Cpt Kerbalkrunch

Members
  • Content Count

    906
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cpt Kerbalkrunch

  1. I always had this "problem" as well. KAC is my only mod; and I wouldn't wanna do without it. However, it really can slow your progress if you let it. I learned to put a stop to it with a pretty simple cutoff switch; money. Once I have an unGodly amount of cash, I start warping more. This also coincides with Reputation. Once your Rep is high enough, it doesn't hurt you to warp for long periods. This also has the added bonus of letting you cherry pick through the available contracts. If you keep getting the same ones, you can let 'em go and wait for something better. I've also found, once you start heading further out and warping for longer periods, you will reach points where there is an exciting blur of activity all at once. You'll have ships arriving at Moho and Duna while you're in the middle of a few missions around Jool. And now your ship at Eve has a window home, while the next launch window to Eeloo just opened. I really love it when you get to that point. Sometimes I jump to an alarm and can barely remember building a certain ship or what it was meant to do. It's a lot of fun. So if you've got the cash, act like a fat-cat. Thumb your nose at those piddly contracts and move on to bigger and better things. It's more exciting.
  2. I hear @RoverDude's a musician anyway. He probably lives in a van.
  3. And that people no longer "like" your posts, but "react" to them. Did Facebook trademark the term "like"? And is that real pizza? Or the crap everyone outside of Chicago eats?
  4. Hey, @TriggerAu. Looks like you guys added the Advanced Tutorial to the Mission Builder. Much appreciated good sir. Sincere thanks.
  5. Is there anything more exhilarating than booting up Steam and seeing that KSP is updating? Of course there is. But it's tough to think of them while KSP is updating.
  6. Squad has consistently, and publicly, stated that they will not negotiate with terrorists. All the same, though. Couldn't hurt.
  7. These review-bombs are infuriating. It's not only dishonest, but downright despicable. It undermines the entire review system. I don't trust a game developer to tell me how awesome their game is. I trust you, my fellow gamer, because I assume we're honest with one another. This is the same crap that happened the last time KSP had a negative review spike. Then, it was Chinese players angry about changing that "you must be a real man to get to the Mun" thing in the 1.3 version. This, I think, is even worse. A lot of those players had just bought the game for the localization of 1.3 in Chinese. This time, these are actual players. One guy has over 600 hours. If you actually play this game and give it a negative review, you are a liar. This is not an opinion. It is a fact. Someone can say this game is not for them, and that cannot be argued, but you cannot say it is a crappy game. I don't play GTA5 because it's not for me, but I've seen it played enough to know that is obviously a good game. These reviews matter. It was Steam's bombardment of ads that showed me KSP when 1.0 was released, but it was the reviews that sold me. I watched the first video on the store page like I always do, then scrolled down to the reviews. I always read a few good reviews and a few bad ones. There were no bad reviews near the top at that time. By the second review I knew I would buy the game. It simply said "I think I have a problem". I didn't get it at first. Then I looked at his hours played. It was well over 1,000. That seemed to me to be absurd at the time. I now have over 3,000 myself. These reviews matter. Giving a negative review to an obviously great game is an outright lie. You are stomping your feet to show how angry you are; and disparaging an obviously great game in the process. And you could also possibly be depriving would-be Kerbonauts from ever experiencing what amounts to a life-altering game if it really gets ahold of you (and God help you if it does). In short, if you wanna do something that matters, get off your couch. Make a sign and go stand outside Take2 headquarters and shout at their executives as they come and go. This might actually accomplish something, but it would also require you to actually do something. At this point, I have zero respect for you. Now get the hell away from my game. And good riddance to ya.
  8. The expansion is still "stock", since it was released by Squad, and I consider it such. However, the Wolfhound is not now, and never will be stock to me unless its performance is lowered to somewhere in the "normal" range. If I wanted a modded engine, I'd install a mod. On the other hand, I'm really enjoying the Cheetah. And all the 1.875m parts really. I think they were a great addition to the game. The Mk2 Command Pod was much needed as well, and I've been using it quite a bit (though I'm not too fond of the color). I was left a bit disappointed that there's no good landing engine for that size to mimic the Terrier/Poodle. I generally have radial tanks and engines anyway, but It's something I'd like to see in the future. As for the giant Stayputnik-looking Vostok pods; not really sure yet. I can see them as cool escape pods for space stations, but I haven't used them too much yet, though I did send one to Eve in my "Top Secret Mission to Gilly" in the Missions forum of the Making History section. Mostly just to see if it could "survive the dive". It did.
