Jump to content

Ziff

Members
  • Posts

    504
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ziff

  1. That's true, I forgot that we were frustrated we couldn't transfer crews without EVA'ing when it came out. Man, hindsight goggles suck. I too would choose docking just for station creation but you can't really argue against the fact that it's the combined features that make things tremendously wonderful. Try to imagine surface exploration of the Mun without EVA's, docking, and rovers.
  2. What would be a more realistic tech tree? What's wrong with the current one?
  3. Do you have any mods installed? Go into Settings, Graphics, and check to make sure that 'Fallback Shaders' = False. Fallback shaders is one of those options that if turned on can cause weird graphics problems.
  4. It is not your game. It is not our game. It is SQUADS game. Their vision of Kerbal Space Program vastly exceeds what we currently do with the game. When EVA's were implemented in 0.16 many people were excited to be able to rescue stranded Kerbals. However, a lot of people were angry because they had wanted docking instead. Docking was right around the corner, but docking without EVA's was pointless because you wouldn't have been able to transfer crews. EVA's and Docking are wonderful together now that both features are implemented. We don't know exactly what is coming next, Squad does. While the new engines and fuel tanks may somehow seem OP right now (I don't believe they are OP, I just think they represent the Kerbals advancement in rocketry.) there are other features and updates that will balance these out in accordance with what Squad wants. Right now this is how they want it. As always, you are free to mod the game to your liking. You can make it easier for yourself, or more difficult. That is the beauty of a single player game where you decide how to entertain yourself.
  5. A simple menu slider for this option would suffice. Extremely rare <--> Normal
  6. It appears from the descriptions that the new 3m parts are mainly heavy lifters. I really kind of like the idea of them staying that way and the 2m/1m parts retaining their 'specialty' roles in regards to parts for stations, landers, etc. I would really like to see advanced rover bodies (both manned/unmanned) and smaller high tech science parts to go with them. By advanced rover bodies I mean 1m or 2m parts that appear to be streamlined when placed in a rocket, but then when activated the wheels and other features unfold from them. I like making my own large rovers but I would like to see some minimalist rovers that don't require weird placement for landing them on planets. What I really really want though are adjustable parts for independent suspensions for vehicles. I am tired of modifying rotatrons after every update, and their shape doesn't always lend themselves to ease of placement.
  7. Bring up your map, look at it from a top down perspective. Everything orbits/rotates counter clockwise. I can understand how this feature would be useful to new players but it also would add more clutter to the map screen. As long as there are options to unclutter the map that wouldn't bother me. I also think things like this will not be needed once we have decent tutorials to explain orbital mechanics. I believe that the final game will follow a progression for new players from tutorials -> basic rocketry knowledge -> orbital knowledge acquired -> career mode -> advanced rocketry designs due to tech tree/cost constraints -> full tech tree -> sandbox mode where everything goes. Being thrown directly into sandbox mode as a new player with hundreds of parts and dozens of orbital bodies is just really intimidating. Many of us started playing when there was only a few dozen parts and our knowledge grew as the game did.
  8. Why is this needed? Every single planet and moon orbits and rotates in the same direction.
  9. Hey, MalfunctionM1Ke, I am sorry to tell you that you are making the exact same useless arguments that people made when the 2m parts came out. You could previously get to any planet without a hassle with 1m parts. 2m parts allowed us to get larger things to those same planets with less of a hassle. The new 3m parts are in line with that same progression. Maybe you just aren't thinking big enough? You can, by all means, launch the same old landers with less of the newer parts. OR, you can build larger landers and habitats then you ever could have before, and get them to planets without needing 1200 parts to do it. You can play KSP either way, but don't think because you aren't using the new parts to their maximum that it somehow makes them OP. I can SSTO a FL-T800 with an LV-909 and a control chair. Does that make them OP? Edit: Career mode will (hopefully) be the pressure that forces people to learn those things when the combination of unlocking the tech tree and part costs are both factored in.
  10. You can do that with a Jumbo 64 tank and a skipper engine. Not exactly a big deal. Edit: I'm pretty sure you can also do it with a FL-T800 and an LV909 engine, if you're only launching a chair. Edit Edit: I just circularized a 75km orbit with 10 liquid fuel left with nothing but a FL-T800, LV-909, a Chair, a Kerbal, and a probe core (just so I could reorient the gimbal view.)
  11. It might be possible but I think there will be a fuel problem due to that engine using far less fuel than the others. Once that main center tank is empty the one pair of engines at full thrust will use fuel quicker, causing yet another weight imbalance. I imagine with the lower gravity that the engine would have to be trimmed way down. That fuel would be better used in the other two engines if it has a high enough TWR without it.
  12. How much fuel do you have remaining? It looks like you could still have a high enough TWR if you used just the two engines. You only need like 1500-2000m/s to get back into orbit, and if your tanks are relatively full you should be able to do it. Here's what I would do. Right click the engine that is unbalanced and click shutdown. Then alt-right click the main center tank followed by alt-right clicking the fuel tank with the shutdown engine. Transfer whatever fuel you can out of the tank we aren't using. This will help with the center of mass problem, and give you more available fuel to the remaining engines. Now you can trim the pitch/yaw a bit to counter for the extra weight of the now dead tank/engine by holding down ALT and using AWSD depending on which side is dead. It looks like the rear engine is dead? If that's correct then I would hold ALT-W until the pitch is trimmed about halfway , to the next full line. Your craft is now flyable.
