Jump to content

Noname117

Members
  • Posts

    473
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Noname117

  1. Spent several hours flying around not finding it (I wish I had brought a scansat) and actually had to have a friend find it on their save on a scanning satellite, then still couldn't fly it, had them confirm that it was it on their save, and even after having him guide me to the location I still overflew the area a couple of times before even seeing it. I kind of feel bad about posting it here since it doesn't feel legitimate, but hey, I put in the effort to get a propeller plane to Laythe safely from having not ventured beyond Duna before, so I'm still posting it for that effort alone. This was difficult to find. Not sure what I'm going to do for the others. Definitely will bring along a scanning satellite though. So, this one I planned better for. I was even building the scansat before the hint was given. I sent the scansat and lander on 2 separate launches with tons of spare dV at the right times. They launched 2 and a half hours apart and arrived 3 and a half hours apart despite a different set of maneuvers performed, particularly in regards to the Munar assist, for each craft. Unfortunately since I haven't done much with space outside of Kerbin's SOI I didn't realize the scansat needed a strong antenna or relay to actually scan, and although I could control it because the lander was always close enough for direct control it couldn't function as a relay and as such the scansat itself was effectively useless. I had to send a relay out over there, and my first try was actually going too fast to slow down. I thought getting there faster with more dV expenditure would be better, but it led to a 50 minute burn which had the spacecraft going so fast that it needed 10000 m/s of dV to slow down while only having 5000 m/s itself. Anyways, I need to make less mistakes with these hints. At least I can make a quick fix to the next scansat and get it to work. Honestly, it's weird. I'm not even sure I want a JEB plushie. I just want to do this for the fun of it, and because I watched the threads for the earlier easter eggs back when the solar system got expanded but never participated in said hunt. I guess it feels good trying this with new ones that are only *barely* spoiled. Alrighty I got the kerbal there now instead of just having the reaction wheel probe.
  2. I know the mod isn't updated for 1.11.1, but if you're using it there recovering a craft will give you funds no matter if you recover to VAB, the SPH, or just normally. With VAB or SPH recovery this basically results in free funds. The normal recovery only causes free fund issues when combined with Scrapyard, but that's a different mod and not an issue here. Did something change with the way recovered funds are given to the player in the recent version which renders old mods like this not working properly?
  3. We don't really do anything as a squadron, but yes, it is possible to join.
  4. Clan still exists, although we don't really do anything, and haven't really done anything as a clan.
  5. So I installed this mod along with it's 2 dependencies, and I'm not seeing it pop up anywhere in my KSP game when I am in the VAB/SPH. I'm worried I may have installed one of the dependencies wrong (there are several files in toolbar controller where I don't know where they go, I basically put the one file in the gamedata folder), or maybe there is a conflict with one of the other mods. Can anyone help me figure out what to do? I did not use CKAN for this (and the title page doesn't say this mod is updated for it anyways).
  6. For multiplayer, why don't they just include several options for the server owner to pick from when configuring the server? A "one-size-fits-all" for Kerbal multiplayer seems like a bad idea given how different people play it different ways. EDIT: In my opinion, Kerbal needs to revamp their campaign in some way to make it not feel like just an expanded sandbox. There is still a disconnect between how science is gathered (exploring planets) and how it is spent (on new parts), which makes little sense. Being able to instantly launch rockets after construction makes the Kerbal space program develop unbelievably quickly. Starting with manned launches, like you're basically required to do, is a huge disconnect between how real life space programs developed and KSP. There's no competing space agencies to fight over contracts with, or to compare your progress against. And the endgame is basically just unlocking all the parts, which is done through exploration. The point of exploration in the campaign doesn't have anything to do with learning more about the system, but entirely has to do with progressing further. Which I feel just removes the depth from exploration. I guess what I'm saying is that the campaign feels like it lacks management depth or a proper goal, both of which a good management game needs. The challenge of campaign mode comes from engineering and flying a space program, with very little coming from managing said space