Jodo42

Members
  • Content Count

    409
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

148 Excellent

About Jodo42

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

1,895 profile views
  1. There's more than enough interesting stuff left to justify adding at least another gas giant, that is doable with the current engine. Co-orbital bodies. Saturn has several moons in this configuration. If you properly incentivized travel between them (say, they both had an atmosphere, or some interesting ISRU resource), it would be an easy teaching moment for resonance orbits, which aren't frequently used elsewhere in the game. Highly inclined, eccentric, and retrograde moons. Plenty of the first two in our solar system, and there's Triton for the last. Something like Hyperion, with the elongated but still not "lumpy" shape. Plenty of other possible weird shapes, like Pan and Atlas. This is ignoring both stuff that doesn't exist in our solar system but is still realistic, like your subsatellite suggestion, desert/ice/lava planets, brown dwarfs and Super Earths, contact binaries like Arrokoth, and weirder stuff like stellar remnants, as well as real objects that would require some additions to the current engine, like ring systems and shepherd moons, volcanism like on Io, cryovolcanism like on Europa and Enceladus, content that would make ocean planets and cave systems worth exploring, bodies with unusual axial tilt etc. Much of which is already doable with Kopernicus. And of course, there's plenty more mundane stuff. Procedural asteroids generating as trojans, Kupier Belt/scattered disc/Oort cloud bodies. Small bodies in general are great for complex moon/binary systems (see: Pluto, Eris, Haumea, Makemake, asteroids with moons, etc). I'm sure others can go on. Our universe is an amazing place with a huge amount of diversity among its objects. And we've been blessed with a pretty amazing, diverse solar system, too. Imagine a species that lived in a "boring" system with few large objects. Or even just imagine we were like Venus, with no Moon. How would the course of human history be altered if our closest explorable worlds were only bright specks in the sky, featureless and indistinguishable from stars to an untrained eye? How much longer would it take such a civilization to explore the cosmos? Whatever reason they have for not adding new bodies, it's surely not because of a lack of options.
  2. In general if you're having trouble with old links the first thing you should do is try them out in archive.org. It looks like very little from the OP's website was saved. The only working download is for 0.13.3. It's probably better to use the archived versions of the old, now-defunct official links. I didn't check them all, but 0.7.3 is still working. I suspect 0.6.5 is back to being a lost version unfortunately.
  3. Also known as linear motion or robot rails. Like how a claw machine works. It's hard to describe, so watch a video: Right now adding translation to robotics setups requires awkward piston contraptions. This kind of rail setup could be used for everything from robotic arms to heavy cargo landers. Not to mention potential uses as a monorail or train system, if scaled up. This sort of thing is technically already possible in stock, but wheels have always been lackluster in KSP and the setups tend to be high part count and low reliability. Breaking Ground could use some pulleys, winches and ropes, too, but that's another topic.
  4. Saw this on reddit today. Easter egg spoilers. https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/fkhiti/i_found_an_easter_egg_in_gameslinxs_beyond_home/
  5. First time on the Mun in JNSQ. Any landing you can transmit science from counts, right?
  6. I was looking to make some custom engine configs for BDB- most of the engines have the same rated burn times and ignition #s, and I've had some issues with engines failing reliably well short of the rated times- but I really don't know where to begin. Could somebody point me in the right direction? Is it more or less just text file editing, or do I actually need to know how to code? If it's a relatively simple process, much of the research has already been done by the RO crew, so I could probably source most of my numbers from them.
  7. I strongly recommend going with custom difficulty settings for career mode. "Hard" adds a few new challenges but really, primarily is just a bigger grind, as you said. The progression is balanced around Normal currency settings and it shows. I usually go with Normal with the exception of unticking "No entry purchase required," and ticking most of the "advanced" options like plasma blackout, kerbal/part g-force limits, etc. I find it's just about right for allowing you to focus on exploration missions rather than grinding sat/tourist contracts, while still putting reasonable constraints on the size and cost of your missions, through available funding and building upgrades. Don't forget the admin building, too. It can be extremely useful and in my experience most people just ignore it. Mind you, I'm playing Stock+DLCs; your results will be different with mods. I also have a self-imposed limitation of only landing on a planet/moon once unless I have a good reason to go back, usually related to ISRU. It helps push you to explore more and keeps the scenery from getting old.
