boolybooly

Members
  • Content Count

    1,282
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

453 Excellent

4 Followers

About boolybooly

  • Rank
    Rocket Dilettante

Profile Information

  • Location Array
  • Interests Array

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The president and committee of the K-Prize, having sat in plenary session at the snug bar of the Dog & Booster would like to offer heartfelt congratulations to @BeanThruster on successfully completing the K-Prize mission with an effective flight plan earning an Utilitarial Commendation for transferring a biolab to orbit and an Advanced Pilot Precision Award 1st Class for docking in orbit and landing back at KSC runway. Thanks for your thorough mission report and welcome to the honoured ranks of those who have succeeded in completing the K-Prize mission aka the K-Prize party guest list. Well flown!
  2. Thanks, yes I was wrong to assume it would be the same for everyone else, also somehow, I kid you not, the BB has erased my previous post which was not of my doing. I will endeavour to reconstruct it. Oh wait, the post you quoted has moved to the top. I need to sort my sorting. Why does computerz hate me today? PS dont try mapping staging to [delete] either, as that is the hard coded hotkey for the docking mode interface... *sigh*.
  3. oh! I see now... Having reinstalled and tested with default settings, the problem I was having is because I had already mapped the staging/launch hotkey to [insert] key which is also the new undocumented hard-coded and unexposed/unmodifiable hotkey to hide and reveal the staging stack! I cannot find it listed in settings anywhere, but it works even when staging is mapped to default [space]. Which I hope helps @TanoPrime as well. So I guess this explains why it was not a universal experience then! lol, I suppose the appropriate thing to request is exposing the stack hide key in settings so we can remap it... please
  4. This is in the playfield and the map. Using the staging hotkey causes the staging icon stack to hide until the key is pressed again. You also have to press the stage key three times to start the first stage now because the first press unintuitively hides the stack, second brings it back and third activates the stage and hides the stack again. FYI I dont have and have never had any mods on my KSP install, v1.8 via Steam, in OS Win7x64 on a PC. If you have not tried to launch a multistage rocket in 1.8 stock be advised this did not occur until after the 1.8 update with a fresh multistage launch in a 1.7 career gamesave and it also occurs in a fresh 1.8 sandbox game (recommend craft "Kerbal X" as a useful premade asparagus multistage tester) and the stack hiding looks like intended behaviour. But its not working very well and it would be nice to have a way to lock it off. I recommend other interested parties test their updated client before assuming this is abnormal, I think you will find it is the same for all of us now unless you have mods blocking it.
  5. Same here with the 1.8 update the staging stack autohides when I dont want it to and requires redundant keypresses to stage which is kind of alarming given how sensitive the staging system is to over zealous use! It is also adding extra redundant keypresses in for chute activation. Sometimes takes three keypresses to get the chutes on the next stage to open. Would be good if right clicking the staging icon locks the stage stack in place so it does not auto hide and responds immediately without redundant keypresses required. It also carries important information about stage dV so its useful for it to remain visible for that as well.
  6. I was just thinking the other day how nice it would be to have more boosters and as if by magic....!
  7. @benjaminlamont thats fine, no worries, it sounds like you are busy and have your priorities in the right order. Those mountains can be tricky. FYI Landing wherever you want is fine as long as no parts are lost and a speed of zero is achieved so that you could recover the craft if you so wished. I only asked because it is one of the extra achievements possible and wasn't sure if I needed to add it to the listing in the OP. However, a successful K-Prize mission is kudos enough in its own right! Congratulations on completing the K-Prize mission with Liquidescent (name changed as per your instructions) and thankyou for your mission report. Welcome to the roll of honour aka the K-Prize party guest list.
  8. Spaceplanes are hard! @benjaminlamont Thanks for your report on your several attempts to build and fly an orbital spaceplane, as you have discovered, its not as easy as it looks but I am glad to note your success with the all liquid fuel design which you stated made it into orbit and back. I am assuming you are well aware of the requirement for not losing parts and that "back" means safely landed without losing parts. If that is the case you have won the K-Prize. However on a technical issue before awarding the K-Prize listing I need to know if the craft made it back to the runway or not and what name you would like it to be known by. EDIT I decided to go ahead and link the K-Prize listing without extra kudos and improvise a name, craftymccraftface, which I am happy to replace if you wish to provide a better one.
  9. Congratulations @Robdjee on completing the K-Prize mission successfully with your interesting tri-hull design Syrvania. Docking with a space station earns the coveted Advanced Pilot Precision Award (APPA) and delivering a payload to orbit earns the esteemed Utilitarial Commendation. Well played, thanks for your mission report video and welcome to the K-Prize roll of honour aka the K-Prize party guest list. See you at the Dog and Booster!
