Superfluous J

Members
  • Content Count

    13,172
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Superfluous J

  1. I've not played it in 1.9 (I'm stuck on 1.8.1 until Kopernicus updates. Not that I'm really feeling I'm missing anything) and the ForScience version that @VoidCosmoslinked works fine for me.
  2. I can't get all parameters in a single launch, mostly because 4 science parts + the extra command pod for the 2nd Kerbal means I only have 5 more parts for the actual rocket. Having a command pod and a parachute leaves me with a scant 3 parts and I could only pare it down to 4 (tank, engine, decoupler, SRB). My ascent profile is ghastly because my dV on the pad is so low. Less than 1700 Atmo However, my 11-part, tech-4, 2-kerbal ship costs about $8000 and a perfect landing at KSC should recover enough for the total cost to be under $5000. If I can nail the landing that is. I don't know when I'll be able to do it all but it'll be on video I bet.
  3. So why not use the 60M sample size of Italy instead?
  4. No clue if this is what you want but I found this on their Github page (https://github.com/MagicSmokeIndustries/InfernalRobotics/releases):
  5. If only foresight were as good as hindsight. In addition to population density there could be cultural differences. Maybe Swedes tend to wash their hands more, generally? Maybe they don't shake hands or hug as much. I don't know I've never been there. But saying "they're fine we would be too" is a bit too broad a statement for me. Reminds me of the "My grandpa smoked for 95 years and died in a motorcycle accident" as proof that smoking is okay.
  6. I have no idea. I just read through my first posts (Back through July 2013) and in July I mentioned that I wasn't using mods, and in August I mentioned that I liked one called "Subassembly Manager" which I remember. It was basically the mod version of what we have today in the stock game for subassemblies, though it was a bit kludgy if I recall. I don't know for sure that it's the first mod I installed, but it's at least ONE OF the first.
  7. They will be the unlisted 3rd option: Neither. And probably both the players and their bosses will be unhappy with them but that's the way it goes.
  8. In @DStaal's defense, UIMODE_DOCKING isn't actually useful, and the only real use for "UIMODE_STAGING" is to get out of UIMODE_DOCKING if you accidentally get into it. But more seriously, those are extremely rarely used functions. I'm surprised they're not in the settings but I don't think it was a design choice, just nobody noticed. Due to the above joking (but pretty accurate) reason I gave. I expect KSP2 to have its share of design oversights. As I expect any software to.
  9. You forgot to add "in theory." And in theory, there is no real difference between theory and reality, but in reality there usually is.
  10. It should be noted that while compared to reality KSP suffers many faults, compared to pretty much any other video game it's very realistic. I'm not saying anything I'm just saying, nobody dings Elite on number of engine restarts or how well electricity is modeled.
  11. If you go to the station, and have what it wants, it will become checked on the contract. But I'm also thinking mods, because I don't think the stock lab is called an auxiliary lab.
  12. Without a view of map mode that shows the relay and Kerbin and any relevant communication lines, my only guesses are: You are too far from Kerbin Something is between you and Kerbin The KSC is on the other side of Kerbin and you didn't enable multiple ground stations.
  13. For any future visitors to this thread, KSP tends to display the last thing that successfully happened. So, in these cases you should go to the log and see what it said. Also, as I expect the OP did, think of what you last changed and change it back to see if that solves the problem.
  14. The mobile site doesn't show signatures regardless of that setting.
  15. 4 minutes is a long time when you're coming in from interplanetary and trying to hit a burn perfectly. However now that I'm rethinking this, the burn planner probably did think you were going to drop those tanks and have higher TWR. So it probably though the burn would take less than 3m44s. or it thought it would take 3m44s and it actually ended up taking you 4m or more.
  16. It does, kind of. Sometimes. Let's say you want to go to Jool from Mun. Either you build ships there with EL or you went there to refuel. Burning from Mun Orbit to return to Kerbin takes 310m/s, and puts you in an orbit that would have cost 860m/s had you burned it from low Kerbin orbit (I'm getting these from a stock dv map). From LKO to Jool takes 1930m/s, so from your "left Mun" orbit, if you do everything perfectly, it will cost you another 1070m/s, which when you add the 310 to leave Mun costs you 1380m/s (not counting the mid course correction if any) To get to Jool from Mun directly (again not counting the mid course correction) I just set up a node to test, and it cost me 1788m/s. So doing a deep dive saves about 400m/s. Is it worth it? No. But it's fun and cool at least the first few times. Duna on the other hand costs 454 from Low Mun Orbit. Instead ejecting to Kerbin for 310 and then burning the extra 220 necessary to get to Duna costs 530, so going straight to Duna from Mun is better than doing the dive.
  17. Oops! I even know that, but my confusion was about which thread I was in. Thanks for the code, though!
  18. Any chance you're on Linux? I think you use one of the shift keys there instead of alt. Otherwise no clue. Alt-f12 is the correct way to bring up the debug menu.
  19. What exactly is the problem? That your orbit doesn't match the maneuver node? How long was that burn? Nukes tend to have long burns and long burns tend to be inaccurate. I think that's all that's going on here.
  20. Have these people played any other video games ever? "Oh so it's like real, actual war?" "No if you die you come back a couple minutes later." "Oh well that's stupid." Actually JNSQ is 25% of "real," or about 2.3x Stock KSP.
  21. I was going to yell "noooooo it was a joke!" But that seems bad form, so I'll just say thanks
  22. I find it hard to think like a new player, it's true. However I was a new player when career mode first came out, and back then every planet had one biome. IIRC there was somewhere between 3 and 4 times the tech tree worth of science in the whole game. As a new player, I thought that was perfect and have lamented every single science change (which have without exception have added science points without adding anywhere to spend them) since.
  23. Vet very much. I want the name change. I knew I should have waited for April 2nd to ask