GluttonyReaper

Members
  • Content Count

    434
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

344 Excellent

1 Follower

About GluttonyReaper

  • Rank
    734

Recent Profile Visitors

4,377 profile views
  1. I was actually thinking of writing a mod that allowed kerbals to form 'bonds' with other kerbals if they spent enough time with them, then providing some kind of bonus when using them together. Alas, it was never to be...
  2. It's not something I use super regularly in my life, but I really do struggle to keep what East and West are in my brain for whatever reason. I always have to check which is "left" and "right", no matter how much I'm using them at any given time, yet North and South being "up" and "down" seems to stick quite happily. Fun thing - I've been doing some stuff with solar astronomy recently, and one of the conventions that is often used for observations is to project the Earth's compass points onto the Sun. This has the really unfortunate effect of actually flipping East and West when using that system, which really doesn't help the confusion...
  3. Can confirm, this combined with having 'floaters' means that I prolly haven't seen clearly for a long, long time The only thing I'm vaguely opposed to is motion blur, if only because it can make me feel a bit queazy sometimes.
  4. I see... it's clearly a moderator conspiracy to monopolize the like economy (and presumably take over the world)
  5. Cube - if you're spending most of your time in space, and ascent is incredibly trivial, may as well just ignore aerodynamics, right? Basically just build a flying house - not the most comfortable, but dirt cheap to make, so you can make loads of em, which is pretty much the major advantage of discovering a method of escaping Earth's gravity with almost no effort.
  6. Reactions are currently disabled, for reasons: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/188240-reactions-have-been-disabled/
  7. Yes, they are, it's been officially confirmed. EDIT: It's been confirmed in a few places, for example the FAQ in this thread: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/187315-kerbal-space-program-2-master-post/
  8. Think of the gravity assists... for maximum efficiency, you'd have to go through the centers of as many donuts as possible
  9. Your threads are still there, they've just been moved to the Kerbal Network sub-forum: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/187910-no-purchases-allowed-from-britain/ As for the actual issue... it is rather strange, but I doubt it's a conspiracy to force people onto Steam. I'm in the UK, but I unfortunately can't confirm if this is a widespread/recent issue, as I bought the game many years ago off the store, and was given the DLCs free... But it looks @Vanamonde's on it, so it should be resolved soon
  10. Laythe. I have attempted a Jool-5 three times I think since I started playing KSP back in 2013, and all three of those ended with a failed Laythe lander. Tylo? Vall? Bop? All fine. But Laythe, for some reason... always ended up being my stumbling block. And it was a different mistake each time, ranging from craft error (woah, those fuel lines didn't work like I thought they would!) to pilot error (err, this craft can take off from water, right?) to stuff I can't even remember now. As a result, even though I've been to all five of Jool's moons more than once, I've never actually managed to finish a Jool-5 properly without sending a rescue mission.
  11. Slight aside, but this has me wondering - with Breaking Ground released, would it possible to change how gimbal limits work such that you set it between two angles for each axis, like you would with a servo? Rather than the "angle from the default setting" that currently exists? It might help mitigate some of the issues SAS has dealing with high gimbal engines, especially when in space shuttle set-ups, allowing you to point thrust through the COM even with odd shaped engines like SRBs.
  12. Eh, I never really liked the name 'Kerbol'... *grumble grumble*
  13. Perhaps you could enable collisions on the moving legs, amd then create some kind of physical blocking buffers with cubic struts?
  14. Frankly, whether this depends pretty heavily on what parts aren't being included, and whether they're given suitable replacements. Like, would anyone even notice if the Micronode went, uh... 'missing'?
  15. I suspect I'm in the minority here, but I actually quite like the science system as it exists now - it's the one part of career that actually works, as far as I'm concerned. The gamplay loop of "go place get science to get parts to go more places to get more science..." is simple, but it does feel quite rewarding, at least until the end of the tech tree. As it stands, it's still the only reason to go anywhere in KSP1, outside of "just 'cause". That said, it obviously has some flaws, like collection could do with some streamlining. In particular, I'd like to see most instruments be "passively" collecting rather than the player having to guess when they're in a new biome or situation or whatever, so you just get a chunk of science at the end of mission, with only the big one-use experiments needing any user input. And the tech tree could do with some reworking, maybe more nodes with fewer items in each or something? You could also have different types of science points, which you might need a mix of for certain nodes - like "rocket science points", "plane science points" and uh, "science science points", just to make it slightly more appropriate for certain parts. But yeah, the core system I think works rather well, and doesn't particularly need to be gutted like most of career mode. If anything, I think it'd work better in KSP2 - half the problem in the orginal is that you've probably unlocked most things before you go interplanetary, so there's not much to "get" by that point. In KSP2, it looks like there'll be multiple levels of technology, so the tech tree can keep going much longer, without the feeling of missing parts that you should just have like in KSP1.