program. Sandbox mode is basically the same, except with that little bit of management gone. Kerbal has the potential to be that nice mix of a management game, construction game, and flying sim, but really only gets 2 out of the 3. And in today's market it seems like most similar games do the exact same. And honestly, I think that bit of management depth (and maybe exploration depth) is what KSP needs the most to truely live up to its full potential. That being said, the current solar system does feel like 2/3 of a solar system. Those outer planets we've been expecting for years kind of need to be added for the KSP solar system to truely feel complete. So although what Squad has done in the past couple years has been nice, it's all been little improvements to the game which fail to address the core issues surrounding the game and the major areas where the game feels incomplete.
  7. Now in way further than my little experimental plane yesterday. This one can do 150 m/s at sea level, and is insanely powerful (19 clipped SAS). Building/flying this thing is basically what I've been doing today.
  8. I've been playing aviation pioneer in KSP for these past couple days. It's fun!
  9. Did anyone actually expect this to go differently?
  10. So they've said it's supposed to be automatic, but it hasn't yet happened yet for many of us. Either there's an issue with those who transferred to Steam, or they have to give out so many DLCs that the automatic process is lagging.
  11. Built a new experimental fighter, and so far I'm happy with it's performance. It can go 300 m/s at low altitude with it's afterburner and 216 m/s without, which isn't bad for a custom-cockpit fighter, and is very maneuverable with a low stall speed (meaning that if you turn too hard and the plane starts to stall it is very easy to recover). It's also one of the prettiest fighters I've built. Now I just have to actually get around to naming and releasing it, which is the hardest step in all of this.
  12. Because some of us have been bored with the game, plus the buff to the .50s has really imbalanced things.
  13. It doesn't work like that. You have to sign up for the squadron yourself in War Thunder, and then after that you get accepted in.
  14. Build KSP 2? Build more games involving kerbals? And DLC content (which could mean they kill off mods but does not necessarily mean they will).But yeah, a KSP 2 could be highly profitable and small kerbal-related games could make them some money. EDIT: I'd argue that we should not be worried about them screwing with KSP modders unless they begin to screw with Civilization and X-COM modders. If that happens be very worried. If that doesn't happen then I think KSP will be fine (although a KSP 2 might have some issues).
  15. Well we can get it down to a +/- 1 if you exclude kerbals in the space center who were killed. Well, +/- .5 I should say
  16. Just got caught up again, how many Kerbals has Kuzzter killed now since the war with the Kerbulans began?
  17. Look, I'd accept anyone on these forums unless they were a toxic person for some reason. The squadron has room in it (Do note you have to sign up though, I can't send an invite to people personally), so we can take in newcomers.
  18. So after a long period of time away from the game I've started playing War Thunder again, which means that =JEB= is once again active and looking to expand. And I suppose this time I should probably try to be more social with members of the clan I do not know.
  19. It's been 6 years since I last heard from him. Was always curious as to what happened to him. If you are who you say you are, I'd like to have a conversation with him at some point in time. Glad he's doing well.
  20. Not needed to keep them attached. I plan on trying out the antenna bearings later today.
  21. I'm looking for something where the spinning part is lightweight with very low friction. The new design is not the ones above and functions differently
  22. Bearings needed! So I'm experimenting with a new clawjet design right now, and I have achieved (relatively slow) rotation. I've tried out Jon144's bearing, but it's not working (do note the problem may be with the design and not the bearing). So I want to ask the good people of the forums, what's the smallest bearing with the least friction with the lightest spinning part you can create which is still stable enough to use with helicopter blades (excluding tip-jets)? I need to try out different bearing designs here to figure out if the problem lies with the claw or the bearings.
  23. And with that all being said a few designs did fly for short periods of time, with I think one being controllable and stable enough for extended flight and landing. Still a shame that they fixed the bug... At the same time, I'm wondering if stacking 2 claws on top of each other to get a 90 degree tilt would work. I remember odd things happening with just a 45 degree tilt, but I'm wondering if it's possible to cancel out some of those odd things by stacking 2 claws. Or it may just make the problem worse.
×
×
  • Create New...