  8. @CranialRectosis Other than as sepratrons I can't think of any great uses in a stock/DLCs sandbox game. Often times setting up SRBs is easier than asparagus, but not strictly better. Depends on whether you value ingame efficiency more than your free time. Only takes a few seconds to strap on 8 SRBs and strut them up, while if you needed that much thrust from asparagus it'd take a while to get all the 2x symmetry boosters/fuel lines/struts/sepratrons in place properly. More on topic: you get access to excellent engines very early on. I use the Terrier regularly even in late-game vehicles. I see no reason a part can't remain relevant through an entire career game. There's a part upgrade feature in-game for a reason, it makes perfect sense to buff the early SRBs later in the tech tree so they stay balanced. I don't find myself using the Flea particularly often mid-late game, but maybe that's just because it's so bad. It's not unreasonable to say that in a stock game you won't be using probes until well after you've explored much of the system with crewed crafts, and relays around Kerbin, the Mun and Minmus can all be easily established with 1.25m parts, so there's a potential use-case for the Flea, Hammer and Thumper in the mid-late game.
  9. Can confirm this is an issue in KSP 1.8.1, either with the base game or one of the DLCs, don't have time to check right now. Also not sure if this is already known or not. Test rocket: Test results below. 5 flights, all at 4x physwarp from before liftoff, no SAS Choosing the Oscar-B and Thumper as root parts had, within the margin of error, identical results. Choosing the fairing as the base part had radically different effects; the vehicle deviated from a straight-up trajectory below 3km and peaked below 6km before inverting while still firing and splashing down hard. Apoapsis was recorded through the map screen for the booster and fuel tank tests; fairing test apo came from F3. The fairing-root flights also had a much higher degree of unpredictability regarding their trajectory, although whether that's because the game is treating it differently or just because the numbers are smaller is not clear.
  10. Had to wait around a few years in a Kerbin-Moho transfer for the encounters to line up recently; that bumped me up to Year 27 Kerbal-time. That's after return missions from Duna and Laythe so far. How old is your space program, and how much has it gotten done in that time?
  11. Every single time I attempt an interplanetary mission I invariably encounter almost unplayable issues with the encounter system. It goes something like this: I'm clicking a certain node on a maneuver, say, radial-in. Every time I click it my encounter gets a bit closer, maybe a few kilometers. I do this 30 or 40 times and every single click the encounter gets a little bit closer. Then, for no reason whatsoever, at a random time the encounter just completely disappears. It acts as if the fraction of a meter per second I'm adding is moving the encounter by millions or billions of meters, when the previous fraction of a m/s moved it by a few thousand. In fact, the closest approach markers usually act as if I'm now off by a quarter orbit, like I missed the transfer window entirely. No, my transfer isn't on the edge of an encounter with another object like the Mun. If I keep clicking the node, sometimes the encounter returns, sometimes it doesn't. Direct trajectories from solar orbit to any of the moons of any planet, and the smaller planets like Moho, Dres and Eeloo, all constantly have this happen. I swear to God this will stop me from buying KSP2 if it isn't fixed. I've been playing for who knows how many years now, long enough to get the DLCs for free, and it has been like this every single time I come back to play. I know everyone doesn't go outside the Kerbin system. But encounters and maneuver nodes are so wildly important this part of the game. They must be completely rock solid. How do I reliably, consistently keep my encounters from disappearing? Randomly fiddling with the node sometimes works but not always and it makes the process of refining a transfer even more extremely tedious than it already is. I have wasted so much of my time trying to circumvent this issue rather than actually building, flying or planning. I already have "Always show closest approach" enabled; all this does is show me that it's skipping to the next orbit's closest approach (which, as I said, isn't an encounter at all) when it loses the one I already have, instead of it just disappearing. Stock game plus both DLCs, all completely up to date. No mods at all.
  12. Also working on an Eve design with terriers, also encountering weird overheating. I'd also recommend just cheating the thermals; if the only thing blowing up on your ship is the Terriers, then your ship can survive Eve entry just fine. It's just a bug messing you up. Just make sure you disable it again before takeoff; thermal management can be an important part of Eve ascents.
  13. When you have big, awkward fairings/payloads like this, you could try taking a much steeper trajectory. Go back to your original design with the SRBs and fly straight up until your apo gets >100k or until you're above 30km in altitude- don't turn even a little bit or your rocket will flip. Once you're above 30k then you can gently turn the rocket. Just remember your circularization burn is going to be longer than it usually is and your lifter might need some extra delta-v/boosters to get it to orbit properly. It looks like you have plenty of funds to throw at the problem, so this might be as simple as "moar boosters"
  14. The airbags on Spirit and Opportunity were designed to allow a survivable landing at >10m/s and ~400kg, and bounces after landing at over 30m/s. Try that with stock landing legs and see what happens.
  15. Abyssal Lurker did some impressive stuff way back in the day, as did Matthew Karr. Maccollo did really impressive RSS/RO work.