  10. The present moment is the gate through which we must pass to reach the future. One aspect of the politico-economic reality is you have to justify the expense of space development in relation to human wellbeing and economic productivity. Which is why the current R&D strategy for space can proceed if it is productive relevant to the present economy, something Elon Musk is well aware of and is making a good job of optimising. As Lach-01298 pointed out we are already falling far behind the Rockwell time line because we have other priorities. These include development for undeveloped economies, which is also an humanitarian endeavour as this raises the standard of living and survival rates. Which is why people like Bill & Melinda Gates have funded the development of a malaria vaccine for example rather than space stuff. The good news is that the more developed and livable our lives become the more productivity we can sustain and the better space development will proceed. Currently we are not only focussed on global equality of development but we have to change over from fossil fuels which is a major economic drag, even if the climate arguments are ignored (which personally I would not think was wise) the finite supply cannot be and it implies an impending collapse of supply and therefore of global productivity, so the sooner we get on with it the less catastrophic it will be while we still have fossil support. So this has to be prioritised. In this context the defence of Earth from asteroid strikes is one of the few space related goals we cannot afford to ignore, so I would suggest that for the time being this has to be the focus for space science and exploration development beyond industrial applications, (which provide their own incentives and thereby funds). It is a feature I could not find on the Rockwell plan, please correct me if I am wrong.
  11. I like the idea personally and mentioned similar in a previous post. I have seen similar mechanics in other games, where research goes towards designing custom creations before making them. It creates a sense of manufacturing to add a preparatory step to the design process. IMHO it would be nice to be able to develope a line of engines and better still if it depended on the quality of your Kerbal scientists e.g. Its something which crops up repeatedly that I use an engine with a smaller shroud than the fuel tank diameter, it would be nice to resize an engine and change its native diameter as well as proportional thrust characteristics. It would also be nice to be able to make marginal improvements, like to ISP or shave mass off, by changing materials used since new resources are supposed to be a thing in KSP2. I don't think sharing is a reason not to do it. The same logic applies to sharing designs in career for which the tech is not unlocked, you cannot build it period. Shared designs would either be buildable in sandpit or not in career if the part was not unlocked. In fact an improved part might become a sharable blueprint which become a researchable research target if you have the scientists to do it, which could add a big incentive to sharing.
  12. Depends how you look at it. I am a cup half full about this, when I first got into KSP it was ages ago, 2011 or earlier due to notification on relic.news, now defunct, which was originally a Homeworld fansite, before they went WH40K etc because I love games with spaceships in. I bought KSP alpha for $15 or something and then I bought it twice more just to give them more money. So I guess you could look at it as Private Division reducing legacy liabilities and maximising profits but if they are developing KSP2 and money helps then I want to give them money, because that means KSP2 gets funded. The very least they have to do is pay costs and break even and if they make a profit then its an incentive to make more KSP which I want them to do so I want them to make a profit. IMHO they have judged carefully what is worthy of being KSP1 DLC and what is KSP2 and have gone the extra mile to add to KSP1 while reengineering the engine so it can handle multiple star systems, which seems to qualify as KSP2 in my book. This does not feel like an accounting driven fast ball approach, they have thought about this and IMHO they got it right. I wont tell you how much I backed Elite and Star Citizen for due to the high profile of spaceships in the pitches but compared to those, full price for KSP2 is great value, considering how much I play it.
  13. I ran searches for this and I cant find a recent reference to the idea of animated Kerbal emotes in KSP2. Though there were modder suggestions about this as far back as 2014 for KSP1. IMHO multiplayer in particular would make whole body animated emotes for Kerbals entertaining and these would also facilitate video producers trying to get Kerbals to act.
  14. I think cooperative play would mostly be friendly. A space race scenario needs another KSC or two or three but I could see that as a benefit for coop play as well. Some people will want to play adversarially so let them IMHO, so it needs at least two if not more game modes i.e. coop and competitive but protect hosts of coop games against trolls. I think it would be good to share universes in coop as well as ship designs and also sub-assemblies, so one player can build a lift section while another one builds payload kinda thing. Or one player can provide a ship another player pilots. Or two pilots can take off independantly and rendezvous. In all cases players should be able to import designs from their SP saves. If a host uses their own built on SP universe map to host MP it should be copied and firewalled from the hosts original SP universe save in case trolls get into games and do bad things. It should be possible to save in MP universe and import-/export from-/to the SP universe for both hosts and guests, so if trolls or disasters occur in a MP shared scenario the host can revert the MP universe or if all goes well the host or guest can export the MP session save into a SP save and keep playing it in SP. The notion of competitive play introduces the possibility of scoring achievements. Also rules regarding foul play such as accidentally dropping a stage on a competitors launch pad for example. Some competitive game modes this should result in a penalty against the offender but in others like open warfare mode it would not be naughty but an achievement! So different modes would need different rules and different methods for scoring achievements. N.B. it should be noted that HarvesteR was absolutely against weapons as components for craft in KSP and I agree with this but I also note people want to play in their own way and some players do like to find ways of using KSP to do battle so IMHO this should at least be recognised and if not encouraged at least permitted.
  15. Yes, its almost as if HarvesteR left stubs in KSP for those who came after to fill in