Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by shimmy00

  1. I note that you're talking more here about improper craft displacement on loading and want to report that I had a quite severe bug that seems related to this issue with the crafts sinking. A base that I had set up on a planet in the Galaxies Unbound pack that's at about 413 000 Gm (interstellar range) from Kerbol materialized on reload and entry from the Tracking Station somewhere fully beneath the ground, fell for a while, then exploded. Not sure if this is related to these issues but I thought I'd say it here. This is for KSP 1.12.3.
  2. Good news! I just discovered that the latest version of the standalone Persistent Thrust (1.7.5) mod works with this combo and was able to use it to fly the mission. Thanks for your pointers, though.
  3. Thanks. I also was thinking of multiple vessels (esp. if one is trying to send more than just a crew, e.g. sending rovers and bases and the like - have a separate ship for each element). to minimize the per-vessel payload mass. I further just discovered that topping the stack with a regular probe core (RC-001S RGU) actually gives enough fully autonomous control to at least thaw and freeze a Kerbal; not sure if that's a bug or a feature but it seems logical enough so I'll take it. However, the thrust bit is a difficult one. Right now it's gonna take me what looks like about 1 Ms (~11.6 Days) real life time to thrust up to 1000 km/s and I can't physics warp much without the craft destabilizing due to lag. Really making me miss KSP IE's persistent thrust. I might fuss with the salt water engine; not sure. It looks like this set of mods requires a different play attitude; maybe less thinking about sending Kerbals back and more about one-way trips and base establishment.
  4. First off, I wanna say I'm a big fan of @StarCrusher96's Galaxies Unbound universe and have played it for a while now mostly using the KSP Interstellar Extended suite of engines to send my craft across this particular kerbiverse. However, after discovering @Nertea's equally beautiful, drop-dead gorgeous ReStock mod for spacecraft parts, I couldn't help but want something a bit more artistically coherent, both with that and internally, and that led me to discover he'd also made two other mods - Near Future and Far Future Technologies, with the latter providing some engines close to the highest-performing fusion engines in Interstellar Extended (one engine has an Isp of 1 050 000 s, while Interstellar has 1 500 000 s.). And I was instantly made a fan, too - the mechanics are much more realistic (especially the thermal mechanics) and less quirky/buggy as well as cleaner (e.g. everything is powered with, perhaps large, amounts of ElectricCharge, instead of having odd redundant types of electric power like "Megajoules" and "Kilowatt Hour" which are just ways to denominate larger amounts of energy), though unfortunately his seems to be missing a Persistent Thrust analogue for very long burns using the fusion engines. This leads me to on the overall right now be using the following combination: KSP v1.12.3 Galaxies Unbound and dependencies (i.e. Kopernicus) ReStock and ReStock Plus (those 5 m parts are indispensable for building huge craft) Near Future and Far Future Technologies System Heat TAC Life Support DeepFreeze KAS (to bolt the massive vessels together in orbit) I included the last two because I also wanted even moar realism, and that gets me to the following interesting quandary. To keep things realistic, I wanted to throw a ship at a star system that will take 40 years or more to get there, and that means putting those Kerbals explicitly on ice (I always "imagined" them to in my head when you use "time warp" but this mod combo I like because it makes that more explicit) via the DeepFreeze for the duration. The trick, though, is that once you freeze them all, there is nothing left in control of the craft and so it is impossible to start the engines, particularly at the far end where you have to flip the craft around to brake, which at 413 000 Gm(!) is far beyond any communication antenna's range to even send a signal to thaw the crew, much less perform the braking maneuver, and "daisy chaining" satellites into the void between the two stars would be intolerably lengthy, if even possible at all (even at 100 Gm intervals, which might be possible with some of the biggest antennas, that's 4130 satellites!). In Interstellar, this was handled via the "IHAL", which I've seen some challenged as an "overpowered" piece of kit, but to me it seems its "robotic crew member" functionality is just what you need to do this - you need "someone" to wake the crew at least, much less begin the deceleration process. So what I'm wondering about is: how can one pull this off? It seems I'd need an extra mod, but short of trying to rip the IHAL out of Interstellar, is there some other that might work, and perhaps be "cleaner"? Secondarily, I wonder if there is a Persistent Thrust-type implementation for @Nertea's engines, because even with max physics warp I estimated it will take multiple real-life days to accelerate the large craft to the required 1 000 000 m/s cruising speed and I don't feel like having KSP running in the bkg of my computer for that long in case I wanna do something else that needs a reboot and might lead to loss of the game due to forgetting it was running. Thanks. (Oh yeah and if you say "warp drives" - I've thought about them; I just wanna see if a "slow boat" mission is possible. Also I'm not sure what the most aesthetic and mechanically clean warp drive mod available is since there seem to be several competing ones.) (P.S. BTW @Nertea you are the BEST parts builder, even though I see you've "retired" apparently I just felt I needed to say that!)
