• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

135 Excellent

About Jodo42

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

1,689 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. @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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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?
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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"
  8. 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.
  9. Abyssal Lurker did some impressive stuff way back in the day, as did Matthew Karr. Maccollo did really impressive RSS/RO work.
  10. I look forward to your improvements! Good thing there wasn't a Kerbal onboard
  11. It seems like every time I complete some big mission, the landing on Kerbin is always in some extremely mountainous region, threatening to destroy my pod in what should be the easiest part of the mission. I guess the curse struck you this time instead of me! Epic mission. I really hate going to those 3 bodies in particular- I don't like small gravity wells and high inclination- and I can't imagine going to all 3 even without direct ascent. I did a Dres landing recently and it was a huge pain to get it down safely because it was so top heavy; my lander was probably half the height of yours! This is pretty much a textbook mission according to my vision for this challenge. I was getting worried because so many people were asking exactly what the rules meant and there were so few submissions, so I'm very glad you got it figured out so well. For anyone who's unclear on how your mission should be set up, please reference this post. One big lander whose upper stages sequentially transfer to, land on, and re-orbit other planets. Congrats cantab for 265 points! That puts you at the top of the leaderboard. You really earned the badge! (if you chose to use it
  12. 66.1km. Still no clue what my velocities or altitudes should be. Double tailfins was a bad idea.
  13. There needs to be at least 1 stage per planet/moon. You need to land the entire mothership whenver you land somewhere. Once a stage of the mothership is empty you can decouple it. If you have a mod in mind let me know, but the challenge is intended for Stock+DLC's only, in terms of engines/capsules/etc. Mechjeb is fine. You get 1 launch. No shuttles. If you could show me what you mean by this it would be helpful, but the answer is probably no. No. No. My submission (which you can see under the badge) only went to Mun and Minmus. Martian Emigrant only went to the Mun. No, because of Rule 9.
  14. If you look at the "scoring" section of the original post, there's a spoiler you can click that has a table that has all the point values for the planets and moons. Your goal is to land on as many planets/moons in 1 mission as possible. Right below the badge I have an example mission showing a Mun+Minmus mission. The Mun lander carries the Minmus lander down with it since the landings are supposed to be done in series. Another example might be a Duna+Ike mission. The Duna lander would have the Ike lander as its upper stage, and the Ike lander would stay attached to the Duna lander during the Duna landing. Once you were done with the Duna landing stage (leave it on Duna or take off with it to burn up remaining fuel), you decouple the Ike lander and fly it to Ike and then home. If you wanted to do 3 landings, then when you landed on the first planet/moon in your trip, that lander would have to carry the 2 later landers down with it as well. And so forth. I hope that answers your question. A grand tour would indeed be extremely difficult, but there's a lot of ways to get more than 400 points, though they're all quite challenging.
  15. Beautiful rocket and especially lander. You didn't have your resources tab open but the rocket is pretty clearly legit. For just a Mun landing you get 36 points. Welcome to the leaderboard!