Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Atkara

  1. 21 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

    Docking mode. I always mean to figure it out but when I actually need to dock I never bother, just switch to regular staging mode and do it like I've always done.

    I started using it out of curiosity and ended up sticking with it, as it lets me keep my hand on the mouse at all times (even mapped the toggles on the side-buttons). And when you have target tracking on a pilot/probe core, you can use it to let the system handle rotation for you, while you're focused on translation. Makes lining up a lot easier, since you don't have to do two things at once. You're basically docking/capturing with one hand.

  2. 19 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

    When the Career appeared in 0.21 I had already played enough to find it too boring to repeat all childish steps, and didn't require gameplay tutorials.

    Thought many times about moving to sandbox -after all, the need for steps and tutorials is long gone. But every time I step into one, it feels strange... empty. While I'm mainly focused into pursuing my own goals, I like taking the occasional contract (at least the ones that make sense to me), sending my crews to get their 3-5 stars, etc. I do keep a sandbox profile where I test things whenever I need to, but my main is always a career.

    Not trying to sell it to you or anything. Just voicing my thoughts :)

  3. When I first got the game, I took a look at sandbox, got overwhelmed by the number of parts and figured I needed a step by step introduction. I could've gone with science mode but chose career instead.

    Lots of weird rocket designs, lots of trial and error, lots of rocket flips due to excessive drag, some staging errors and many, many good moments, as it was a playthrough of firsts. Mun, Minmus, Duna, Eve (probe), Gilly, Ike and Jool with touchdown on Bop. Docking ops, rescues on both surface and orbit, asteroid captures, mining, my first go at station assembly and my tries on docking with the said station (got it done, eventually) :P 

    It was a good run and I remember most of it. It was a good run. :) 

  4. The worst thing I've faced in KSP, has been myself -specifically, my own ambition. Imagine prepping, sending off and managing multiple flights, while completing local and non-local contracts. This, through a system of 90% reusable infrastructure in the form of outposts, miners, rovers, landers, spaceplanes and other spacecraft -a system that eventually encompassed the whole solar system. And it was as taxing, as much as it was glorious.

  5. 5 hours ago, Reinhart Mk.1 said:

    ...so the problem still isn't technically solved for me.

    We still haven't seen your craft, we have no info on it's fuel reserves/remaining dV and we don't have a save with the craft (ideally) halfway between Jool and Kerbin. Without these, all we can do is chit-chat :) 

  6. 5 hours ago, Dale Christopher said:

    @Reinhart Mk.1 post your spaceship! The community must save you! 

    It's not just the craft. It's also the way he's trying to aerobrake.

    @Reinhart Mk.1 if your current aerobraking method is anything like what I saw in that recent video, that's not the way to do it. You don't go tail first and lock retrograde. Instead, you go nose first, pitch up to ~30 degrees and let those wings work.

  7. On 6/21/2019 at 4:06 PM, Pawelk198604 said:

    I wonder what i would need to send my plane above 70 000 meters :D 

    • Replace the central panther with a rocket engine -and the central fuel tanks obviously, since you'll need oxidizer.
    • Takeoff, pitch up to 45 degrees and engage afterburners on the panthers. You'll be climbing on the panthers alone. The rocket engine will be used later.
    • As you climb, right click on either of the two panthers and monitor it's thrust. When it drops below 50KN, now is the time to stage the rocket engine. Monitor your apoapsis for engine cutoff.

    As far as my plane goes, after a few modifications and a number of test flights, it even reached a stable orbit.


    More pictures here, in case you think I'm trying to pull your leg or something.

    Once in orbit, it has barely enough fuel for a de-orbit burn -but hey, it can get up there. Haven't tried a re-entry yet, but I suspect it will be... not so nominal It re-enters like a champ and I should learn to have more faith in my designs :P  

  8. 1 hour ago, Pawelk198604 said:

    You plane certainly looks more smother and more elegant than mine :D , could you share you plane craft file with me?

    There you go. Read the description and the action group info (I suspect you might have to enable full action groups in the difficulty settings)

    Other than that, it uses parts you've already unlocked in your tech tree. So you're good to go :) 

    1 hour ago, Pawelk198604 said:

    Angle snap?

    Do what @Goody1981 told you and you'll see for yourself what angle snap is :)

  9. 18 minutes ago, <noname> said:

    spring strength set to max, no change.. Bouncing like a beach ball.

    Took your configuration (the one with the I-beams) for a spin. It remains stable at a max spring setting of 0.3. Dampers can be left to 1.0.

  10. When is "moar parts" too many? When you can't immediately recognize the parts you're looking at. It means you don't use them often -or you haven't used them at all. And if you don't use them, you don't need them.

    That's when, as far as I'm concerned.

  11. Back in 1.0.5, I was using Hullcam VDS and Squad's Asteroid Day,. Then 1.1 came out -x64 support, hard to pass.

    Got tired of waiting for either to update, which meant I'd lose ATVs with onboard cameras and sentinel probes in the process. The latter wasn't as bad. But the cars were roaming various celestial bodies by then and I didn't want to hyperedit replacements -seemed too "cheap" at the the time. Ended up restarting, which I obviously didn't quite like.