  5. I'm not sure - because there's like 94 pages on this thread - that this has not been said before but I felt like saying it: it's amazing how much playing Our Favorite Game has ruined most sci-fi stuff, especially all this pop stuff, for me. Almost having a physics degree did some of it, but there's a difference between learning the stuff on paper, and having a real hands-on simulator (that even, itself, is not 100% accurate, but still is vastly more accurate than virtually every, if not really "every", pulp Sci-Fi movie that has ever been made) to play with and see how all the little things work in and of themselves. I can't stand to see a spaceship that is mostly crew space, and not propulsion-related equipment, particularly fuel tanks, and with no radiators on it (not seen so much in the stock game, but try the half-decent nuke power mods and ...). That really rubs me especially when they go to the trouble of putting rocket-like "thrusters" on the back yet seem to ignore where all the stuff they "thrust" with comes from. Also, if we are going to talk a specific sci-fi program, I can't help but think of my old fave: Stargate SG-1, and where they talked about how that "recreating a nervous system on the molecular level ... I know it defies the uncertainty principle!" when referring to how that the titular team's minds got copied and "uploaded" into robot bodies. Besides the obvious shades of Heisenberg Compensators(tm), the real problem here is that the uncertainty principle doesn't really get to apply to begin with. If you are making a digital system to mimick a nervous system, you don't care about "replicating it down to the molecular level" because that would literally mean making organic, biological "wetware" and you are making a computer. You need functional, not physical, replication, e.g. a suitably-advanced neuromorphic chip, though to be fair that show was made around 1998 I believe (But even then, while we may not have had at least first-generation commercialized ones, it wouldn't have taken any science not then already known to know what a "molecular level reconstruction" entailed and why that was not the same as a robotic reconstruction.). (And even if you were, on the scale of whole molecules at least, thermal fluctuations that inevitably occur anyway mean that UP-related effects aren't really relevant to viability so again, it still wouldn't matter.) But that episode actually wasn't the biggest casualty for me - the biggest ones were ones that tried to at least give a "shout out" to realistic physics. For example, there was one where they had a craft accelerate using the typical magic engines to some huge velocity, likely a few percent of "c", on a "slow boat" course out of the Solar System to its creator's home world. For some reason, the path the craft was on happened to take it right past Jupiter which - while admittedly not at all impossible, depending on the relative positioning of the "home" star, is just unlikely - then lead the rescue team to attempt a "slingshot" by trying to use some little missiles attached to the craft (the magic engines were apparently disabled and booby trapped so they could not be used to simply reverse the initial maneuver). Yet at, say, 10% of c, the delta-v you can get from that is utterly pointless that they should have immediately discounted the option and just told him "hey, you'll get to see Jupiter at least". (At the end, they managed to rescue using another magic craft. But the butchering of non-magic physics in an attempt to try and get it better really gets me now.)
