• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

23 Excellent

About buzz66boy

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Hey guys, Wanted to share my new STOL Transport. Capable of over 5 tons payload and water operations. Video: Download: Thanks, buzz66boy
  2. I personally cannot wait for 1.0 to arrive. I'm primarily interested in the engine ISP changes and LVN too.
  3. I use the first stage as a barge, the second then lands on said barge after boosting a spacecraft out of the atmosphere.
  4. I like the idea of an inclination to the runway. It would be cool if buildings had tweakables like that, costs X to change by X percent.
  5. Late to the party but here's a possible idea. In the past I have experienced this while docking (mind you this was in previous versions). I found I needed a small fuel tank as part of the docked section in order for fuel tanks in other docked sections to feed to the engines. Mind you this was also docked in space, not made in the editor. I think making it in the editor it usually worked, but docked from different launches it would not. Good luck anyhow! buzzboy
  6. As a veteran kerbal player (I am not a Kerbal, but playing since 0.17), I really love the new update! Career is finally challenging for me and the upgradable buildings are a step in the right direction. It was mentioned that the devs were working on changing the tiers a bit, and I want to give them a few suggestions from my experience so far in .90. Overall: Suggestion: When one scrolls over a building's upgrade button, give them a preview of what it will look like upgraded a tier, this could be useful if the size of the runway changes based on tier (read runway suggestion). Suggestion: Be able to skip tiers on buildings and make it *slightly* cheaper to upgrade. For me at least, this would be useful for the admin building or hangar, both of which there isn't much point to upgrading early game. This might also affect the launchpad. Suggestion: To make more use of the spaceplane hangar and runway, perhaps add plane-only contracts requiring to stay in atmosphere. Contracts in General: Suggestion: make station and outpost missions have longer "maintain" times, perhaps more than a couple days. Though gameplay-wise there wouldn't be much difference (timewarp!) it would make more sense to give time for the kerbals to "Run Experiments" or do the mission (Eat snacks). The hindrance to this would be calculating station keeping in case the user switched to another craft, depending how the code is setup now. Suggestion: Add speed record contracts. Not necessarily space program related, but it would be neat to get a contract to get fast land-speed or water speed goals (or in-atmo speed). This is reasonable because Kerbals associate rockets with speed and would want to make things go fast and explode. Suggestion: Make a "return surface sample from" contract that relies on biomes. This would encourage accurate landings and also not require science experiments to drag along. Another benefit of this is that one could have contracts to collect surface samples on kerbin, encouraging runway and sph use. NOTE: I'm not sure, this may be implemented already and I haven't come across one. Hangar: Problem: The Hangar is nearly useless for the first few hours of gameplay, and only becomes truly useful once Survey missions start popping-up, likewise for the runway. Possible Solution: As soon as tech-tree unlocks plane parts, start offering kerbin survey missions Runway: Problem: The base tier is too bumpy to be useful, I end up taxiing off into the very much smoother grass beside the runway Possible Solution: Make the first tier runway a shaded grass area (many small airports have grass runways), fairly smooth, with a couple bumps (kind of like the tier 2 except grass). Tier 2 could then be upgraded to and be completely flat, albeit short and narrow compared to tier 3. If tiers are added (the Barn tier anyone?) a grass runway would be a good fit, followed by the dirt which needs to be less bumpy, but can be short/narrow compared to tier 2. Launchpad: Suggestion: Make it easier/harder to destroy based on tier (tier 1 is dirt so it's hard to destroy, tier 2 should be more fragile?). Problem: Too small a limit on weight on Tier 1, it was upgraded after 1st contract completed. I'd like to play more with the dirt tier because it looks awesome too. Possible Solution: Make it Barn tier level VAB: Suggestion: Add more tiers, each tier having a bigger/better building which can support a taller rocket based on door size. Admin Building: Suggestion: Make strategies reap better rewards as tier increases, starting at semi-crappy exchange rates at tier 1. This makes sense because at lower tiers, a company (or space program) has less staff and less prestige in the industry, as they get better buildings they can hire more people and have presumably done impressive things, leading to better bargaining power. Problem: Once a strategy is set, it's commitment level cannot be changed without un-selecting the strategy and re-selecting it. Possible Solution: Make strategy commitment level variable while you're already committed to the strategy, with an "Apply" button or something to confirm the change. Also have a setup cost for change in commitment level, you could charge based on % changed, regardless of less or more commitment. Astronaut