Jump to content

Tobyz28

Members
  • Content Count

    108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tobyz28

  1. Just lost a ridiculous amount of time in KSP. This isnt an uncommon occurrence, and personally i think really needs a fix. Yes this is how quicksave works, but to do this after hours of playing thinking u had done a more recent quicksave is ridiculously unforgiving and really unfriendly to the user. you're not alone DucharmeHD, I've logged over 1200 hours to KSP, and this still happens to me once in a blue moon :T. Link
  2. It absolutely does explode with any # of radiators attached. This is for sure a bug, not an actual overheat. No, not even close - nothing is generating heat, not even enough for heat bars to show.
  3. Was working on a simple SSTO, basically the above combination when mated with a cargo bay = kaboom (nearly instantly) the moment i hit 2x or more physics acceleration. The flight report states it was due to overheating. Temp gauges give no indication its even close to overheating before hitting time accell. The exact same ship configuration without the cargo bay results in no issues whatsoever. The "overheating" is near instant. I'm 99% sure this is a bug. Anyone else experiencing this?
  4. I have noticed that if you run engines while converting ore to fuel, at a certain point the thrust will reduce dramatically even though the throttle is at 100% and fuel levels are "OK". I believe this is a bug.
  5. No sympathy here, you somehow managed to miss an ocean
  6. Anyone know how much Delta-V the packs.. pack?
  7. How is this not fixed yet? This bug's terrible / game breaking especially for a 1.0 release...
  8. The rescue missions to other moons/planets are a nice touch, however in Hard mode there is very little cost incentive to do them given the time they take to do & delta-V needed. Going to Pol to recover a ship + kerbal is a very long flight even on max time accell (if the planets aren't aligned right).
  9. I'm bothered most about the OP having a "4cyl truck" ...
  10. #1 Constant Crashes from memory leaks . Had a plane saved in orbit that needed to be landed... (the last of my crew was on it) on re-entry game would fall on its face every single time :T #2 Imaginary Terrain landing on Bop (or maybe it was Pol?) ... was approaching the ground, a couple KM from the ground WHAM Ship explodes in mid air from a collision with invisible terrain. Reloaded from an F5, WhAM roughly the same place. 3rd try, descended REALLY slow and managed to land. #3 VAB went bonkers. Designed a fancy dancy rocket (quite a lot of time in it) did some undo/redo combination... couldnt
  11. Yea, the top tier intake has a lot of friction and not a lot of mass . They basically heat up quickly and theres only one point behind it to transfer the heat to. If that point is also the same part thats attached to the engine, it'll be receiving heat on both ends during ascent, making things quite toasty.
  12. Has anyone done this on hard with full (100%) heating? I'm able to get some of my SSTO's working, but re-entry is usually very finicky, placing heat discs in-front of my inter-coolers has done wonders for me as well. I've also had a repeatable bug on rentry causing a game crash usually in the 8000-24000m range.
  13. Alternate solution: Higher tier, higher cost, higher mass nuclear Engine with better heat dissipation further up the tech tree. I agree radiators would be "cool" (haha) but at the same time i don't want to feel like i'm forced to have to use the same formula every time to use a NERVA engine.
  14. Been playing on Hard career for a while now and can report i've hit a super grindy wall. The first VAB grind was not too bad but 4.5 Million to upgrade the science center is a bit on the rough side. Ive got satellites and stations at most of the nearby moons/stations and and basically just using contracts to do science, combining missions to do big money pulls from missions... etc. It makes more sense for me to decline contracts until i find "aquire science at XXX planet missions" and jump to my already orbiting satellite/lander to perform the science. The rest of my missions are similar to "
  15. Originally I would say i saw you're point of view 100%. Now after a 2nd day of KSP (on career hard) I'm sorta digging it more. I managed to do a pretty extreme orbital rescue, without an upgraded VAB and no maneuver nodes unlocked yet . This was pretty hard (for an experienced player) but not impossible! At this point my perspective sorta shifted. Yes the buildings are grindy to unlock BUT career mode is actually "HARD" now... I have to really be careful with launches, and my space program can be put into the red if i don't managed funds wisely. I need to very carefully pick my next tech, whic
  16. I'm afraid your hardware is limiting your options. Time for an upgrade (2.4 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo - Passmark Score) You're CPU is probably maxed Turning down gfx settings will only go so far, and reduce the load "mostly" on your GPU, your bottleneck is likely not your GPU, but your CPU.
  17. Agreed. The ones with 4 kerbals wanting to go to different bodies (between the group) is also not worth the risk/reward. Ie. Some want to orbit kerbin, some the mun/minimus.
  18. Pretty sure you're not playing on Hard OR you grinded a lot to have the funds to upgrade your launch pad & VAB. The craft you have there is well over 30 parts, so you'd need to have upgraded the VAB, which on hard mode is quite a steep price. I don't have KSP here at the moment but the launchpad and VAB were something like 150k and 350k to upgrade to launch you're craft there. Other buildings are also very steep (think the science center was something over 500k?) With that said, this is hard mode and personally I kinda like it, but i do think the building cost is leaning more towards gri
  19. Sal_vager, thats a nice spin on it but I'm going to rephrase this another way: Fairings add increased mass (based on the size fairings) to the fairing base. Players are penalized for the mass of the fairings after ejecting them, since their mass still exists in the base. The bigger the fairing the more noticeable this penalty is. Perhaps this isn't a bug, but it should maybe considered as an oversight and plans be made to revise it?
  20. Since were nit-picking, area facing away from the sun doesn't necessarily imply 180° away. Perpendicular can be considered "away" as well. Also if you're going to use an asterisk you should always include a footnote with it :]. (Just being cheeky!) <Fist bump to NathanKell/>
  21. You need to factor cost into the balance equation from career mode before evaluating the extent of nerfing done
  22. This looks like it may be an unanticipated bug/"balancing oversight" with the new changes (it's probably behaving as designed). I'd throw these screenshots into a Bug report Seems like it may need some balancing work by Squad!
  23. I would recommend going to debug mode to see what's going on as stated above. The tail connector im guessing has a very low mass, and it's receiving heat from two sources. It also probably has a low drag value, meaning it's going to be shedding less heat into the air (Just guessing, haven't tested). This results in it potentially overheating quicker than the parts around it. It may also have a lower thermal tolerance vs the wings around it. It's entirely possible the part may need some balance tweaking too, so do check what's going on in Debug to be sure first before believing our speculations
×
×
  • Create New...