't try to launch an interstellar cruiser or Star Destroyer replica or something else crazy. Your CPU is comparable to my AMD Ryzen 3 1200 which handles KSP very well with moderately sized vessels, so you should be fine.
  10. Mjarf

    Starting in KSP :D

    Good old trial and error works well in KSP. Expect this game to take up A LOT of hours if you're a tinkerer, it can be quite addictive.
  11. Maybe they could either reduce the cost so it could function as a low cost alternative to the MK-1 or perhaps increase the temperature limits so it'll be more useful as an emergency re-entry pod for a station or something?
  12. I see, I guess I have overestimated the difficulty of Career mode then, I'll have to try a new save at max difficult and see what happens. Thanks for all the input.
  13. I have played the game nearly 1000 hours according to Steam so I have been around the block a few times hehe. That's why I'm trying career mode again, to get a new challenge, I guess I could adjust the difficulty a bit, or maybe play around with the fancy new mission builder. It would be fun to try and replicate the Apollo 13 incident and see how I manage.
  14. The MK1 is pointier so it is more aerodynamically stable than the "onion" pod. You can compensate for this by flying really carefully though and do the gravity turn very gradually. This will be less efficient but at least it won't flip over so easily. It might help to somehow make the rocket longer as well, as it'll get a slimmer profile and the longer rocket body will act as a "sail" and counteract the drag of the pod. Maybe post a screenshot of the rocket you're having trouble with?
  15. Mjarf

    What crimes against Kerbin have you committed?

    Well, my space program is consuming their oil reserves at an alarming rate.