  6. Hi. This is something I've wondered about for a bit, and that's that I'm not sure how or even if one can use the action groups in the way I'd like to. I have a craft where that there are proper engines facing forward and back that I'd like to use in an "RCS"-like fashion in order to dock it with another. I noticed that there is an action group for "Translate F/B" and you can put there the Thrust Limiter on an engine, and I thought this would work. So I did. I set the action to be set (not gradually increase) the throttle to 100%. However, it seems that it doesn't actually work that way in the game. Once the craft has been lofted and the engines engaged, they burn continuously because apparently before you hit the forward/back controls they start out at 50%. Hitting the F/B makes them go to 100% as I'd expect, but the idle state is not 0% as would be needed, but 50%. Can what I'm trying to do even be done? If so, how? If not, what would one use that action group for?
  7. This is something I've wondered about, as I've been trying for some time to create my own parts using Blender and GIMP. This is not so much a technical question as it is an artsey one: what is the technique one uses to make nice-looking spaceship metal, where it has a base very slightly (but very "neatly") mottled/scuffed appearance together with various grooves and the like drawn into it, and the occasional spatter or scratch? I particularly like the artwork seen in @Nertea's mods and was wondering how/what techniques or tips there are for doing this besides just "more practice" in drawing - after all, if there's stuff others have done or know about doing this in terms of technique I'd like to know it so as to not have to "reinvent the wheel", so to speak. In particular, I want to know how to make the "base" of a texture like shown below, which is from @Nertea's "ReStock" mods (hope this is "fair use"). Note the scratchy, mottly high-detail stuff.
  8. @modus : Thanks. Yeah just recently I was digging and actually didn't realize (likely because I got introduced to mod parts early) that the fold-out radiators were also part of the stock game. With this SystemHeat stuff, that makes more sense; I guess I'll have to look at that. I presume though that for this series of mods (NFT, FFT), SystemHeat is the preferred method, right? Looked over that and looks like it was mostly a misunderstanding, though I do believe that I identified at least one bug (the strange phantom temperature in the VAB) and the descriptions in the text could be clearer (e.g. that 400 K is the max radiator temperature). Just mentioning that here to close this off.
  9. @modus Thanks. No. I just tried it though; it gave some extra parts but didn't change the behavior. However, I did a couple more experiments and it seems that what is happening is that the amount of heat output the radiator is dissipating is the amount X indicated in the "Radiates X kW at 400 K" in the radiator description, which is along with "Radiates 0 kW at 0 K". I realized this by observing that for each radiator, it would "saturate" (i.e. stop increasing its power output) when its "System Flux" reached the negative of this value. Now maybe that's how it's supposed to work, but then the "Loop Temperature" is obviously not the radiator temperature, because that would be 400 K; and I think this should be indicated. Moreover, and perhaps more seriously, then it seems to make the parameters "Core Heat xFer" and "Max Cooling", which are typically much higher than the X value above, irrelevant and hence makes me again wonder what the intended behavior here is. In either case for it, though, at least there seem to be descriptive inaccuracies, or else outright bugs, and hence I feel there need to be at least one or the other of the following fixes: If the intended behavior is that it "radiates X kW at 400 K" in that "Max Cooling Temp is 400 K, and it Radiates X kW at Max", and moreover this X is always smaller than the "Core Heat xFer" and "Max Cooling", then the descriptions should be changed so as to indicate these things - in the first case, note that "radiates 0 kW at 0 K" followed by "radiates X kW at 400 K" suggests points on a curve, when really it's a maximum, and in the second, if those levels of transfer cannot be reached because they're always more than the X max dissipation, but have some other relevance, that should be clarified somewhere and, If what's being seen here is not the intended behavior and the radiator temperature and dissipation are intended to be able to rise higher than X, i.e. the dissipating temperature to surpass 400 K, then I'd suggest that, first, a "Radiator Temperature" readout should be added to the panel (under "Heat Radiator") showing what is happening, and a suitably physics-appropriate method should be used to calculate the dissipation (namely, the 4th power law - i.e. if it radiates X kW at 400 K, then when the Radiator Temperature reaches, say, 800 K, it should be radiating 16 times as many kW). That said, this seems now to explain why the radiators would not glow with heat - if the game is registering them as only 400 K temperature, which is well below the Draper point. (That said, since I haven't then seen what happens when it reaches a really high temp, there might still need to also be some stylistic fixes regarding visuals if, say, at 1600 K it doesn't look like a hot rocket nozzle in color.)
