• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Magzimum

  1. Weird. The pictures showed first time I posted, but also didn't show the next day when I had a quick look. Tried Imgur this time. Hopefully better.
  2. Here is my attempt. It has 48 passengers (3 x 16), and 4 x 820 + 2 x 8 = 3296 solid fuel. Score: 48000/3296 = 14.56 I am pretty sure this can be improved, because it gained too much altitude and speed, but for now this is my submission! I may try another time with the smaller passenger cabins.
  3. I hope that KSP stays close to its roots: A real space simulator with a bit of (quite original) humor as a flavor. Whatever new features they add should come second to those roots.
  4. Because Dres needs more love, I planted this Dres Resort on Dres' surface a good while ago (Dres Awareness Challenge, which is still going strong!). It did not have a huge variation in colored lights, but it made it up in sheer quantity. I do have to admit that this is a mission from 2016, so I don't think this should qualify for any prize. But it was a cool mission, so I thought I'd spam it here. As part of the same fleet (launched during the same transfer window), I also launched a communication satellite. And a space station / ship with 8 landing pods and many lights.
  5. Facilities I would like to have: Extra Runway As mentioned above, just for fun. Craft test facility (e.g. wind tunnel or "modeling facility") In addition to the extra runway, I would also love to have a facility to test crafts. Some called it a windtunnel (an earlier post by @BadOaks ), but I would also be happy if it was the Kerbal Aerodynamics Modelling Program (KAMP). I use the cheat a lot to get my craft into a particular orbit (e.g. Eve) to get its characteristics right before building a giant launcher and fly the mission. I use a Sandbox game for tests, and then copy the craft file into my Career game. I'd like to do that inside the Career game without cheating.
  6. But they do belong in a forum where the players discuss some modifications to the game.
  7. No I am not sure. But I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption that once you got one runway figured out, you can add a second one much easier.
  8. You make a valid point, and I agree that from a purely functional point of view, the east-west runway is all you need to get things into orbit. But... Moar Runways! It would look cool. It would allow for new challenges in this forum. It would hardly slow the game down. It wouldn't be difficult to program for Squad if you just add the extra runway(s) without any options of where to launch from. It would be as easy as adding some easter eggs somewhere.
  9. Without using Valentina's jetpack, I got her to go 2829.2 m/s, on a chemical rocket. I wish I could say that this can be optimized further, but getting a Kerbal into orbit with a limit of 3 tons is actually already quite the challenge for me. I really enjoyed it!
  10. If you use it to all the time, for everything: Yes, it's bad. You should learn how to get a simple rocket into orbit. Learning stuff about rockets and orbits is really a part of the game. If you use it to optimize an Eve lander, and you are tired of launching every new iteration, then getting an encounter with Eve, getting into a stable orbit, etc... then I would totally recommend to just get a Sandbox game, cheat the lander into Eve orbit until it works (which may be 20 iterations later), and then going for it for real in the career game (with a launch from the KSC and the whole transfer to Eve etc.).
  11. I managed to get 6856.9 m/s. Compliments on a fun challenge! I could probably optimize another 100 m/s out of this, but for now I would like to enter this. More info in the spoiler.
  12. I rescued my poor Kerbals. I'd call this schoolbook rescue. Better not go full throttle though, even on those tiny engines. Mission was a complete success. All targets achieved. Only mission control kept piling new missions into this one flight until it ran out of dV.
  13. I play this game since 2016. And I still forget my parachutes sometimes. This is an early career return craft from the Mun, where the word "return" is used rather carelessly. Jeb is somehow still excited...
  14. Use Kerbnet, and create waypoints. These show in map-view. It's much quicker than planting flags anyway.
  15. The Poles of Duna look like candy even more than Minmus! Also very pleased with the rover lander. A little extra steel plating made for very easy delivery of the rovers. Once disconnected they just rolled off and turned themselves. And the ramps doubled as landing legs as well!
  16. Physics you need to understand before starting the game: Basic gravity: Stuff falls down back to a planet or moon unless you put a big engine on it. If it falls from higher, it will splash harder when it hits the ground. Moar Boosters! Physics you do not need to understand because you will slowly learn it in the game: Orbital mechanics Rocket designing The game is really good at teaching actually.
  17. Duna Orbital Station got a bunch of visitors. Career game, and I have 7 missions on and around Duna. All stock, and tech-tree nearly complete.
  18. I am on 1.4.5. The only mod is KER (an old version though, but I that shouldn' t affect this issue, I think?). Btw, sorry for a late reply. Haevn' t had time to play for a couple of days.
  19. I want to build a base, that consists of multiple parts. Always a tricky business, so I figured out a "standardized" way to make sure all docking ports are at the same height. I use the Mk1 (1.25 m) wide parts, and put the LT-2 Struts on them. Those always snap to the exact same position, so those tubular parts of the station are then always at the same height. In the picture above, the docking port is not yet connected. But once I lower the Struts of the section on the left, it will. The first unforeseen problem is: The whole structure jumps into the air as soon as the docking ports dock. KSP probably recalculates the force on each LT-2 strut. But it's quite a violent jump! On Minmus a jump with the same force would jump quite high, potentially giving the whole structure time to rotate as well. The real problem occurs after the base landed again. Both parts were now docked and stable, but I want to remove the little cart that is designed to move parts of the base around. It's hanging free off the junior docking port, very close to the ground (so close that a fall shouldn't break anything). The first part was placed that way: the cart decoupled and drove off. (It's still in the background - a little bit upside down due to some frivolous driving). So, you' d expect the little cart to fall to the ground, and to be able to drive off. However, instead, all 8 LT-2 Struts blow up, the whole base flies around a bit, and the base finally crashes onto the cart which is now stuck underneath. It is quite a reproducible problem too. It occurred multiple times. Is this considered a bug? I really cannot see what I am doing wrong. Any tips would be appreciated. p.s. Skipping the struts, and just leaving all the base parts on wheels is NOT an option. It's a base, not a vehicle.
  20. Just a warning to the reviewers: If you honor this request, then you are making us all beggars. We will all start asking if we can get a little priority. Just saying, not everybody who is active on the forum is posting a lot.
  21. Yes, this bug must not be related to the Goliaths. I had a ship in the Biggest Plane with a Juno challenge (hence no Goliaths). It was a simple tubular hull, with 4-double gigantic wings. The wings were strutted at the very ends. It rotated clockwise without any engines on. Rotated about 90 degrees in an estimated 10-15 seconds.
  22. I managed to land 24.040 tons at the Island airport. I went with my Go-to solution if stuff needs to be heavy in KSP: Ore tanks! It's a real beauty. It was a little struggle to align it with the runway... I have to admit: A few attempts were needed before it landed without losing the outer parts of the wings. Full Imgur album in the spoiler (8 images):
  23. Hahaha, awesome challenge! Reminds me of this 10-year-old Youtube video: p.s. 10 years old, explains the quality. No need for full screen, looks better if you don't, hehe. p.s.p.s. working on my entry. Just thought I'd put this up as inspiration.