Complex: Suggestion: Train Kerbals based on vocation, not as XP giving as experience and costs money, but you could grind out some top tier guys with enough $ and time. Suggestion: Cross-Training could occur with a "training" system. Kerbals could never exceed 1/3? the experience of anything besides their main specialty (i.e. Pilot could be 5 star pilot, 2 star scientist and engineer). This makes sense because real people can learn things beyond their primary vocation, but excel in what they specialize in (WAIT, THIS ISN'T A SIMULATOR?!?!!? ). Problem: Doing the same thing multiple times with a kerbal does not increase experience. For example if I launch a kerbal and have them navigate to the mun then return, and send them again, they would definitely still learn from the second trip, albeit not as much. Possible Solution: SOI changes and landings (even orbits?) could be logged each time the kerbal returns home and contribute logarithmically, to avoid exploits like flying in and out of an soi just for experience (scaling each time, not necessarily logarithmic). Problem: All Kerbals level based solely on where they have been (ok, flag planting is a bit different). Solution: Have Kerbals level based on vocation. Pilots level by flying missions, engineers from repairing parts, scientists from gathering and analyzing science. For engineers, they could start out being able to do most of the things at the base level, with a chance of permanently breaking the part (a new part state would need to be added) or fixing it, depending on how high level they are. Mission Control: Suggestion: Have more limited/complicated contracts available based on tier. Tier 1 could be only plant flags, test parts, achieve records and do surveys (crew/eva reports). Tier 2 could add orbital bases, satellite contracts and complex science surveys. Tier 3 could add surface bases, asteroid grabs and more complicated things. The reasoning behind this is that you can conduct larger/more complex missions with a larger staff. Tracking Station: Suggestion: Add more tiers. Tier could limit how many soi changes ahead you can see, maybe add a limit to tracking range based on raw distance for non-radio equipped craft. Science Building: Suggestion: Add more tiers. Make contracts that are required to get specific science nodes, like space testing contracts for engines, drain testing tanks, living in habitable modules for a couple days etc. Again, love the game and I'm not trying to criticize it, just improve it. Feel free to add your own suggested fixes to these problems below. Thanks, buzz66boy
  7. I don't know if you've solved it yet, but here's my input. Noticeable issues: 1. Your COL behind your mass is causing a downward pitch at high velocity 2. Your COT is above your COM making the downward pitching worse. Normal Solutions: 1. Move your COM up and to the rear (and/or) 2. Move COL forward 3. Move wings down so COT is behind COM Alternate Solutions: 1. Make it a Bi-plane (with jets on upper and lower wing mirrored like) 2. Make a canard on the front, kinda like a tail section, this will give you more control and bring COL forward Try and keep the COL and COM inside eachother. Also I use nukes a lot in SSTO designs, so it's just finding the balance between payload, number of jets and nukes.
  8. Nice! Is there any other science on it other than the temperature scanner? Sometimes in orbit it wont let me do science with the temp scanner depending on the body.
  9. You're completely right, absolutely no issues here with career (had around $4 mill when I went to explore Duna). Just thought I'd post this assuming there were people having a bit of trouble. Good luck with 64-bit, that's what I've been using and only glitch I get regularly is the right-click one which is terribly annoying.
  10. No hacks/cheats. Once you've finished an exploration mission, send a probe (with a sensor) in orbit of the body and profit.
  11. Yes, you can land it. Check out the thread linked at the bottom of the post.
  12. √4880/ton, 492 tons, √2.4 million
  13. The specific landing featured was after the static fire test seen in the first video, I landed it before, but needed a screenshot (and was testing new parachute design). Usually it comes down with ~50-60 fuel in each section (12 sections in total) -- relatively not much. Also I build it in sandbox, so I wasn't able to check the return value. I have enough to launch it in career, so stay posted. On flat ground you don't need any throttle to land on near empty (~12m/s touchdown), it's a bit hairy though.
  14. Just messing around with SSTO designs and made this brute. It's not cheap either (~$2.4 mill). Mechjeb has been removed (but is recommended to automate laggy launches). Lifts 6 full Giant fuel tanks to orbit and lands safely. Of course you can sub in whatever you want as payload. Have fun! 516 parts (w/o payload) Static Fire test: Orbit (before I re-did fuel lines hence the different fuel levels): Landing: Download Here
  15. So I got to thinking, and if one of those can lift 164 tons, why can't I just add more fuel and engines? The result: a 492 ton payload capable craft to LKO. I used mechjeb to launch cause it was lagging and I didn't have 20 minutes for a 5 min flight Also I didn't rework some of the fuel lines, so that accounts for the odd fuel levels in 2nd pic. EDIT: Made a thread for downloading it