  10. I'm curious about something, though I'm not sure if this has been already asked before but I did run some searches and note others have had other problems regarding heat, just not necessarily these particular ones. I just installed the full set with what I call the "full Nertea pack" - both NFT and FFT together with ReStock on a new KSP install, for version 1.12.3, as I wanted to try something different from what I'd been using previously for interstellar craft which was KSP Interstellar Extended and because this one's artwork was more thematically congruent, and I've right away run into some problems involving reactors and heat of which some I think may be bugs but others I'm also not sure if there's just something I don't understand about how to use these mods. First off, simply installing NFT, FFT, and ReStock together at their latest versions, onto my fresh install, I tried to build a craft with a reactor. Given my experience using KSP IE, I understood that you have to attach radiators and, I noted that this mod provides radiators, sensibly, and thought ok, I'll slap a pair of the big ones on and hope it works. Then when I launched the craft, I was surprised to discover that upon activating the reactor, even with both sets of radiator panels fully extended (fwiw these are the "Thermal Control System (Large)" panels, and it's a "MX-25 'Prometheus' Fission Reactor"), it overheated! Clicking on the radiator panels showed they were only extracting like "-2 kW" even though they were big panels, and temperature of the radiator loop was stuck at "3 K" all the while while the core was burning up. Clearly that sounded like a bug, so I started searching and digging and heard earlier here in this thread some mentions regarding something called "SystemHeat" and "patches" and wasn't sure what those were referring to, though I noticed that this mod seemed to use something called "System Heat" with a selection of "heat loops". Had tried cycling through them all, to no avail, and I put it away for the day. Today, I came back to it, and fired it up again, and this time I google searched (apparently, the search feature here wasn't sensitive enough to that "System Heat" was spelled "SystemHeat" in the mod title) and found that there was actually a mod called exactly this that then seems like it needed installing. I put it on just now, and I note the reactor also gained a loop assignment, and at last the radiators seem to absorb heat. However, then I noticed a few things: Even with two of the gigantic "Thermal Control System (Large)" panels, the reactor still eventually overheats, just much more slowly (it slowly gets up to 1300 K, then emergency shutdowns). Does it really require more than that when it comes to cooling capacity? Not knocking this if this is intentional behavior, but I've come off KSP IE, where seeing glowing blazing hot radiator panels was pretty common and yet here it seems that this one is much more demanding. Not that that is necessarily bad; maybe this is more realistic. The "Prometheus" reactor is claimed to generate 3500 kW of waste heat, though on startup with little power draw it is asserted in-flight to be generating ~541 kW. Given this latter number, the radiator panels are said to have a "Max Cooling" of "85 077 kW" each, so two of them seems like it should be more than sufficient ... HOWEVER, they also have a number now "Core Heat xFer: 1000 kW", which suggests that while they have a max radiating power they also cannot absorb heat at that rate. Am I right in interpreting this that way? That would seem to partially explain what's up with the reactors, but still at 541 kW registered as being generated by the core, two of those radiator panels should still be more than sufficient to fully dissipate that. Is the behavior I'm seeing here 100% how this is supposed to work or is something still glitchy somewhere? As I said, I just don't "have a feel". This may not be a big problem but visuals I note are kind of off here, at least for with now that the "System Heat" package has been installed and that's that the thermal glow seems either absent or too dim. When the radiator hit that 1300 K or higher mark, I'd expect a visible bright orange-yellow glow, as I know that hot metal at that temperature (that's like molten copper) gives off. Yet here there's like hardly much glow at all. Even in earlier tests where I had smaller radiators that got even hotter as I was trying to figure out the best size to use, they got to 1700 K and there still was little glow, even though that's almost the melting point of iron (1811 K). Finally, there is what I'm quite sure is definitely a bug: after having run a test flight with a reactor and returning to the VAB by reverting, I discover that right clicking on the panels while in the VAB shows the "Loop Temperature" to be rising stupendously fast and seemingly without limit - yes in the VAB - I've had it idling in the background right now and now it's passed 13 000 000 K! what?! That said, one thing I note here is that it seems a lot of the various sub-mods in these different packages - remember I installed all three (which became four after SystemHeat was installed), and at the latest versions, are or may be of different versions given their modified dates. Does this mean there are incompatibilities when combining all three/four mods? How do you combine them "safely", if that is the case?
