Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vlk

  1. Bal-alul, a blog this post meg az add reputation mellett van report post. Reportoltam. Hát, én kicsit pozitívabb vagyok. Bár nem próbáltam még, csak az aerodinamikát, de az nagyon tetszik. Sokkal érdekesebbek így az ssto-k. Mondjuk hallottam hogy az 1.02ben mégjobban nerfelték, de azt még nem tudtam lehúzni, valami errort írt rá a böngészőm.
  2. Agreed. To be honest i started to feel this a while ago, especially amongst FAR users. The creator of FAR is awesome, and he worked a lot for us, and i had a lot of fun with that system, so i have nothing against him. But when i see someone mentioning FAR, or comparing it to the new aerodynamics, i close the kerbal forums tab
  3. Thank you! I was concerned about the amount of whining on the forums, but i must say, so far it looks great! I am not a flight expert, but sstos feel a lot more realistic now, i tried the Aeris 4A, modified only the action groups, and made it to orbit on the second try (not counting the takeoff attempts ) I really enjoyed that i could(+had to) gather momentum in dense atmosphere with the jet engines, and use that to get to a high altitude.
  4. Hey, watching the 5 days left countdown video, i just realised that unrealistic explosions always bothered me. I'm talking about parts that don't have fuel, exploding with a big fireball. like the air intake here: It is totally unrealistic (which is not always a problem, i know... but i think now it is), it confuses me, and it is a little thing that makes the game feel unfinished Not a big thing, i agree, but it should be easy to fix, and something that would improve game experience, i think. I dont think it would be a problem if the damage would not be as visible, it is even more fun (the kerbal way ) if you loose a part without noticing it. The minimum is that parts that dont have fuel, should only explode with scatters, but not "fire". The sound effect should be different too, when there is only destruction, but no explosion. But there are possibilities for improvements: like, making the explosion size depend on how much fuel was in the tanks, or mixing the "damaged", and "exploded" soundeffects together, so destruction of low fuel parts would sound more "scratched", and with less "boom".
  5. Normal map on terrain would not make any sense. Maybe only for small details, like when your kerbal stands on it, it would look like there are rocks ans footsteps, etc on it. Why create an illusion of bumpy terrain when you can actually make it bumpy? From this distance, the system they are using, is perfectly capable of presenting the actual look of that terrain. And anyways, if it would be normal map, how do you imagine getting closer to it? It would gradually fade out? Or change to higher resolution bumpmap, constanly confusing your eyes, where you thought there is a hill, there would be only small bumps?
  6. thanks for the answers, its good to know there is nothing to worry about I may try it anyway next time, just to see if it works.
  7. So, i want kerbal on my ssd so it loads faster, but i've heard that its not a good idea to change data frequently on the ssd. The solution would be to redirect the save game folder to the normal hdd. Is that possible?
  8. v0.13.3 - played the demo, landed on the Mun and came back, following a nice tutorial from the web. We had to land on wings, because there were no landing legs then v0.17 - i think i bought the game when this version was released. I learned rendezvous from the ingame tutorial, but there was no docking i think. Or just no refueling.
  9. It happened to me three times. Always the wings collided. One time i was orbiting above atmosphere, and i think the collision occurred when i went above the space center, and i collided to the launchpad (hmm... or was it a Launch Stability Enhancer?). The other two times it happened when i landed on the runway. Both was a perfect landing, the wings were nowhere near to anything, and since the wheels were already (or almost) touching the ground there was no big trouble losing them, but it was strange. I think the first wing-losing landing was before v0.25, there was no big aerodynamic stress or anything.
  10. I dont really know the numbers, but this mission should be doable, if you go straight up, 200km or whatever, then fall back, and accelerate downwards when you enter the thick atmosphere. (Maybe you dont even have to accelerate). That way your speed will be high enough, and also because you arrive in a 0 degree angle, the atmosphere will not have enough time to slow you down.
  11. I dont know, something broke for me in 0.25. I installed the latest FAR, but all my previous planes are unusable now above 15km, even after adjusting the CoL. And they fly much different in low altitude too. They are a lot slower, air drag feels huge. For me, when i first installed FAR, there was no problem at all, flying just became more fun. Ok, maybe it was harder to loose velocity when landing, but i just needed more space for that and it was good. But now...
  12. I just want the electric engines to work but it seems like they generate much less thrust now, and strangely the propellers generate a lot of lift, so it is hard to put the center of lift behind the CoM.
  13. Hello i am a 13 year old boy and my .... flew off from eating too much gluten. My only wish is that you release 0.25 please SQUAD dont disappoint me i have nothing to live for now
  14. My new toy. Uses FAR and the electric propeller from the firespitter mod. Those propellers consume a lot less energy in high atmosphere because they provide a lot less thrust. If it goes east, i can survive the night on batteries, if it goes west, it can keep up with the sun. So it can stay in the air forever craft file - if anybody wants to try it out
  15. Sepratrons have some issues for their original role. If they are in a bad angle, they can fall off before separating anything, their thrust damages other parts, even if it is a little damage, it always causes lag for me.
  16. \o/ thanks, Ziv! I wanted to do this mission my way, and some of the Jebediah level was against my "rules". For example, science transmiting, and i wanted that science lab too, it was a scientific mission! And i already discovered some of the Jool system, so i could not max out science. Hmm, thanks for the advice. I was afraid that it would be hard to rendezvous in a high Tylo orbit, but now that i think of it, it would have been better.
