• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

45 Excellent

About Mattasmack

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Am I right in thinking that this mod requires the old KAS (0.6) rather than the new KAS 1.0? I was playing with only the latter installed and wasn't able to connect any SEP experiments to the central station; after I installed the old KAS as well I was able to do so. (I also have a bajillion other mods installed, so I thought I'd ask since it could easily be a conflict somewhere else that caused the behavior.) My understanding is that the old, 0.6 KAS is going to go away soon when the new version is officially released shortly.
  2. I'm interested in seeing how this tech tree turns out! ETT is my preferred tree, but compatibility with CTT would be really nice if it brings compatibility with more mods. I'm curious to see what you do with the early tree for the aircraft branch. I've never gotten far in an aircraft-first career game; there just didn't seem to be enough science available on the home planet to make it practical. I do hope you return to pinwheel-type layout of ETT, though. Once feature I like about ETT is how it puts standalone technologies into their own standalone branches (e.g., antennas get their own branch, and solar panels, solid rocket motors, etc.), and once you've done that I don't think organizing the whole tree into uniform tiers or tech levels makes sense any more -- it sort of makes a false equivalence between totally unrelated techs that happen to be in the same column. Probus's layout really emphasizes that these branches can be tackled in any order.
  3. I've been playing KSP with mods recently (including graphical ones) so maybe I'm remembering stock graphics through rose-colored glasses, but I really didn't think they were so bad as to be deal-breaking. My problem with the planets in KSP has always been how dead they are. As I recall, my reactions to landing on new planets was usually along the lines of "Wow, a new planet/moon, cool ... this place is really desolate ... I wanna go back home! I'm homesick!" Sending bases always seemed kind of depressing, as they were destined to just run out of resources and/or break and be abandoned. (Eventually, every solar panel on an active base/station is likely to be run into!) There would be no lasting impact on the location of the base, and no impact on Kerbin other than some science points. Having things happen on planets to make them seem alive or at least changeable should be helpful -- weather, scatter that indicates the presence of life or even moves, tectonic activity and other things yall have suggested. In my current save I have MKS, KAS/KIS, and ground construction; I hope they will make base-building feel fulfilling rather than empty, though I haven't progressed far enough yet to actually use them. Seeing some change to the planet around the base would make it feel more meaningful -- even if it's just the accumulation of trash, though I'd hope for a more positive impact than that. Having terrain that actually has small-scale features might be helpful too, and it might even make using rovers interesting. Adding more planets is definitely not helpful, if they are just more of the same.
  4. Careful here, it sounds like you're applying real-life logic where you need KSP-logic instead. Radially attached parts produce drag, period**. All that matters drag-wise is how they're angled to the vessel's direction of travel. Location does not matter; you can tuck them under another part for esthetics, but KSP doesn't know that that ought to keep them out of the airstream. In fact, if tucking them under means they present a larger cross-section in the direction of travel, drag will actually be higher. (As an aside, this often comes up when putting solar panels flat on a cone-shaped part like a 1.25m -> 2.5m adapter. In real life, the panels would add almost no drag if laid flat on the underlying part. In KSP-logic, such panels are seen to be angled to the rocket's direction of travel, and they produce significant of drag and lift. The lowest-drag orientation is to make the panels vertical, regardless of the shape of the part they're attached to.) ** (unless contained within a closed service bay, cargo bay, or fairing, of course.) Back in the pre-1.0 souposphere days, aiming for 45 degrees at 10km really was universal, along with an optimal TWR of 2. With the current aerodynamics, the design of the rocket matters much more. If you design your rockets fairly consistently, you might be able to find a single launch profile that works well for all your designs. But others will have different experiences.
  5. I can't see your rocket too clearly in that screenshot but I'd say, yes, it's possible you have that much drag. Radially-attached parts add drag. Size changes between stack-mounted parts (e.g. a .625m engine or decoupler on a 1.25m tank) add drag. It looks like you have lots of both of those. And SRB casings, even after burn-out, are pretty heavy for their size (high ballistic coefficient) so they probably aren't decelerating much in that picture. Johnny Wishbone's advice to try F12 is good too -- it's also possible that you're getting excessive drag from a bug; the aerodynamic overlay would show you that if a whole lot of drag is coming from one unexpected place. (And BTW, you're likely to get better/more answers in the 'gameplay questions and tutorials' subforum.)
