GluttonyReaper

Members
  • Content Count

    416
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

330 Excellent

1 Follower

About GluttonyReaper

  • Rank
    734

Recent Profile Visitors

4,277 profile views
  1. An Ant engine and a couple of Oscar-B tanks is plenty to go from LKO to the surface of the Mun, even with a few science instruments. Heck, you could probably make a good try at a return, if you can spare the weight for a heatshield Even if they fixed the Oscar-B, they're still great for small, cheap probes.
  2. I've also found they have to be (roughly) in the right orientation to snap together by the nodes. You can get away with ~30 degrees off, but if you're trying to attach it at a 90 degree angle, it won't snap.
  3. As has already been mentioned, this is a bug - there's some localization data missing somewhere. Even if you're on 1.7.2, do a full reinstall from the store, or verify the game files through steam - it's caused by a dodgy download, so that should fix it.
  4. One thing that seems to help (at least for slow walkers) is having pistons as "feet", and having them extending them down into the ground in time with each 'step'.
  5. I would say these are two big reasons for me not modding anywhere near as heavily as I used to. These days I sometimes only have a few hours here and there to play, and I don't really want to waste that hedging my bets on a mod that I've never tried before, or maintaining the mods I already have, or going back to old saves and trying to work out what all these extra parts do... ...but reading this, I'd say this probably the largest reason, although I've never really thought of it specifically before. Having tried to make little games before, I can confirm that setting everything up yourself definitely takes the fun out of it somewhat, especially in story-based games - in terms of KSP, it's somewhat disappointing to already know what the tech tree nodes are, or what you might find on the surface of Moho or Eeloo, or knowing that it's not worth landing on such-and-such planet until you unlock certain parts. It's like reading a book that you've already written yourself. Now that I think about it, the most fun I've had in KSP has been with total overhaul mods, things like Kerbalism or RO or planet packs, which effectively just throw stock balance out the window entirely. I can certainly see the draw of extensively customising the game to your desires - it is a sandbox game after all - but there's something to be said about the "games are a form of art" approach too, one which I feel is underappreciated sometimes. It's why I've been so interested to start up a new game with the DLC, and I've kept fairly spoiler-free on the surface features, because I'm genuinely interested on having something new to find, even if I am keeping my expectations fairly low
  6. My instinctive thought is that this falls into the "technically possible, but probably not worth it" category. From what you've described, 'docking' would effectively be the same as 'berthing'... but with objectively less functionality. It doesn't seem worth the potentially large development time to what mind seems like realism for the sake of realism, without really adding anything. As mentioned, there are other simpler ways to solve the issues with current system, which has already been shown to be feasible by vessel names being tied to command pods. In terms of progression, it seems simpler to model the limitations of docking vs. berthing than anything else - e.g. having fuel crossfeed disabled on early docking ports. In regards to the OP, I suspect a lot of the reason the current system works like it does is to do with simplicity and flexibility. It's easy to forget once you've mastered it, but rendezvous/docking is *hard*. Hard enough without having to worry about whether you've got the right kind of connection or whatever - even now I occasionally flub up and use the wrong size port, and that's just three options.
  7. I've seen this mentioned a few times... but they seem to update just as often as the IVA portraits, and no-one's ever complained about that?
  8. I find the MH rover wheels fit the 'not too big, not too small' niche quite nicely. I think part of the problem is that humans are long and thin (we're like over 50% leg), as opposed to kerbals which... aren't. You can see in that picture that the smallest rover wheels are like a third the height of a kerbal, which isn't that far off. That said, it would be nice to have different variations of rover wheels at those sizes - I'd quite like to see a wheel like the grey medium wheel, but as small as the smallest rover wheel.
  9. Not on Steam, been downloading through the KSP Store. ...buuuut, seeing this post reminded me that A) Axis groups are part of the main 1.7.1 update, and B) I actually used the 1.7.0 to 1.7.1 patch, which historically has always been a bit iffy. So I did a clean install of the main game, and problem solved! Thanks!
  10. Hey, I'm having an issue with #autoLOC_ messages appearing where I assume text is intended to be, in both the axis group menu and some part menus. I'm told it's something to do with localisation, but I'm not sure if everyone's having this specific issue? Running KSP 1.7.1 in English, with 1.7.1 Making History, and 1.0.0 Breaking Ground. I've tried redownloading/installing Breaking Ground, as I assume its related to that, and removing mods (Restock), but the issue is still persisting.
  11. That would make sense... except as has been mentioned, you need two keys for each axis (e.g. left/right). Again, no idea what the defaults would be (if any), but I'm assuming they're rebindable. (on that note, it'd be nice to be able to rebind the custom action groups, although I suppose that's an entirely different feature!)
  12. Just ran into this issue, incredibly frustrating and makes the structural parts mostly useless for what I want to do with them. I would really like to see this fixed, especially considering they would be pretty handy for the upcoming robotics stuff.
  13. It appears you can set the axis groups to the standard movement controls (as in this video, where the arm is mapped specifically to IJKL), but it looks you can just as easily map them to un-used keys through custom axis (as seen in the action menu in this video). Like I'm pretty sure I'd set those to be on the keypad or something, which naturally wouldn't interfere with anything else. Whether or not any of the robotics have default mapping... we have no idea yet. I'm glad to see the system looks nice and complex - it looks like it's one of those things that's easier to understand through experimentation than watching a video, which I'm looking forward to doing
  14. Back in the day, it was pretty much a given that this would happen whenever an update dropped - even the 1.0 release swamped down the KSP site to usability for the better part of a day. Good times... Since then though, it tends not to happen anymore, or at least it lasts a short enough time that it hasn't affected me for a while.
  15. My first rendezvous and docking was possibly the hardest thing I've done in KSP. A combination of terrible ship design (why did I put the ports on the sides of the ships?) and having no idea what I was doing made it a painful experience, to say the least. I'm pretty sure I used up two of the 2.5m RCS tanks in the procrss, but I got there in the end (after a few breathing breaks and tutorials). It's one of those things, once you get the hang of it you'll wonder why you ever struggled with it at all, and nowadays I actually quite enjoy doing it. If it's any consolation, NASA both struggled with and failed their first attempt at rendezvous (see Gemini 4).