  17. I think i've learned that part without tutorials, it is really not that hard. The first part is about getting close to the target (5 km - later you can do 0.5 km as well). The trick for this is that if you have a lower orbit, you go faster, if you have bigger, you go slower. It is good if you have a periapsis/apoapsis close to the orbit of the target, and you only lower/raise the other side of your orbit. Then you wait until you get close, and make a maneuver node so you get close to the target at some point. I recommend a maximum of 10km difference between your initial orbit and the target's orbit at first, and use a lot of time acceleration. The second part is when you are close (5km, preferably 2km) to lower your velocity relative to the target then get closer. You click on the navball where it says orbit, until you see it says target. Now the green circle with the x means you can lower your relative velocity. You dont want to kill it all. You want to go relatively fast towards the target. If you dont go fast enough, the target's position will change while you are orbiting. You also have a purple or pink target pointing towards the target, and pointing away from the target. You want your velocity vector (green circle) at the same position as your target's position (purple circular target), and/or your negative velocity (green x in circle) where the purple triangle-like target is. You will probably see this last one more. To make this happen, experiment: kill almost all your relative velocity (1m/s), then see how it changes as you burn in different directions. The green circle will follow your compass, and the green x will go away from it. The furthest you are from them, the faster.
  18. My entry (first level): - Which game versions did you use? 0.24.2 - What mods did you use, if any? just for the planning, i used hyperedit. otherwise, none - How many launches was needed to start your mission from Kerbal? 6 - How many refueling did you do during the mission, how much and where? 0, during the mission - Did you bring a Living Quarter (Hitch-hiker's Storage) for the guys during the long journey? Yes, science lab too - Did you bring additional stuff like satellites, rovers, etc? no awesome challange, btw
  19. Hi! There is a tutorial in game for catching asteroids in space. That should help. The trick is that by the time you get to them, your speed should be very similar (meaning that your path should be very similar) For the other part... i think it would be very hard to get an asteroid with a VTOL. You would have to pick it up exacty at its center of mass. But navigating to there (even without mechjeb) should be easy. Just build a good jet, and practice
  20. There was a bug where the magnetic force of the docking ports did not activate. But i think it happened only after you docked at least once. 20m seems far, for me. The docking ports have to meet perfectly (less than 1 m). Like here (15:00): It is possible to do this without rcs, but for the first time, rcs can be useful. For the rcs to work reliably, you have to balance them out around the center of mass. (Be careful: the center of mass might move away if you use up fuel. (You can design a ship where it stays in one place))
  21. Not bad, not bad But i like the take off/landing on wheels better. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/48822-Flea-SSTO-%28Jet-Fuel-to-LKO-or-Jet-Ion-to-anywhere-in-the-Kerbol-system%29 - here is a similar concept, but it was made before the ion drive boost. my superlight ssto, partially inspired by the one above: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/63077-Dingo-Superlight-SSTO right now i'm working on this one, it uses the firespitter mod for the propeller - that can lift it up to 7km, so i can spare some xenon gas at the start: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/67343695/Kerbal/ionCruiser.jpg No jet-fuel, it uses only electricity and xenon an a propulsion It can go up 22km and reach 520km/h at that height, but then it stucks The atmosphere does not generate enough lift there, and the engines are not able to raise the speed higher. (The propeller is not effective on this height at all) Maybe the solution would be to get an other mod for bigger xenon gas tanks (so the generated drag from the tanks is lower), but that would be two mods already
  22. I would like to +1 this one too I thought of this before, but now that they boosted ion engines, i need it again! Maybe with propellers i can get high enough to start using the ion, so i can make a plane that gets into orbit with only electricity and ion engines! That would be the best challenge ever! Plus, yeah. On Eve, it would be awesome. If i'm not mistaken, it would be very effective in the thick atmosphere. Yeah, nasa doesnt use this idea YET (if i'm right), but this would really open up space for creativity, it is a realistic solution, and this is a game, after all!
  23. I did this too, but the flight results are interesting... maybe because i had to alt tab a few times, because i forgot how to make a screenshot extra pic:
  24. You can activate the chutes in the same stage with the separators. But if they are farther than 2.5 km and in the atmosphere, they die. So yes, you have to drag the reusable boosters up above the atmosphere, detach them, create an orbital, or suborbital path with your vessel, switch back to the boosters, and wait until they descend. But: you dont need a probe, you will get the money. You dont get the report when recovering, but you get the money back. If you make a suborbital path, you have to know that you have to wait until the boosters fall down in the atmosphere, so, that suborbital path has to be big enough!
  25. Based on this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/87802-%28or-maybe-exploit-or-just-gaming-the-system%29-Gaming-the-Contract-System "Science data from space around <planetbody>", and i hear its the same with "plant a flag" The issue with these missions is that, you get quite a lot of funds and reputation when you orbit a body and get science, but after that, you can just send the same temperature readings, even if it doesnt give you any more science. That takes away from the game itself. It makes fund-gathering too easy (one of the most important gameplay feature from the carrier mode), plus it is just click mission building - click trancking station - select probe - wait for loading - find the temperature item, click on it - send data - go back to space center. This is not like the true ksp experience! ksp is planning, building, flying, and blowing up! suggestion: you should get this mission only once (maybe once per type (gravity reading, temperature, atmosphere, if there is atmosphere)), or if you get it the second time, you should get less funds from it! or, "a minimum of .1 science points HAS to be received for it to be complete" elfindreams wrote: [ How to reproduce: * Complete "Orbit Kerbin" * Place probe into orbit with a single solar panel and a single science experiment and antennae. * Complete "Explore Mun" * Place a similar probe in orbit around Mun * Go to Mission Control * Accept any "Science data..." missions. * Go to the appropriate probe and transmit the same science experiment. * Go to Mission Control * Repeat Notes: * I have only done the cycle around 20 times so it is possible the RNG gods just love me but it seems consistent enough that it feels like that mission is on some "Must Spawn" list. ]
  • Create New...