Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cavscout74

  1. I actually fired up KSP and discovered I actually remember how to get to orbit. And return!! Nothing too impressive, but I haven't played in a while so it was nice to still remember what I'm doing. I also realized this build didn't have a lot of the mods I usually used - particularly Scatterer. Suborbital hop Jeb in LKO And coming home
  2. For me personally, I kinda burned out on KSP. I'm sure i'll play again in the future, but KSP just hasn't been what I've wanted lately. And when I'm not actively playing, I don't spend much time on the forums besides an occasional check in. This won't be popular, but it's how I feel: It doesn't help matters for me that the last two KSP updates didn't exactly thrill me - after discovering problems in 1.11 with some mods I've used for years, I went back to 1.10. Then 1.12 came out and didn't fix any of the issues while adding new ones, which didn't exactly make me eager to come back. Finally, a lot of the info I've seen on KSP2 has me feeling lukewarm about it rather than excited. I hope I'm wrong, but that also contributes to my continued lack of forum participation.
  3. The last steam sale I picked up Skyrim, and I've been sinking most of my time into that. I also picked up Teardown, which I've played a little but I'm not enjoying it as much as I thought. The missions are more timed puzzles than actually destroying anything so far. I'm not planning on refunding it, but I'm glad I got it on sale.
  4. I've been messing around with Empyrion as well. Like XLJedi said, the game tends to lead you the wrong direction in the beginning. I had tried it and didn't do much with it till he gave me some advice and now its one of my main time sinks. Didn't hurt that I got extremely annoyed with my previous time sink (Stormworks), deleted my workshop creations for it & uninstalled the game. On an unrelated note, has anyone played Reentry: An Orbital Simulator?
  5. Having "one ship fits all" like a lot of sci-fi is just that - sci-fi. For Earth (or any other oxygen-atmosphere body), HL/HL makes some sense if the engine tech was there (Skylon/SABRE) but anywhere else VL/VL is the only truly viable option until we get to a point where there are runways on the Moon or Mars. And to clarify, I define horizontal and vertical as being the primary velocity component not the craft orientation. A dedicated lander that is built horizontally but has vertically mounted rockets and no wheels is still a vertical launch/landing.
  6. While realistic, I don't see that adding anything besides extra steps to build a complete rocket. For either probes or rovers, you are still going to stick them in either a spaceplane or rocket to get where they are going. If there is testing that needs to be done on the surface, the SPH or VAB work fine. If we actually had to build complex probes, wire them & test systems, then something like this might be useful, and that game might be fun but it wouldn't be KSP IMO. EDIT: It actually would be a little like Rover Mechanic Simulator
  7. Personally I aim for closer to a 1.4-1.5 TWR first stage. For stock scale, usually that will clear or nearly clear the atmosphere and my second & higher stages I will stick with 0.5-1.
  8. Just an FYI - this gets charged through Xsolla. So if (like me) you've never heard of them before and suddenly get a random notification that Xsolla charged $$ to your paypal account for a subscription it tends to cause some alarm. Especially when you are already battling other identity theft issues.
  9. As of 1.11 (?) it didn't work correctly. Most things still worked, but it caused issues with the construction mode and the MH round pods - when you decoupled the pod, it stayed "attached" to the base by what felt like an invisible rubber band. Went through a reentry with the spent stage staying exactly the same distance (~400m IIRC) from the pod the whole way, including floating in the air above the pod after splashdown. I haven't checked back in a while, so I don't know if the KJR folks ever were able to work it out.
  10. I'll use three sometimes in the early career when limited to 30 parts, but any other time I'll use four if I use any. When I do use just three, it is almost always fixed fins for passive stability rather than controllable fins.
  11. Do something like what I've been tinkering with: - JNSQ system - modified Tetrix Tech Tree - TacLS - Kerbal Launch Failure (or some other part failure mod) - Build time: I use a spreadsheet to calculate build time based on cost with reductions for reputation and building upgrades, but KCT works as well plus whatever part mods you want to include. Hard career settings with part pressure & g-force limits turned on, signal required for control & plasma blackout on. Adjust the money/science/rep rewards to taste. The 2.7x rescale from JNSQ makes everything I'm used to wrong. Think I have enough dV to reach orbit? Think again. Think I have plenty to get to/from Mun? Wrong. It has been a new learning experience. Also, JNSQ makes reentry actually dangerous for a change. Even Mun/Minmus returns, you're seeing >5000 m/s velocity as you enter the atmosphere. All the planets have been reworked to some degree, plus a set of new ones to explore as well. Granted it doesn't give a specific goal, but it does make the stock system feel new again. EDIT: I haven't tried 1.12, but JNSQ was still working fine in 1.10 & 1.11
  12. Not on my game computer right now, but if I remember correctly - hit Esc, click settings, at the bottom is a button marked "advanced settings" or something like that. Click that & it will take you to the same settings windows you had when creating the save. One of those tabs has the "Fuel Transfer obeys crossfeed rules" option, near the bottom left on whichever tab it's on.
