Jump to content

Rocket Witch

Members
  • Posts

    145
  • Joined

Everything posted by Rocket Witch

  1. They'd be useful for a lot of things, and I can very much see it being a popular mod, but somehow it just doesn't seem like a stock feature candidate. The idea of converting them into rotating habitats entered my mind — at the end of a long trip to another star, crews can expand into the rest of the ship and basically turn it into a station. What I mean is people don't tend to fuss over whether their car does 9 or 10 miles to a gallon, and that's the level of delta-V we're presumably dealing with in a lot of cases. A dropship might have 10km/s while still being fairly small, and do multiple trips before refuelling. For the real Orion warship concepts they weren't thinking about efficiency, they were thinking about adding barbershops!
  2. Wet workshops are a low-tech solution to the mass savings required of chemical rocketry. There isn't really a place for that kind of thing in KSP2.
  3. I think it'll be released well before it's done, with another two years of updates to make it into the the originally envisioned 'done' state. That's the way all great sandbox games seem to go.
  4. For OP engines through Tweakscale you should usually scale down, because the bigger parts are balanced with better economy of scale. In this case however there isn't a better vacuum engine in the game for most use cases (unless you use a 2.5m LV-N or ion). A 2.5m Rhino would mass 6t and have 1333kN (calculated, not checked). This will still normally be worse on grounds of higher mass and lower vacuum Isp, but on a sufficiently massive stage it would be better purely down to lower gravity losses.
  5. Nothing. They didn't make a unique texture for the joke; the orange colour is just a hue shift of the yet-to-be-released revamp texture for Jool.
  6. It actually doesn't matter because you can fill the vanilla tech tree from Kerbin SOI alone. At least if you play with 100% science returns. So assuming like 30% science returns to actually force your space program out there: common sense would hold that you want to unlock more science parts to get more science, but unlocking bigger rocket parts could actually be more useful to get more mileage out of your existing experiments. To this end, getting both the 2.5m and 0.6m stack sizes is imperative, as delta-V can be increased greatly with a high differential between the masses of the first and final stages.
  7. @Nils277 Since this is called Feline Utility Rovers, plural, did or do you intend to add more rover types to make a family with the Lynx being one of a variety of models? Just curious.
  8. Probably the design. Kerbals do have very long arms; their glove tips reach half way down their boots.
  9. It's super ultra minor, but I kept the config called JSI-Reduce-IVA-CPU-Usage from the otherwise performance-unfriendly RasterPropMonitor mod. The comment lines inside explain. To use: Make a .txt file wherever you want in the GameData directory; edit the file extension to .cfg, open with Notepad (or equivalent); paste the code in. // To the best of my knowledge, the InternalButtonLight module does not actually work, // and becomes a useless resource drain. It definitely isn't actually being used anywhere. // The internalGeneric module is likewise unnecessary for normal IVA function and explicitly doesn't do anything // -- yet Unity wastes resources enumerating it, not much, but why do it at all? // This patch cuts both of them out of all the stock props to reduce component count. @PROP[*]:HAS[@MODULE[InternalButtonLight]]:FINAL { !MODULE[InternalButtonLight] {} } @PROP[*]:HAS[@MODULE[internalGeneric]]:FINAL { !MODULE[internalGeneric] {} } It's not clear what you mean — speed up the launch of the game itself, or your craft within the game? If the latter: The stock game setting 'max physics delta time per frame' lets you drop frames to keep the game moving (slide toward right/bigger number). The catch is that this will make the physics less accurate, so craft will wobble and break apart more easily.
  10. There were actually a limited number of official Kerbal plushes made once. Perhaps one of the owners could take reference photos with a ruler beside it (or whatever else you think would help)?
  11. Sorry; KJR is, well, as the previous poster said. It has historically been an 'essential mod' alongside Kerbal Engineer, but since stock autostrut has been a thing it may have faded somewhat into obscurity. Here's a link for what is probably the currently maintained edition: https://github.com/KSP-RO/Kerbal-Joint-Reinforcement-Continued/releases
  12. I don't know but you can try changing the value of the PhysicsSignificance line in the part's config from 1 to 0. This will make the part non-physicsless, which will presumably enable such interactions. The config is in ...\GameData\Squad\Parts\Utility\linearRCS