  11. Yes. It happened. After 2 years of KSP playing and enjoying both the stock game and others' mods, I felt the need to create my own. I'd been looking for a good Life Support mechanic for the game, but was not particularly satisfied with the various other mods out there for this purpose, e.g. TAC, Kerbalism and Snacks! because either they were too complicated, the artwork was not ideal (simply rescaled versions of the same part to make different sizes, or even different functionalities, which looks kinda meh), or else the mechanic felt unrealistic or just not to my taste in some way. And so I thought - why not take the plunge and build my own mods to try and address these deficiencies? I had past experience with coding, 3D graphics modelling and other stuff, though hadn't done the latter in a while so I started to fire something up. Had to learn much of Blender and all of Unity on the fly for this project but I finally managed to get something working, and so now have the following set of mods which I call the "Very Simple Life Support System (VSLS)". It is based on the following principles, though this is not yet fully implemented. Kerbals use two resources - Food and Oxygen -- to stay alive. Their health is modeled by an HP (hit points) value, initially 100. If no oxygen is available to a Kerbal, it begins losing HP at the rate of 1 HP/s. If no food is available to a Kerbal, it begins losing HP at the rate of 0.0001 HP/s after its first missed meal. When HP reaches 0, the Kerbal dies. Thus it takes 100 s for a Kerbal to die of oxygen loss and 1 Ms for it to die of food loss (starvation), starting at full health. If provisions are restored before death, lost HP regens at a rate of 0.005 HP/s. A Kerbal eats one unit of food once every Kerbin day (21 600 s). The mass of a unit of food is 100 g (0.0001 t) and assumed to have a volume of 0.2 L (density 500 g/L). I base this off that a Kerbal is about half the size of a human. A unit of oxygen resource is taken as a litre of oxygen at 100 kPa. A Kerbal consumes 0.01 L O2/s, thus 0.01 U/s. This is a bit less than half that for the average human, based on considering Kerbals as a smaller sized analogue for humans. Oxygen tanks are pressurized to 200 bar (20 000 kPa). The oxygen contents are based on this figure and the actual volume of the tank in the artwork. Stock pods that contain drawers marked “FOOD” or “SNACKS” come pre-loaded with 10 units of food per passenger seat. All pods are loaded with 600 units of oxygen (a small, 3 liter tank’s worth) for each passenger seat. I do not simulate waste, because it is meant to keep the mechanic simple as said. Supplemental oxygen tanks and food fridges can be fit as needed which provide much larger resources. I don’t yet have an ISRU unit though at this point since it's still WIP; my plan would be to integrate this mod with others that would provide such (some mods already have oxygen processors; the trick is a food processor). Other effects like radiation etc. are NOT included. The idea here is that those could be provided by other, separate yet compatible, mods. Admittedly the artwork part is, alas, still lacking. But it's a good exercise anyways. A setup showing a rocket with life support detail added on top below the parachute (note I'm playing with Nertea's Restock parts btw in this game - love his stuff, real damn cool). The upper can is meant to be an oxygen tank holding 7200 units (enough for 720 ks of flight time, or 33 Kerbal days), and the lower can is food storage (300 meals).
  12. Neato! Makes the stock parts more artistically congruent with the IXS parts from KSP Interstellar Extended.
  13. Thanks. Yeah, this then makes a lot of sense. The joints are indeed good enough so long as you don't put too much torque on them from excess reaction wheels. As said I got the ship to work and it flew real good despite it not being "perfectly" rigid.