  13. What is being said now about the new 3M parts is the same exact thing that was said about the 2M parts when they came out. The argument basically boils down to "Now I can do (x) with only 200 parts instead of 1100! It's too easy now!" While this makes sense when you only play sandbox; it will be very different when you play a career mode and have to work up the tech tree while also paying for your parts. I would also like to point out that it is a mistake to calculate an engines TWR ratio by itself without any fuel tanks. It doesn't give you any real meaning , because ultimately engines are used to move mass and require fuel tanks to do so. TWR only tells you one small part of the equation and can easily seem unbalanced when taken out of context such as you have. Allow me to explain. Using only a single Mk1 Capsule with the largest capacity of each size fuel tank we end up with this instead: (Edit: According to KER, Based on Kerbin, because I just can't be bothered with the math right now.) Mk1 + FL-T800 LV-T30 TWR: 3.33 DV:3390 LV-T45 TWR: 2.98 DV:3190 Mk1 + Jumbo 64 Skipper TWR: 1.62 DV:5255 Mainsail TWR: 3.57 DV:4449 Mk1 + Kerbodyne S3-14400 KR-2L TWR: 2.85 DV:6111 KS-25x4 TWR: 3.52 DV:5309 Now tell me, when you look at it from this perspective do the new tanks seem WAY OP, or do they seem to be more in line with a progression of better engines? I do see how you can come to the belief that it makes the previous engines 'obsolete' but this isn't really the case at all. Just like the 2M parts didn't make the smaller 1M parts obsolete, they gave them different uses.
  14. Sounds like a browser problem or a display problem on your end. I have no problems seeing and clicking on the forums tab from the main web page in any resolution in Chrome.
  15. I accidentally voted "Yes, it's wrong" when I was thinking "Absolutely, it's perfectly fine." So uh, yeah, sorry I screwed up the poll.
  16. So the movie came out on my birthday and I was huge into Legos as a kid growing up in the late 70's and early 80's. The Lego space cruiser was one of my very first Lego space sets. Watching the movie brought back so many memories of playing with various sets over the years. I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. My girlfriend was even thrilled with it as well. I loved the kragle and the "piece of resistance" and how the movie ended. It was really pretty awesome. EVERYTHING IS AWESOME!
  17. I lurk multiple times a day. After the forum crash I lost a ton of my reputation and nearly a thousand posts. I stopped posting after that.
  18. The idea of variable length fuel tanks has been raised several times, and I know Harvester commented about it a long time ago. I can't remember if it was an issue with the way parts are handled or created but there were several concerns about them. I can't seem to find the thread at the moment but I will search some more.
  19. It depends on what you are doing. I decided to build a large Kethane mining facility on the Mun. I took a minimalist craft approach and tried to keep my crafts as small and efficient as possible, without creating excessive debris. In order to do that I would also need an orbital station around the Mun for transfers and fuel storage. I started with 1 refueling station around Kerbin. Then I built several small 'orbital transfer vehicles' that I used to ferry station modules from Kerbin orbit to Mun orbit. Then I did the same to create the base on the Mun. During this entire process I actually saved on boatloads of parts by simply reusing and refueling nearly all my vehicles. [Edit] To fully answer your question, I plan to do the same thing with Duna. It's certainly effective if you have small vehicles that need to refuel as opposed to just a large craft that carries its on fuel. Is it necessary? Absolutely not, however, I also find it far more entertaining to build and dock with these types of orbital stations.
  20. There is no guarantee that your saves, .craft files, and persistence files will be functional anyway. There have been a number of updates that have broken compatibility and I would imagine there will be more to come. With that in mind, what you really need to ask yourself is do you feel like you are missing out on anything? I used to be a hardcore vanilla player. No mods, zero, none. I did all my delta-v maps with paper and pencil. Then I got carried away with designs and began changing them so regularly I got tired of counting and adding parts, so I started using the original kerbal engineer mod to do my delta-v calculations. Some time later, long before rovers or docking, I started looking for things to actually do when landed on the Mun or Minmus. Various parts mods, the kethane pack, and mapsat gave me plenty to do. Now its a regular thing for me to download these mods as soon as they are updated. Every time a new KSP version is released it's about time for me to delete my persistence anyway. I mean really, when you have several hundred rockets floating around it starts getting crowded up there.
  21. Well now that you have the first part sorted out, remove the fuel line from 3->4 and the #1 tank that is attached to #4 should drain correctly again.
  22. I believe this has to do with how engines draw fuel from tanks. Your two highlighted tanks are both tank #4. That tank has 2 tanks it pulls from on one side, and 3 on the other. This unequal tank balance tends to cause problems. If you were to reverse the fuel flow from tank 3->4 and instead go from 4->3 you would see the exact opposite tanks draw fuel instead. The only fix I know of is to make it so there is an equal number of tanks an engine can draw from on both sides. [Edit] Wait, you just added that fuel line from 3->4? Weird. Wonder if it has something to do with symmetry placement? Try removing and adding those tanks again.
  23. I believe this has to do with how engines draw fuel from tanks. Your two highlighted tanks are both tank #4. That tank has 2 tanks it pulls from on one side, and 3 on the other. This unequal tank balance tends to cause problems. If you were to reverse the fuel flow from tank 3->4 and instead go from 4->3 you would see the exact opposite tanks draw fuel instead. The only fix I know of is to make it so there is an equal number of tanks an engine can draw from on both sides.
  24. I have an apple. You have an apple. I punch you in the face and take your apple. Now I have 2 apples, and I did it all without adding.
  25. The easier (and quicker) way is to warp to apoapsis, point retrograde, shutdown the poodle engine and activate the lv-909. Turn on ASAS, turn on RCS, then throttle the engine up fully. The RCS will maintain course and you will get a periapsis below 40k when you're done. Good ole Jeb, enjoying the light show even while pieces of the station are being ripped off.
×
×
  • Create New...