  13. Am I the only one that half the announcements for KSP2 make me less enthusiastic for it?
  14. If any group deserves a free copy of KSP 2, it would be some of the modders that have added so much to KSP1 over the years. And that is a small enough group that it shouldn't have a significant impact on income from the game.
  15. Did you not sacrifice enough kerbonauts to the kraken or something so he has to extract the sacrifices from Kerbin directly?
  16. That makes some sense - although these are drogues. The thin JSNQ Duna atmosphere won't even allow main chutes to deploy - even the drogues set at 0.02 deployment pressure deploy at less than 5000m. But sticking a pair or so of the radial drogues to the nose instead of on top of the radial tanks might work better. The weirdest part is this basic design with minor changes has been my normal Duna lander for years without any of these issues going into the thicker stock Duna atmosphere but the near vacuum JNSQ Duna is giving me fits
  17. Tried yet again to land on Duna. When that still didn't work, made some edits to the lander design & cheated it to Duna to try. Same result The first try was actually going somewhat ok - but I started braking too late and slammed into the ground at about 80 m/s. And it was still getting hard to control after parachute deployment, which makes no sense to me Redesigned lander taking a try - it was more stable right up until I deployed the chutes At that point it started spinning around the long axis again, then tumbling. Makes zero sense, the chutes are adding drag to the top (aft end) and the fuel is set to burn from the top tanks down to the bottom, keeping as much mass as possible in the bottom (front during descent). And this one had more fuel and had burned less, putting more mass up front than the original lander. And the rotation it picks up should stabilize it more rather than cause it to tumble on all 3 axis.
  18. True, but it never has in the past. And it didn't for the small base I already landed on Duna. Mounting them correctly would have them too far towards the tail too. Which might work if I had more than a few seconds before impact. I appreciate the help btw, not trying to be difficult. Just having an odd problem that isn't making much sense. I'm thinking more and more that I will need to do an almost entirely propulsive landing and not worry about the chutes. That might leave me short of dV for the return to orbit though - but if I land close enough to my outpost, it has some left-over fuel from it's landing. Here are the two designs for comparison - and bigger outpost landed mostly safely, just breaking a single gear while the smaller lander keeps losing it when the chutes deploy. Outpost: Lander:
  19. Actually it descends tail first & the brakes are as far up as I can make them without extending the radial fuel tanks. The gear deploying makes it slightly wobbly, which makes sense as they add drag to the "front" during descent. But it is still ok right up until the chutes deploy, then it goes haywire - and it spins around its long axis initially. Very fast along its long axis - which you would expect would stabilize the craft (like a bullet), but then it tumbles. Maybe that is just a result of trying to regain control, but that phase only lasts a few seconds before the ground rises up to smash the lander. I think I just need to do an almost entirely propulsive landing because the chutes deploy so late. Gonna try again but then I may just need to redesign the entire lander. I've used the same basic design for stock Duna, but JNSQ Duna is not being cooperative.
  20. Pretty much what @UmbralRaptor said - nice to have the info sometimes. Mostly just to satisfy curiosity. Actual benefits? I guess if you wanted to figure out an exact altitude on a specific planet or moon to deploy your parachutes, then the pressure readout could be useful. Edit: Actually, I did think of a use - if you are using a planet pack, depending on how well documented it is, you may very well not have any data on atmospheric pressure so it could be useful there, same with temp & gravity.
  21. Crashed my JNSQ Duna lander. Again. All was going perfectly until the drogues deployed, then the lander began spinning violently followed by tumbling. Even enabling RCS I couldn't get it back under control before impacting terrain - due to the low pressure, even the drogues can't deploy until close to the surface, leaving little time to react. I really don't understand what is going on, because the outpost that I previously landed - while somewhat hard to handle - didn't react like this to the drogue deployment and the basic designs are similar (2.5m core with quad 1.25m radial landing engines with drogues on top)
  22. Nertea's Near Future series and Restock, primarily. A bunch of others too, but those are the biggest parts changes
  • Create New...