  14. Update on the last post: Apparently, the "problem" was indeed due to excessive wheel authority and perhaps placement. I had 4 reaction wheels on that thing - turned out it only needed 1. After trimming those down and adjusting authority appropriately the wobble went to a very tolerable level. I was able to fly the mission and the vessel performed great; just took a bit more time to turn. So it seems the trick was excessive torque being applied by those monster wheels, and thus the links are not perfectly rigid. They're rigid up to a point, but then they start to yield, even before breakage. So it's arguable whether this is a true bug or not: it seems to make some sense, the KSP reaction wheels are crazy powerful and if you put a crapload of torque on something, you can expect it to yield. One should also not expect to be able to turn something like 600 or 700 tonnes of craft when fully fueled and loaded nimbly on its gyros any more than you can likewise easily turn a giant mining dumptruck on Earth.
  15. This is something I've wondered about. I've seen many beautiful frameworks here for creating IVA interiors for a capsule, such as: however what I am wondering about is if these have ever been used to revamp the IVA for the stock capsules - ideally to make it possible to pilot a craft (largely) from IVA mode just as it is possible to do so from third-person mode by manipulating the controls. Has this been done? Or is there some reason why not, besides nobody getting around to it?
  16. It is under 100 km but I think it also wobbles anywhere from my experience. Haven't noticed anything difficult with docking. The reaction wheels might be a trick - they're in the front of that long part coming off the tanks. Does placement actually affect things? (It would make sense in real life; didn't know about in KSP though.) I also do not clip parts - I generally almost always stick to nodes as much as possible. So it seems the joint issue is the most likely one.
  17. Thanks. Yes, I am aware the KSP physics engine is not perfect(*). However, I decided to test that possibility by trying this out with a craft similar to the one I was making but with many fewer parts (maybe like only 1/8 the number of parts or so - the original had several hundred, most of which were struts I thought were necessary to keep it from wobbling itself apart!). Aside from the game running a lot smoother and less laggy, it did not affect the behavior I talked about (If anything, the simpler craft seems to wobble worse). I also created a couple of videos so you can see it in action. The way to get the wobble is to, after joining the craft pieces, turn the craft using SAS reaction wheels. The turning isn't so bad - it's when it slows down that the wobble starts in earnest. Original craft (~600 - 700 parts incl. struts): Simplified craft (~70 - 80 parts incl. struts): FWIW these are not stock craft; I am using the KSP Interstellar Extended parts mod as well. Not sure if there's some interaction going on between the two or not. The first video is of two parts of a "proper" craft, the second is a stripped down version with few struts and connection spam and a dummy weight to simulate the fuel tanks. In both cases the wobble is there. IT's also much less severe than if the KAS joints are not engaged at all (i.e. not connected - no video). So they do have an effect But it's enough to mess with some things. The tank/ballast mass is about 600 t, the other part of the craft is about 60, so a 1:10 ratio of mass on each. Hence why I wonder to what extent this is a bug at all and not just a misunderstanding on my part - the joints are under lots of stress, so they may be "giving" even if not completely failing. I could, I suppose, prepare experiments with smaller masses. --- (*) I also agree with you that it's amazing - if one thinks the kraken glitches in this are bad; other games I've tried have a lot worse - a bunch of physics objects often can't even sit nicely upon each other.
  18. On second inspection, I am not able to reproduce the seeming behavior and am also not sure if what I observed was actually a bug or just that the connections have a bit of "give" to them even though they are much more rigid than without - I compared with the vessels connected and not connected (i.e. not even latched in place) and there's definitely a major difference so they must be working (it's also possible the rest of the structure may be weak in some way, too). The log also doesn't seem to show anything anomalous, either . So perhaps there's no bug here, just a misunderstanding of how it is supposed to work. ADD: On a closer look, yes the KAS joints still flex. But it's quite less than with no joint at all. So it could just be that there's more "stress" when connecting a massive spaceship vs. two little land buggies ADD 2: If I spot something really anomalous, I'll post more, but I'm not sure now.
