mstrfalco

Members
  • Content Count

    85
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

33 Excellent

About mstrfalco

  • Rank
    Propulsion Consultant
  1. Wiki is a bit out of date. P.S. I did use the chair xD. Anyways the FL-A5 adapter is now "weightless"/"physics-less" and drag 0.2, Small Harpoint is 0.2 same with the landing strut. And you are spot on the physics-less parts are treated as 0.2 drag.
  2. I would be quite impressed if someone could top my attempt. You can't have the Ap leave kerbin's SOI so no hyperbolic orbits. The Ap I had was so close to an escape trajectory I could probably only improve Pe velocity by +0.3 m/s or so. Also the final orbit was very very sensitive to initial conditions, changing the initial pe by about 250m would often lower the final Ap by 50 km. So I had many attempts before I had one I was really happy with (pretty lucky too). Also the "Ship" I made was the lowest drag craft I could conceive without using wings or control surfaces. Also Bioman222, you have a typo in the OP. my initial PE was 26,301 not 26,031. Thanks, ~Falco
  3. Umm.. try hitting the next key again buddy. There are two more screenshots of it going up over 72 km that clearly show the Ap above the atmosphere. The screenshot you are referring too was just near the transition point. the atmosphere ends at (~69,077.553 m) EDIT: Also I think you are confused. In the OP it says Pe may be in atmosphere, Ap may not. As well you must only complete one orbit, obviously the only stable orbit is above 69 km but that is not what the challenge is about.
  4. Initial Pe: 26,301m Ap: 82,525,434m Lowest point craft reaches: 25,584m Final Pe: Below surface Ap: 72,172m
  5. I know it says the ejection force is only 100 but this was also the listed value in 0.23.5. Take any simple SLS mockup and test it between version 0.23.5 and 0.24.1 and you will see a vast difference in performance. In 0.23.5 it can easily push the a Kerbodyne S3-14400 Tank and S3 KS-25x4 Engine Cluster away while in 0.24.1 it might as well draw a line between the two without any pushing power.
  6. 0.24.1 didn't fix PF decoupling or all of the stock ones... they forgot about the big 3.75m decoupler
  7. I have been using FMRS to recover my first stages since I have done maybe 80-100 falcon 9 style landings. So I make really high quality reliable first stages since it will have a 98% recovery rate. Then I make a cheap efficient upper stage and top it off with a very mass efficient payload.
  8. Not sure if I did something wrong but the maneuver nodes are not uploading to KSP anymore, perhaps this is because I am now playing on the 64 bit? Or should this still be working?
  9. I though I did post here. Must have been on the wrong page when creating the thread. Derp
  10. As the title states I do believe that it would be in squads best interest to complete the alpha stage of KSP with the addition of multiplayer. Currently and in the past many new players would download the game and if they dislike the current state of the game it would be very rare for them to give it a second look later down the line. People don't tend to make the connection that an alpha game is something that will be much more refined once fully completed. This rough uncut version of KSP is still beautiful, but if squad wants to reap the rewards of this excellent piece of art they will also need to recognize that new customer base will come and a portion (however sad) will leave. The greatest addition of players needs to come at a point when not only the game is closest to completion but in a time when the community will be thriving. I believe the addition of multiplayer would be ideal for this. It would bring many more players that want to play together combined with everyone in this excellent community begging their friends to play with them. This would bring many new people into a complete bug free version of the game. Also with the addition of multiplayer connections through the community would skyrocket. All of this word of mouth would essentially be free advertising for KSP, which could come at no better time than the end of the alpha stage. I fear squad may jump the gun and implement multiplayer before all the seams are ironed out which could actually lead to a significant amount of people leaving who may not have left if the game was finely polished. I know that all of you reading this love KSP but the simple fact is that not everyone does. I just want as many people as possible to find Kerbal Space Program and I want them to enjoy themselves, go on to create challenges for each other, learn a bit of rocket science on the way, and add to the game whether that be through a youtube series or a great mod. I understand many of you want multiplayer ASAP but I hope all of you should come to realize that making this game the best it can be is really the most amazing thing that can be done for the community. Expanding a great community would only improve KSP. I am not saying that squad should quit adding onto the game after completion, but as far as features go I do believe multiplayer should be the capstone. Also this is an opinion. If you disagree feel free to suggest alternative ideas you think may work even better
  11. To address a few of you. I was not referring to launch windows between planets being affected, I was referring to launch windows for launching into certain orbits around Kerbin that have inclinations not equal to zero. These look like they will be affected as now the UT for launching into particular ones will be changing. (This will affect the time for launching into an obit with a certain LAN specifically) On a side note... how might I change the thread from unanswered to answered? I feel this question has been satisfied.
  12. A couple minute gap won't kill you people. Rowsdower is being perfectly resoanable
  13. It has been mentioned that the Kerbin day will now be 51 seconds shorter. My question regarding the shortened day is.. will this be a change in the way the timepieces work, meaning units will roll over at a different increment, or is the rotation of Kerbin actually different? If the rotational rate was changed this could have some side effects. It could cause a few 3rd party tools to break which calculate when to launch into particular orbits from KSC. If the rotational rate is changed then half a year into game-play Kerbin would be facing near opposite direction from what would be the case in 23.5. Also if this were the case Geostationary orbit would be at a different altitude. (just slightly)
  14. My question regarding the shortened day is.. will this be a change in the way the timepieces work, meaning units will roll over at a different increment, or is the rotation of Kerbin actually different? If the rotational rate was changed this could have some side effects. It could cause a few 3rd party tools to break which calculate when to launch into particular orbits from KSC. If the rotational rate is changed then half a year into game-play Kerbin would be facing near opposite direction from what would be the case in 23.5. Also if this were the case Geostationary orbit would be at a different altitude. (just slightly)