    And there were other, excellent, well balanced and regularly maintained part mods that I'd be crazy if I ever raised a complaint about. But I sat down and thought "If I had access to these, what reason would I have to use their stock counterparts?"

    Anyway, I resorted to using mods I can live without. Well, except KAC -that one is vital.

    3 hours ago, Xavven said:

    My favorite example is for another game, Freelancer, that was an AI mod that made 1v1 through 1v3 dogfights more challenging and fun, but it created an ENORMOUS difficulty spike in one particular mid-game mission where it's you vs. a large armada, because that mission was originally designed specifically for a poor AI that misses you a lot. That one mid-game mission was almost unbeatable for me -- harder than the game's final missions (with the AI mod still) because you have better equipment late-game. The unmodded game had no such difficulty spike because it was (presumably) thoroughly play-tested.

    Yeah... I think Freelancer was play-tested having in mind players who wouldn't (or didn't know how to) go pseudo-inertial (a.k.a. engine kill) and wouldn't use missiles (or didn't know when to fire one). These, besides the (obvious?) strafing and ECM usage.

    Even then, I've had a relatively recent example of a live-streamer who would repeatedly get destroyed because he wouldn't even boost. And he wouldn't accept ANY advice whatsoever -you risked getting timed or kicked if you did. Because Freelancer's bots can only forgive so far -they will tear you apart if you don't do what you have to :P 

  12. I think I was on my 2nd month in KSP when I did my first docking op. I had made an Apollo style vehicle-lander configuration for the Mun. With the lander being behind the main vehicle, I had to dock with it. So I did. The return from the surface went well, docked back and brought the gang home.

    Docking on an actual station though... that took a number of tries. Did it eventually though.

  13. 1 hour ago, Tyko said:

    Interesting...wouldn't the DV cost be higher? you have to burn enough to be on a reciprocal course, so just as much as if you burned at incoming craft's PE. Then you have to meet it and burn to match the incoming craft - essentially reversing course. Or am I not doing it right?

    Haven't sat down to run it by the numbers and I've always done it on incoming asteroids. The benefit (a very important one, in my opinion) is that by doing it this way, time is on your side.

    Edit: Let me add something else here. You do burn ~950m/s to get there and as the target object does it's SOI transition, you're essentially standing still, related to it. But the target object also has a lower velocity than what it would at it's PE. I don't think the total dV cost changes a lot -like I said, I've never sad down to run it by the numbers. But you've got time on your side and in the case of asteroids, you'll find them being a lot easier to handle out there, than deeper into the planet's gravity well, which is also a big plus.

  14. 3 hours ago, Tyko said:

    Here's a real flight challenge for you:

     Plan a flyby of a planet and have a fueling tanker in orbit around the planet. As your ship is flying by have the tanker accelerate to match course, dock with your ship and refuel it. Not sure what happens then, probably discard the tanker once it's empty

    This is just a crazy idea....

    I would never, ever meet an incoming object, (craft or asteroid) at it's periapsis, if that's what you mean. I'd do it just as it enters the 'x' planet's SOI -specifically, I'd be where the SOI transition occurs, when it occurs- in order to have enough time to do what I intend to do with it and in the case of a passing craft, separate and get back into a stable orbit once done.

  15. 6 hours ago, Aegolius13 said:

    Back to the original question, I'm pretty skeptical of waystations at the other planets for the reasons discussed above -- it adds grindy gameplay, takes a ton of in-game time, you don't really save much (if any) delta-v after factoring in the cost of getting into and out of your waystation orbits, as well as the Oberth losses.

    Expanding around the solar system will always be a grindy business, as you're one guy, doing everything. Oberth losses are not something I ever worried about though, since with the system up and running, what counts is the fuel your craft is designed to carry -and that fuel is for free. And if you play career, well... what's better than being already where the 'x' contract wants you to be? 

    That been said, I won't stop e.g. at Duna on my way to Jool, if I don't have to. If I do (which was the case for a specific spaceplane I was sending to Laythe that couldn't make the trip), the infrastructure is there, servicing incoming/outgoing flights and fulfilling contracts.

    It's a grindy business -but seeing it working, is magnificent.

  16. 1 hour ago, 5thHorseman said:

    Well, that's up to the player.

    Yep. Specifically, the design principles he wants to apply to his craft :)

    50 minutes ago, M_Rat13 said:

    Also, as I said, you aren't just throwing your craft away at the end, or trying to land a cumbersome SSTO. Interplanetary craft can just stay in space for the next mission, and all you really need to do is bring new kerbals or new equipment into space, in vehicles designed just to get into orbit.

    So, you also have re-usability in mind. That's good.

    I've done what you have in mind, in two subsequent playthroughs. It does keep size to a manageable level, among other things. Is it worth it? Like @5thHorseman said, it's up to the player. Was it worth it for me? Obviously yes :) 

  • Create New...