  9. Sorry for the late response. Got killed at work today. The difficulty thing is more of a "label" than a "setting". It's a little slider that you can slide back and forth so that the mission is labeled anywhere from "beginner" to "expert". This lets other players know how difficult the mission is going to be. It's in the "Mission Briefing" menu.
  10. Kerbal personal parachutes we're included in the 1.4 update. So they're stock now.
  11. See the "Export" button below? It's in the Mission Briefing menu (hit the little icon at the upper right to open it). A pop-up will show you what the filename is going to be (you can change it if you want, obviously). Then, in your KSP folder, open the "Missions" folder. Inside will be one called "_Exports". Inside that folder will be your mission. When you open it, choose "Extract All" to unzip it. Then copy it, go to Drive.Google.Com and paste it there. Then, copy the link and post it here on the forum (generally down in the "Missions" subsection of the "Making History" section). It sounds quite a bit more complicated than it really is. You'll get the hang of it pretty quick.
  12. When you have your mission settings window open, hit "export". This will zip the file, and it'll be ready to export to whichever file-hosting site you want to use. I used Google Drive because it's free and I already had it on my computer.
  13. Are there any plans to add functionality to the Mission Builder in this update? There are a few things that don't work quite right, some that don't work at all, and a few that are needed (at least, imo). Also, has anyone thought to move the Making History section of the forum a bit higher up? I didn't know it was there for over a week. A bit of promotion certainly couldn't hurt.
  14. @Sirad, I'd like to apologize now if my comment above was a bit harsh. I don't mean to knock the way you play. We all play differently, and one way is as good as any other. If you learned via Mechjeb, then so be it. There's no way to say something is right or wrong in this game; just whether it's fun or not. If you're enjoying the game, that's all that really matters. I just get a bit heated when I hear that the stock game is not playable or fun. Has nothing to do with you personally. Plus I work 12 hour days, so maybe I'm just tired. Anyway, time to pass out. Hope all goes well, happy landings and whatnot.
  15. I would say this is why you think these things are difficult. Instead of learning to do them, you put the game on autopilot and watched. This is why I always respond in these threads. I've seen many new players ask for advice in the Gameplay Questions forum, and the first thing they're told is "install Mechjeb or KER, the game is unplayable without them". It is dead wrong and, in my opinion, detrimental to the player's development. Maybe at least try the game first? Are you of the believe that games should be easy? Or do you think it should take some time to learn the skills necessary to become good at it? If you are comparing your video game experiences to NASA, that might be where things began to go wrong for you.
  16. My "typing" comment was somewhat in response to your "playing without a monitor" comment, but also somewhat serious. It's an example of memory (though a bit extreme, I'll admit, just for kicks). Let me ask you; have you ever performed an orbital rendezvous? I'll assume you have. Did you use a mod or calculator of some kind? Or did you just eyeball it and play around with a maneuver node until you got it right? Transfers are the same thing. They are simply on a much larger scale. I did not say this was easy (I myself admitted it can be tedious). I did not say this is how I play now. I said this is how I played my entire first year. Some comments and even entire posts were deleted from this thread, so I don't know if you read them all. I have many posts in many different threads where I talk about KAC being my one and only mod. I installed it about a month after I began playing, and have had it ever since. I was playing for about a year when I discovered this forum, and someone casually mentioned in a thread about transfers that KAC could plot them for you. I had no idea. I thought it was just for keeping track of SOI changes and maneuver nodes. I had it all that time and never explored its functionality at all (how's that for stupid?). I played that way for all that time because I thought that's how you were supposed to play. And I can still do it now, if need be. The experience taught me an awful lot. Here in this thread, I was originally responding to comments saying it is impossible to play that way. It is obviously not. There were also comments saying it wasn't any fun. I disagree with this as well. We all decide for ourselves what's fun and what's not, so I can't speak for anyone else, but I had an absolute blast playing that way. And I never felt limited in any way. I learned a ton, and traveled to and landed on every body that can be landed on (I don't remember if I had done my first Eve ascent yet or not; it was right around that same time). I was also responding to specific examples that were given. I said that they were bad examples and I stand by it. The 2 examples were Jool and Moho. I said that Jool is the one planet I can hit on the first try every time without a transfer tool. I stand by this as well, and I'm not sure why anyone would find this hard to believe. Any experienced player knows that Jool is by far the easiest planet to hit, because of its huge SOI. When I was still eyeballing transfers, Jool was my favorite planet to travel to. Not just because of all the moons and how cool it looks, but because it was so easy. I could certainly be wrong, but I believe anyone who says they can't