  19. I was trying to build an orbitally-assembled craft in KSP 1.12.2 now using KAS to try and keep it from bending and wobbling, and when I build the craft sometimes it works, but others like just now for some reason with this one the joints seem to not provide any support and it just wobbles the same - this happens even with the "Fixed Telescopic Joint" when "DOCKED". While turning or thrusting the vessel, either the joint expands and contracts telescopically, or else the joint ends seem to act like they aren't attached to the structural elements and move around. I've noticed this in earlier version combos but it seems to be here again and I'm not sure what's going on. It seems it may be related to the order in which stages are assembled but that shouldn't make a difference. I use KAS v1.9.
  20. Yes I did once. A poor rocket developed a kinda slamp afterward. Sigh.
  21. No problem! I love Dres! It's one of my favorite stock planets along with Eve ... I don't get why so many supposedly don't - I've heard that some say it's just a farther-out "Mun" but the Mun feels kinda flat in a lot of places; Dres often has more dramatic terrain.
  22. Wanna say something here as I feel it's important. I saw @StarCrusher96's lament above and while I don't know what exactly sie(?) has had issue with in this community here, but I'd want to remind whoever is doing it to hir that they should take hir comments above seriously, and if anyone else sees such haraguing behavior, to call it out in clear and explicit terms. Sie has done us all a great favor by making this series of mods (as have the modmakers here in general in many, many instances), and while I can understand that maybe many are impatient - again, I don't know if that's any part of the "toxicity" sie mentions but just in case it is - or and whatever it is, it behooves you all to pause and think twice and fill yourself up with doubts, even if you have no idea what to doubt about yourselves, because this is a matter of good morals. I've seen and was beaten hard (not physically, but emotionally) by in my teen years, to much psychological ill effect in fact, "rabid fans" of another, far more popular, higher-dollar, and longer-lasting media franchise than Kerbal Space Program, and just want to advise you to not be like them. Somebody's gotta say it; and that's why I'm posting this. Just ... let's figure out what's wrong with what "we" do as this "community" and do something about it, and don't sweep it under when arguably a very good and respectable member (unless someone has real damn good evidence to the contrary) thereof raises a complaint. And regardless of whether they will or won't feel like giving more updates to these mods. There's so, sooo many "toxic" "communities" out there in so many ways and I think that a big part of what makes that happen is when nobody calls it out. Again, I have no specific instances to point to, so what I am instead doing is trying to help amplify @StarCrusher96's voice and show that I stand with hir, not with bullies. (And if I've done something to bully someone too, point it out. I want to hold my own self to my own moral.)
  23. Want to point out there seems to be an unfortunate bug in this newest release regarding physics: on Eve (and also on mod planets with high surface gravities), a walking kerbal, going uphill, will easily sink into the surface and then explode from clipping, making it effectively impossible to explore on foot. I think this bug has been there since more than one middle-number version ago, at least 1.11, if not before. It is not a problem on light gravity worlds though.
  24. (Well not today, but today was my latest failed attempt to try and get him back) Marooned poor Jebby about 410 Tm from Kerbin on a mod planet. Guess what the problem is.
  25. Wow. Got on and off about a year after I started playing. Landing craft was about 145 tonnes mass though, I had mods installed that made shipping it to Eve easier (extra nuclear engines from KSP Interstellar Extended; love that mod pack) - though it itself was all stock parts, and do admit to using hyperedit a few times in the testing stages. Basically the same general design principles that cerberusti posted, but considerably squatter. Wanted to get >8000 m/s packed in that thing though to make sure I could land at any spot desired and return. My aim was to basically explore Kerbol system going inward to the inner planets first then the outer planets next ... sure hit a snag at Eve tho lol (One important point is not trying to boost the entire thing off the ground. You'll want to assemble your craft in Kerbin orbit using several launches from dockable pieces - at the very least, the lander and the cruise stage should be launched separately. Lifting 145 t up to Kerbin orbit is tough enough on its own.) Beautiful! I love Eve, it's my favorite stock planet by far in terms of how it looks.
  • Create New...