Jump to content

PDCWolf

Members
  • Content Count

    688
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

253 Excellent

About PDCWolf

  • Rank
    Junior Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I mean if you've reduced yourself to nitpick 99.99987% from 99.999999999% in my dumb example just to have any point at all, might as well call it over. Lastly, all those kerbals you named clearly have some intelligence to them, even if they're not astronauts, something that still can't be said about every motorist on Earth. Canonically, with the evidence present in the game, Kerbals are smarter, and more capable than us. They only have a high disregard for safety rules, which is understandable for beings that can resist upwards of a 100m/s impact on their heads.
  2. 99.9999999999999% of people operating cars didn't invent them, and 99.999999999999% of them won't ever go near a rocket. Kerbals, on the other hand (and with our current knowledge), are all trained astronauts, with varying degrees of capabilities, something almost every single human in history could only dream of.
  3. This is more like devolving. The idea of Kerbals being 40k orks or anything of the sort was left behind when the barn debacle happened. Of course, the models being incredibly low quality didn't help, but the idea in general was obnoxious and generally disliked as well, which is why we don't have the barn anymore (thankfully).
  4. Shameful how y'all forgot what Bac9 wrote up. I'll quote: Far from 40k Orks. This was posted on this forum, but given the changes it's been lost, however Bac9 got the article on Gamasutra as well.
  5. Rules link doesn't work (yes, I know they are in the OP) and there's one missing detail (assuming positive since not mentioned): Are there limits to how many entries per participant?
  6. These are all elevated from my own concerns with KSP1 + What's been raised from KSP2 confirmed stuff and media. It's a mishmash of questions in no particular order Will KSP2 start with everything KSP1 already has mechanic wise? (including DLCs like breaking ground's robotics?) During the launch & ascent gameplay scene from the trailer, stars were still easily visible even when the sun, and later what's probably the mun's surface were visible, will that be fixed? What about part size variety? can we expect the same tiers? More? Less? With the codebase rewritten, was
  7. I'm gonna follow up on what Hoioh already said: They are more specific than limiting. If you were to read over them quickly, you'd realize that they have few goals in reality: Create a craft that looks and works like a normal airplane and land it -also like a normal airplane- on the VAB roof without abusing the game and/or game engine in any way. It's a legit design and demonstrate contest that doesn't allow another "see how you can bend the rules/break the game and still count" type of situation. More specific to what you say, the 4:1 wingspan to body length ratio rule is (it also says so in
  8. Done, it's highlighted. It was outside the first spoiler because it's not a rule specific for the aircraft itself, but for the whole game, no physics mods or part mods or anything, only those that provide information, which are already pretty useless for this challenge.
  9. Mechjeb for information is fine, not sure about the flaps or cockpit (or any other part tbh) My reasoning is as follows: Stock has its own balance and it's something everyone can measure their creations against. I do not know how AP+, quiztech or other mods are balanced, specially airplane oriented ones, because stock KSP is spaceplane oriented so most stuff is both heavy and powerful. This means I either have to check all competing mods' performance part by part against their stock counterparts to see if they are compatible and if you aren't getting some form of advantage (even if not malicio
  10. Amazingly done, props for posting a close attempt as well! As zolotiyeruki said, that breaks rule nº 11 - All landing gear must point parallel to the direction of flight, your second suggestion breaks rule 2 and probably rule 10. Zolotiyeruki here is taking as much as he can from rule 3 for example, but his craft is still inside the regulations. There's a lot of rules for this challenge, but they are in place to ensure the craft presented are not trickery based crafts but actual engineered solutions within a set of constraints, whilst still allowing for some creativity. VAB roof lan
  11. Here's another example of an entry that counts: https://streamable.com/ebbms
  12. As the title implies, your goal is to land on the roof of the KSC, however, this is not your every day land on the roof challenge: Tight engineering restrictions make this a true challenge, one for the can-do-all types. You have to be good not only at engineering an aircraft that fits the rules, but also have the hands required to put it where I ask you to, in the way I ask you to. You might post any attempt with any craft for fun, but competing runs must adhere to the following: Procedures & Rules: •To create a fair experience for everyone, mods are not allowed for competing r
  13. No word on this?: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/178960-reentry-modules-are-draggy-uncontrollable-garbage-that-will-flip-a-rocket-90-of-the-time/ Even if they are supposed to be launched inside a fairing, they are disproportionally draggy and unaerodynamic in general.
  14. So, I removed FAR. Problem is still there. That makes me point to proc fairings, although they work fine on other rockets. ¿Payload with too much parts? ¿Too complex? Happens if I remove the inner fairings too, so nested fairings is not the problem.
×
×
  • Create New...