Jump to content

Fraktal

Members
  • Content Count

    493
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

327 Excellent

3 Followers

About Fraktal

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

1,559 profile views
  1. I'm yet to play career, mind you, and only recently got to Duna for the first time ever before I reset the tech tree, downgraded all facilities to level 1 and cranked up aero heating to 120% in order to experiment with the addition of 1.11's EVA science kit and how much it alters the 10% tech tree progression while I'm waiting for the Duna->Kerbin transfer window. I thought of my first career game being 10% science as well, but I'm not sure if I'll be able to pull it off without running out of money early on due to having to fly a LOT of missions to progress early on. I'm yet to see an
  2. You say you did that a couple years ago? Heh. After 1241 hours in the game, I'm yet to play with anything other than 10% science. Far as I'm concerned, it's how KSP was meant to be played. Hence why, when I was looking at overhauling the stock tech tree, I was thinking of applying a 0.1 multiplier to all science rewards by default due to so many people complaining that the stock tech tree is too easy to unlock if you grind in Kerbin's SOI, which I aimed to fix by making the grinding mandatory - but then realized that if I did that and someone additionally set the difficulty multiplier below 10
  3. Stock game's already possible with that, if you don't mind having to visit Minmus orbit before landing on the Mun and having your first couple interplanetary visits not use Nervs.
  4. I ran into that issue too: the jetpack doesn't produce any lift on the Mun until about 40% thrust at default kerbal loadout (ie. parachute and jetpack).
  5. I don't know about the stock dV display, but the KER one doesn't combine dV values if you disable crossfeed on either docking port. Damn ninja kraken...
  6. Or you could always just mount the engines said fuel is needed for radially. That's what I usually do for my landers: engines are mounted radially, heatshield is on ground level, all docking is done at the front, rather than the back, so nothing needs to crossfeed through the heatshield.
  7. Not bad at all. When slapping together a plane with these early parts, what gets me all the time are the rear landing gear. I put the main wings at the front, so the rear wheels can only go onto the fuselage, which makes them very narrowly packed. You dodged that issue with the canarded rear-wing design. Also, am I seeing it right that you're packing two Mk1 fuel tanks in addition to the Mk0 ones the engines are mounted onto? That much fuel is enough for, like, circumnavigating Kerbin around 2/3 of the way. Not sure of the exact number, but one is enough to reach the poles. Just an FYI.
  8. Would indeed be useful in zero gee, considering how awful the EVA camera control is.
  9. Manley got me into this game too years ago, around... 1.4, I think. Got me in a bit of a dilemma trying to decide between KSP or Space Engineers, both of which I was eyeing but neither of which I had a strong enough PC for. I ultimately chose KSP.
  10. Never, for the same reason why the ESA is sticking to non-reusable rockets despite SpaceX outcompeting the excrements out of them in launch price: every rocket that isn't single-use is one more rocket that doesn't need to be rebuilt from scratch in the factory. Less rockets means less work for the factory, less work for the factory means layoffs to maintain profitability, layoffs mean unemployment, unemployment means the politician who pushed for reusability can say goodbye to reelection. Try to portray that in KSP. Seriously, them kerbals have it easy. Now I find myself wishing f
  11. I'm aware, but insufficient dV almost always requires more fuel (unless the problem is low Isp). Mixing engines of different fuel types is and always has been a case of "do it at your own peril". And if your TWR is really that low that it can't deal with a little extra weight, that's an engine choice problem, not weight problem. MOAR BOOSTERS is not always the solution... but every other time it is.
  12. There's no such thing in KSP. No margin of error is asking for trouble in a game with orbital calculations as rounding-happy as they are.
  13. While I never built anything reality-inspired (parts tend to be too high up in the tech tree for my preference), I did a lot of experimentation with KV pods and can state with absolute certainty that you can, in fact, launch a KV-1 pod to space without a fairing, but it requires a completely different rocket design methodology than a Mk1 command pod. You need a strong lower stage. Looking at an image of an R7, that seems to be the case already, but what I'm saying in particular is that whatever stage you mount your fins on, DO NOT DROP THAT STAGE until you're well above 50 km altitude. A
  14. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Until you get mid-game launchers, functional is pretty much all you can do efficiently. ---- My most frequent and frustrating problem is getting un-aerodynamic payloads into orbit. KV pods in the early game, labs, hitchhiker storage modules and 2.5m fuel tanks afterwards. Putting it in a fairing pretty much never helps (and is not an option for KV pods anyway), regardless of whether it's fairing-ended or interstage-fairing. I also constantly find myself struggling to build a 1.875m rocket with any kind of useful performance increase over a 1.2
×
×
  • Create New...