  13. Not meaning to detract from the need for automation when you have a dozen colonies, but playing space truck driver strikes me rather as one of the positive points of KSP2's tech level. You don't plot semi-brachistochrone manoeuvres with a 100 km/s bulk freighter massing 300 kilotons in those space trade & combat games, because you can just warp in straight lines everywhere in something that amounts to a literal space truck, rather than matching the potentially epic scale of the real deal.
  14. Give it high-pitched voices like the Chatterer mod and it'll be perfect. This isn't a be-all-end-all status. Every 'original creation' is automatically copyrighted under most jurisdictions the moment it comes into existence, and the copyright holder is free to transfer their rights, in part or full, to whoever else they want under any lawful conditions they wish to impose. This means Squad just need to ask the right-holder and reach an agreement on conditions for their use of the TTS. In this case they'd probably pay a licencing fee.
  15. If you're actually desperate about it you could just install KJR. *shrug* It's curious though, I've heard of this kind of issue but never experienced it myself, and I have tons of mods including new docking ports. Maybe changing the physics delta setting will help you.
  16. Nice method and design. Your lander's shape made me think you might be interested in this mod: https://spacedock.info/mod/1127/Kerbal Hacks: Droptank "Wrapper"
  17. KSP's solid rockets don't have thrust curves — full power until empty, or whatever level you set the thrust limiter to on the part. Indeed the thrust will rise along with the Isp as atmospheric pressure drops, in exactly the same manner as the other rocket engines. The "flameout at 10%" thing in engine stats only applies to jet engine intake air. Once an air-breathing engine is only capable of 10% of its nominal max thrust (I think?) it stops working until it begins drawing enough air again.
  18. When you say "heatshield just below that" do you really mean it's below the Terrier engine and somehow not obscuring its thrust? Or actually above the HECS core? Because if it's attached directly to the HECS, which has a 1200K temp limit, some of the heating will propogate to it and can destroy it while the rest of the craft remains intact. Putting a service bay between the shield and tank, with the HECS and thermometer inside the bay, is more ideal.
  19. All of the above? Initially I design a boosterless core for a particular set of requirements. As requirements and technology change I produce variants on the craft which may be boosted. Sometimes these variants do just have sets of 0.625m to 1.875m strap-on SRBs, particularly in the case of smaller rockets launching routine items like satellites and resupplies. But often my go-to is a pair of common core boosters with a downthrottled core — I'm not into onion or asparagus staging for realism and to avoid TWR issues. I've found this to be the easiest layout to design (just copypasta the core — that's alt+click if you didn't know!) and fly (good rear-end body lift ratio to counteract the added rear-end mass). If I did a 4xCCB rocket I would actually put the boosters on the outside of the original 2, rather than using 4-way symmetry, giving it a 'middle finger' appearance. This is to avoid separation issues with the 'top' booster as the rocket turns over, and maintain the lifitng body effect for stability. Over the past year, my design philosophy has been increasingly based on rows of engines rather than rings, as I really find that 'aircraft mimicry' has a positive effect on reliability. I also like to use solid rocket 'boosters' as cores instead, like the Ares I and Saturn INT-05. These tend to be quite hard to fly even with gimballing, but there's something appealing about the raw simplicity.
  20. Modification of a rocket to change its lower stage for a cryogenic one led to something resembling the Kistler K-1. The upper stage (still LFO) is tiny in comparison. A linear engine layout seems to make SAS behave better, maybe since it only has to do calculations along a single axis, so I'd encourage others to try it out!
  21. It won't have an effect all the time; only when scatters are loaded in physics range.
  22. Mystery Goo is a Kerbal stand-in for animal experiments, so I've heard. So some kind of sentient playdough blob is their probable equivalent to cats and dogs.
  23. Not particularly, but I thought the Steam forum would be a fair stab at that given the variety of languages one can view the client in, and having seen that variety reflected in its game forums.
×
×
  • Create New...