Klapaucius

Members
  • Content Count

    1,215
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,619 Excellent

6 Followers

About Klapaucius

  • Rank
    Senior Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

2,079 profile views
  1. I think we just defined it differently. Mods to me are free content created by players (eg. Galileo's Planet Pack), DLC I think of as paid-for additional content created by the developer (Breaking Ground). So when I vote no sci-fi DLC, I am specifically thinking of where Star Theory spends its time and resources. I have a feeling we actually agree on this. Re Space Engineers: I looked at it, but it did not seem like my cup of tea.
  2. You can do whatever you want in your game, and no one is saying folks cannot make mods. But for me, personally, I'd rather the company spend company resources developing content consistent with a plausible future scenario. If I want more sci-fi, I can find other games for that. I've not played it, but I think something like Space Engineers probably goes more in that direction.
  3. I have to disagree. I am certain we are not alone: the universe is just too insanely stupidly huge for us to be an anomaly. Even if there was only one civilization in every one million galaxies, that would mean 100,000 civilizations out there in the known universe. Considering there are 300 billion stars in our galaxy alone, I think the odds we are even alone in our own galaxy are low. But whether we will ever be able to meet another species---I would say the odds are against that, and if we did, it might just be too alien for us to have any meaningful exchange. Also, it is entirely plausible to be sending probes interstellar, but it would be laser-propelled nanoprobes. https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/100-million-for-probes-to-alpha-centauri-yes-really/ In fact, it would make sense in KSP2 from a realism standpoint to have interstellar travel begin as nanoprobes using that very laser idea. It would be a really cool game addition.
  4. Go small. All things being equal, the lighter it is, the less speed it needs to get airborne. Additional wing area helps as well. Check out some of the biplanes on KerbalX. A lot of these will fly quite slowly. I was able to cruise at around 30 m/s in this one: https://kerbalx.com/KerbalAstronautics/Sparrow-B
  5. I highly recommend @katateochi's KerbalX Craft Manager. It has a ton of great features including much larger sized previews. https://kerbalx.com/CraftManager
  6. I have no interest in a fully speculative KSP; it completely defeats the purpose of the game for me. For me, it is what is plausibly doable in the near future versus what is, at this time, absolute and pure speculation. I fully believe that we really do not have any idea what is possible, but we do have some idea of what is possibly doable in the next few hundred years. Yes of course, some big technological leap could happen, but I imagine that if it does, it will not be anything we predicted. And when it does, it will be time for KSP 3 anyway. There are other games out there that allow you to build those types of spacecraft--and there is nothing wrong with that--but that is not the KSP vibe that keeps me interested.
  7. Just scanning through (and practicing my rusty Russian), so is that a Science Fiction club newsletter with a guest article? I also see mention of an electronic games lovers club? I had a Merlin, and I had forgotten about the air and water rockets!
  8. My mother took my friend and me to see this when it first came out. Notice it was not called "A New Hope" nor was it "Episode IV." There was no CGI awkwardly pasted onto it (we did not even know what that was) and Solo shot first. It was Star Wars, plain and simple, and it blew our minds. There was no on demand video or even VCRs. I saw it six times in the cinema in the first year.
  9. Yes, I saw that, which had me wondering if I should wait, but then again, who knows when in 2020 it will actually be released.
  10. Hello, Considering how much I enjoy flying in KSP (but also know it is more about building weird craft than actual flight simulation) and due to the fact I am hoping to start on a real life microlite licence in 2020, I''ve been looking at flight simulators. Since all games have a learning curve, I'm keen to get some advice before diving in. I've downloaded Flight Gear and DCS, but am okay spending money (within reason) if there is better and more realistic. Other options: Flight Simulator X XPlane 11 Aerofly FS2 and part of me wonders if I should just wait for Microsoft X019. Do you any of you play these? If so, what do you prefer and why? At the moment, I am more interested in civilian than military. If you start in one, is it fairly easy to go to another? Is most of the learning curve about the individual aircraft or does each individual game require a big time investment just to get your head around the game mechanics? Finally, how much grunt do you need in your computer? I have a reasonable video editing PC. i7 3.6 GHz 32GB Ram with a Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060.
  11. Okay. The competition has been fiercer than expected. I'm on about design number 5 and who knows how many variations. I have not beat the best of you, but I did manage to land on the ground. I hit 716.9 for a fraction of a second. On level it will do about 705ish. My altitude attempt got me to 28,000 but I crashed that landing. A previous plane nearly made it to the Dessert Airfield but exploded, so I will have to give that another go.
  12. Nice! Are the side nacelles dissipating some of the heat? @Pds314 He bested you by 1.2 m/s. Are you going to let that stand?
  13. Sorry, did not see the VelociDrum run. As for the other, I gave a minute penalty since you exploded and would have taken time to land.
  14. I made a VTOL with Goliaths once (too much drag for this challenge). I wound up using chutes. They are insanely difficult to land because the engine takes so long to spool up. I've done it, but it was like a 2% success rate. https://kerbalx.com/Klapaucius/Bradbury-VTOL
  15. No, unless we create an unlimited class. Which is possible.