Jump to content

sephirotic

Members
  • Content Count

    83
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About sephirotic

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast
  1. Flying for 2 minutes at mach 3: Your cabin explodes by overheating: Reenter with a SSTO on a 60% AoA on an eccentric 400x10km orbit: Nothing happens. Yeah, Heating needs serious rebalance.
  2. I was in doubt if I should get this this or OPM, this mod has some particular things that I liked a lot, but the lack of a Titan analogue is a real bummer for me! If only that was added, I'd get this instead of OPM.
  3. Yeah right, easy for all you guys to find the game "FUN!" Because planes are flying fast when you have 1.8 tons jet engines generating 1000kn of thrust to fight against the soupy atmosphere. Now fly with a realistic 100kn of total thrust for those planes for you to see how really wrong everything is.
  4. Yeah, I already figured that the problem goes deeper than just tweaking some parameters.
  5. Yeah, because doing a 145g turn on stock model is not reallistic but is FUN! Come on. While I do think the g-limit of FAR is a little bit conservative for desintegrating vessels, it Never was really a problem for me with FAR, Get a joystick. Otherwise you'll have to play on "easy" mode. Ow, wait, FAR doesn´t have that, so It would be better to get good instead. Sorry, couldn´t resist it. Haven´t tried FAR on 1.0.2, just saw that it was updated. FAR is not perfect either, it's independent control for surfaces is not very good IMHO, and rudders/yaw stability don´t see to work properl
  6. Same F-104 replica test on 0.25 with FAR. 400m/s with a 60kn engine. Putting a 120kn rocket engine wasn´t enough to push to 450m/s which was our target, I got only about 420m/s at sea level. But yeah, FAR is still much better than the stock aero model, I just hope Ferram keeps updating it. Whoever says that the 1.0.2 drag is fine, is either an inexperienced player witch never used FAR, or is too blind to see their own contradiction bias in favor of squad's questionable decision. Ideally we would have Squad to make up with Ferram and consult with him.
  7. I for myself don´t understand were have you been for the last 3 years of game development as pretty much every more experienced played talked about how they just completely abandoned the stock aero model for being too soupy and switched to FAR and how this 1.0.2 is a retrogress towards what we have mostly hated for so many years about KSP after a brief nice experience with the aero of 1.0.0.
  8. It's not about realism, is about good balance compromisses. You missed my point.
  9. KSP is not ultra-realistic, for that we have RSS. A large part of the community HATED the old soupy atmosphere, IT WAS A BAD BALANCE COMPROMISSE. They have to come with some OTHER way. 1.0.0 drag is STILL MUCH HIGH than real life, but was a more balanced compromisse that felt more natural than the stats at 1.0.2. How about a planet with the density of a frigging black whole like Kerbin? I think is ridiculous but you, me and a lot of people have come to accept it as a realism compromise (this is why most of us, me including like playing RSS a lot) What lots of people DIDN`T ACCEPT, was the s
  10. I totally second this post, as a matter of fact, as I've stated before: EVEN ON 1.0 THE DRAG IS STILL TOO HIGH FOR SPACEPLANES AT LOW ALLTITUDES. This becomes obvious if you think that Kerbal's atmosphere has only 60% of the equivalent height of earth's, so the pods have much less time to decelerate. You are not getting the bigger picture: 250m/s IS REASANOBLE to depley a drogue chute, curiosity's droge was deployed at Freaking mach 1.7. You can´t expect a deceleration identical to real life by having a atmosphere that tops out at 70km. Progress that just deorbited by drag yesterday, d
  11. I'm quite aware of that, that is why if you take a closer look at my SS, you'll see my actual thrust at 100kn, I've actually checked the specs of the J39 engine and I doubt it can actually reach that.
  12. Some people indeed complained about this back in the day, I never really tought about that, i figured just showing the fuel gauges being drained was enough, there were some older cheaty videos on YT of older attempts hiding the fuel gauge that clearly were cheatty, I forgot to turn the resources on in the beginning and I only noticed it on the video after I had already overwritten the save file. I tought about making a second video of another ascent with the same vessel just to prove it was possible but then again, anyone who had experience leaving Eve would see my design had more than enough
  13. Then you were doing something wrong, probably were using drogues or trying to chute very large vessels, because even a single Mk-16 can stop the Mk1-2 pod with the OLD 1.0 aero but with the REDUCED drag of the chutes from 1.0.2, Take a look: Of course 18.0 m/s is not exactly a smooth splashdown but the Mk1 pod can survive that, with the XL chute it touches down at a gracefull 5m/s
  14. Just some random information for the discussion: Current sea-level speed record on a manned controlled airplane was set in 1976 on an F104: Lockheed test pilot Darryl Greenamyer built a F-104 out of parts he had collected. The aircraft, N104RB, first flew in 1976. On 2 October 1976, trying to set a new low-altitude 3-km speed record, Greenamyer averaged 1,010 miles per hour (1,630 km/h) at Mud Lake near Tonopah, Nevada. A tracking camera malfunction eliminated the necessary proof for the official record. On 24 October 1977 Greenamyer flew a 3 km official FAI record flight of 988.26 miles per
  15. Are you saying that is impossible to make a drag curve and drag characteristic for pods in the current model that satisfies both planes and rockets and that pods gets the priority?
×
×
  • Create New...