do this has probably never really tried. The other example given was Moho. I said this was a bad example and, again, I stand by it. Of all the planets, Moho is the only one I have never used an alarm for. I thought there were 2 agreed upon "best" ways to go to Moho. Either the bi-elliptical transfer, or the flyby of Eve. I set an alarm for Eve on occasion, but I usually don't bother because I don't wanna wait for a year for Eve to swing around. So I simply burn for the sun, then lower my orbit. At that point, it is very much like a rendezvous. If you've been to Moho, you know it is moving extremely fast. It only takes an orbit or 2 before you can get a good encounter. This as well, I can't see how anyone would label "difficult" or "impossible". None of this, however, should be interpreted as me saying that eyeballing transfers is as easy or efficient as using a transfer tool. I am simply saying that it is entirely possible to play that way; even for a new player. Now, about the Delta V stuff. You're comment about building a ship 5 times larger than it needs to be is a clear indication that you have no idea what the trial & error method entails. It is not about over-engineering. It is (mostly) about guesswork based on experience. You build a ship you think will be about right, based on everything you've learned. You launch and see how well it performs. Did you have too much or not enough? Was the lander under or overpowered? How was your transfer stage and your lifter? You make the necessary adjustments and launch again. It is extremely satisfying when it now performs much better. And when you nail it on the first try, it leaves you with a true feeling of accomplishment. I am certainly not the only one who plays this way. So when people say it's "too hard" or "impossible" to play without info mods, and they should therefore be stock (which I am not opposed to), I always feel the need to say that it is entirely possible, and a lot of fun besides. But we certainly don't need to agree on the point. We can simply go our separate ways, play the way we play, and leave it at that. Apologies for the incredibly late reply. Had most of this typed out hours ago, but work got crazy.
  17. Agree. Though I wouldn't rule out more DLC for KSP in the meantime.
  18. I wouldn't be opposed to that, but I think we all know more is coming. Whether it's more updates, DLC, or a sequel, I couldn't say. But T2 didn't buy the title just to declare it finished. At this point, which would you consider more likely: 1.5 or KSP2? Neither would surprise me.
  19. If you think that's something, this'll blow your mind: I can also type without looking at the keyboard. Freakin' crazy, ain't it? Out of curiosity, how exactly does one go about calculating a DV window? Sounds difficult.
  20. When MH was released, I (somewhat jokingly) said in another thread we'd be seeing 1.4.8 at some point. I haven't really seen anything to change my mind but, if I were a betting man, I'd set the over/under at 4. Mostly because, at that point, we'll probably be seeing 1.5 instead.
  21. If you're adept with spaceplanes, Laythe itself can make for a self-sufficient system. Jet engines are high-effiency, so you can overcome the atmospheric losses with comparatively low cost to orbit. As an added bonus, you won't need to travel anywhere. With all that, I still prefer Pol (not a spaceplane guy). To me, Val's gravity negates it's usefulness, as you said. With Pol, on the other hand, you can make your fuel shuttle as large as you want to. And although you'll use a lot of it on the transfer, you'll have plenty to spare. You can also aerocapture at Laythe to save some Delta V. And on the way back, the ship will be much lighter; making the transfer cheaper. And, as you no doubt already know, it costs almost nothing to land on Pol. I like Bop as well, and have an operation there, but my refueling setup on Pol has served me well for a long time. You'll get plenty of opinions on this subject (as with anything else). So it really comes down to personal preference. I think Pol works the best. Others will say somewhere else. About the only thing you won't hear is Tylo. Nobody's that crazy.
  22. Thanks, @MrUnderhill. I had hoped this would be a challenge that would be fun (but also challenging) for experienced and new players alike. The idea was to have a story, and to also get players to maybe do some things they hadn't tried before. I had a pretty good scoring system set up, but the current limits of the Mission Builder made it tough to do. I'm hoping the next update will resolve some of these issues. Thanks again for participating, and congrats on your success.
  23. When I was doing the Mun Arch Challenge, I had never looked for anomalies before, and someone suggested using the Mk2 dronecore. This turned out to be a very good suggestion. It was the only problem I could get to work well. It has a high detection rate, but also a good field of view. If you put one in a polar orbit of Mun, for example, turn on Kerbnet, hit timewarp, and keep hitting the "refresh" button, anomalies will begin popping up all over the surface (there are a good number of them on Mun). Then you just tag them for navigation and land by them one at a time to see what they are. This obviously works anywhere else, as well. It's kinda fun, cuz you never know what it's gonna be until you get close enough to actually see it. I think you'll enjoy finding them. And, if nothing else, they make for good screenshots.
  24. I can make it real simple; just wait for the next update. I'm kidding, of course, but serious at the same time. It's a well known (and very well reported) oversight in the 1.4.2 update. It'll be rectified in the next update; which is surely not far off.