  6. Not to reignite that controversy (but here I go anyway), but much of the criticism I saw of the 'tier 0' buildings, including the barn, was justified. It would be a neat Easter egg to have it appear somewhere else on Gael, but I wouldn't want to see it at the KSC. (Sort of like the original KSC buildings in stock -- having them out there as a second KSC to find is cool, but I wouldn't want to go back to having them be the KSC.) That reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask: In stock, when you find an Easter egg you get a little bonus through the world first milestones system. I've only gone to one anomaly in GPP so far, on Iota, but I'm pretty sure it didn't trigger any such bonus. Is that something you have any control over, and if so can you bring it back? Although the reward wasn't large, I always liked it as it gave me just enough incentive to go find and visit the anomalies.
  7. Oh, thanks for mentioning that! I was a bit confused about why I had so many possible contracts referring to station crews and adding modules and whatnot, but none to put a station up in the first place. I ran into the same problem with the space telescope contracts in ResearchBodies, I think -- references to Kerbin in the contract cfg files were keeping them from showing up.
  8. I was bummed when GPP updated right before I went on vacation for a week, so that I wouldn't be able to play it on my gaming PC. I decided to give it a shot on my wife's budget laptop, which we took with us, and it's been working surprisingly well! This machine has a 2.3 GHz two-core CPU and only 6 GB RAM (with 256 MB shared with the integrated graphics), and I'm able to run KSP with GPP and about 50 mods in total. No visual enhancements mods, of course, and I turned down the in-game graphics options. It's been working fine for this brand-new career save, though I haven't yet upgraded the VAB so I also haven't launched anything with more than 30 parts yet. And in a few days I can move the game over to my PC and finally see the planets as they're meant to be seen. Thanks, Galileo & co., for this wonderful mod! I've been playing KSP since the 0.18.2 days and didn't realize how stale the stock solar system had become for me until I tried out this one. With that and running my first heavily-modded saves, it's almost an entirely new game.
  9. That rover design is wonderful! And my hat is off to you for driving them so far. I used rovers in a couple of my Caveman runs, and I never really want to do that again.
  10. I just ran into this bug for the first time (trying to demolish some old pods of rescued kerbals) and came here to see if I could find anything about it -- and it's already fixed! (And installing the latest version from CKAN did, indeed, fix the problem.) So I'll just say thanks for this great mod, it adds so much to KSP to be able to change and fix things in flight!
  11. And if you're currently working on the 90-science tier of the tech tree, I suggest going for the nodes with the OKTO probe core and solar panels next. It sounds like you're concentrating on crewed flights currently, but it's easier to send probes to Mun and Minmus first (the rockets for them can be much smaller) and they'll give you enough science to unlock further nodes to make crewed missions easier.
  12. To clarify -- do you have the tech tree unlocked up through (including) the 90-science tier, or the one before? Also, are you playing with any mods that impact gameplay that we ought to know about? If you are attempting a landing on Mun, I recommend going to Minmus instead. Its SOI is a smaller target to hit from LKO, but you can do it and the delta-V requirements for landing are significantly lower than for Mun. If you almost have enough for a Mun landing, you should be able to make it on Minmus. (Also, the lower gravity means everything happens more slowly when landing, which makes it a bit easier to do if you don't have much practice landing on airless bodies yet.) In any case, I also recommend posting pictures and/or .craft files of your moon rocket. You should be able to do it with the tech you have; seeing your rocket will help people give you relevant advice. In terms of science, have you also exhausted high/low space above Mun and Minmus? How about high above the sun? (You just have to pop out of Kerbin's SOI briefly, then go right back in.)
  13. Aw shucks, thanks! When the next release comes out I'm finally ready to try the challenge on hard mode.
  14. Well here goes! Once I got started, it turns out I had a lot I wanted to write about. Full album of images here (without descriptions currently): Imgur album Launch 1: Launch 2: Launch 3: Launch 4: