• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ZL647

  1. This one is much older has early mentions from YouTube. When videos were recorded I'm really low quality, they were said to be recorded with a potato. I personally believe the origin is even earlier than that, cause I know we've been making fun of people's out of date computers since the dawn of gaming, so it seems unlikely that it first originated in the 2000s.
  2. I'll agree only with Eve. On other planetary bodies their atmosphere effectively ends so low as to render the effect you are talking about to be largely irrelevant. All you have to do is throttle back some.
  3. However, due to the flight path taken by a rocket, drag quickly ceases to be an issue.
  4. You're playing with heat modifier two, you need to do a powered reentry, spam heat shields, or change that back to normal.
  5. I can't tell what that is, it's too dark.
  6. Nice biased poll you got going there, implying that people who dont use life support mods are somehow playing the game incorrectly. There is no right or wrong way to play KSP. We can play it however we want. That's why they let us mod, or not mod, to our hearts content.
  7. Wolfhound is a stock engine. It's part of the Making History Expansion released by the devs. It's balance is questionable, but it's still stock.
  8. I pretend mine are the rugrats. It explains so much.
  9. I'm starting to see that. It completely blows my mind. I couldn't imagine buying a game without all its parts haha. I'm the kind in steam that just clicks to buy the bundle with all the DLC included XD.
  10. Unless they specify they don't have the full version of the game, I just assume they do. That's kinda the norm in gaming to assume expansions are owned unless specified. Maybe that's different in the KSP community?
  11. Umm wolfhound destroys poodle. Wolfhound has higher thrust, higher twr, and higher ISP. There are only a couple reasons you might choose poodle over Wolfhound. 1. The wolfhound is vertically too large for your lander design. 2. You just like the poodle. But in general, the poodle has been put out like Old Yeller. Terrier, Wolfhound, Nerva, and Ion are the vacuum engines of choice.
  12. Yeah. I dont bother with poodle anymore. I just use wolfhound or terrier depending on ship size, for landers and Nerva or Wolfhound for orbital stuff depending on how I feel about long burns.
  13. It very well could but I haven't tested it. Maybe I should air drop some Kerbals on their heads. I just know they do burn up on reentry now so you can't drop them on their heads from a direct Minmus -> Kerbin return using their EVA packs.
  14. Most likely explanation is that kerbal is not a pilot, the plane doesnt have a probe, and now that hes out of the cockpit you've lost any and all control of the aircraft. But I honestly could have sworn you could eva Kerbals and transfer kerbals even on a dead craft. He went to use the bathroom and the door auto locked behind him. Gg.
  15. Not really. It's an issue fixed very very early in the tech tree with the strut tech. Really, if you run into this issue before you have strut tech, then you were building pretty silly rockets for the tech you had available. I have a hard time imagining a design that isn't ridiculous that could trigger noodle rocket syndrome, while the player also has a launch pad capable of launching it, and doesnt have struts unlocked yet. Maybe in science mode. But not in Career or Free mode.
  16. Its hilariously fitting for how light hearted and cartoony the game is.
  17. They can be quite fun and challenging to design. Then you get to have that good feeling when you succeed. Beyond that, their main use is career mode to save yourself some $$ since you'll get quite a bit back for recovering them, so they make good contract farmers. Or if you just happen to like them. Beyond that, they don't serve any purpose that a conventional rocket can't also serve, and they require some design choices that definitely place restrictions on their capability. However, being as this is a game, and I enjoy them, I still find myself making lots of SSTO space planes XD
  18. That's a really low clock speed. Go in manually and crank it. Lots of physics calculations are going on behind the scenes in KSP, and those calculations rapidly scale with part count of the ship. You'll find that gaming is much more reliant on a high throughput high clock speed processor than on number of cores. The only real benefit to multicore processors for gaming is forcing it to launch separate applications of separate processors. Beyond that, serious multicore processors dont really help and often perform worse since they typically run at lower clock speeds. There's a reason the 2600k i7 from 2010 is still fully capable of playing top end games to this day and is pretty comparable to a current gen i5. The darn thing overclocks to stupid levels without frying itself.
  19. Interesting questions. First off, gravitational forces decline with the square of distance, so as distance approaches infinity, the gravitational attraction between the black hole and craft would be 0 thus you wouldn't fall into it. Okay so you aren't actually at infinity, let's change this up and say you slowly fall toward the black hole at a realistic distance where gravity would actually accelerate you. As you approach the black hole, the differential in force between the outside and inside of the object being pull in would become large enough to stretch the object in question. You would cross the event horizon in roughly the shape of a molecular/atomic noodle long before you reached the speed of light. To an outside observer, I suppose this would appear as a redshift, eventually bending the light out of the visual spectrum entirely, possibly before they ever even got to the event horizon, I'm not sure on the math.
  20. From your picture, in my opinion your sats are too large. You'll give more mileage out of it if they are much smaller. You could drop most of the structural things, drop the SAS, drop the antenna down to a smaller one. That would help a bit I think. Keep in mind that the upper bound for performance you can achieve is whatever the performance of a single separatron by itself can achieve. The more separatrons you add, it only makes it approach that theoretical value. So, the best thing you can do is actually try to eliminate as much extra as you can.
  21. My suggestion is to just put a couple separatrons on them then. Those will complete their burns within physics range and impart a decent amount of velocity so long as the probe is light weight enough. Then let time and random encounters do the rest.
  22. Dont bother correcting plane inclination. Instead go for a transfer to moho/out of moho at the ascending/descending node for an intercept. Saves you a lot of DV that way. Trade off is that there are fewer transfer windows. Correct me if I'm wrong, but moho orbits fast enough that that shouldn't be a real problem tho. That's how I do all my transfers if I dont care about inclination when I get there.