Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Fett2oo5

  1. I may have found a limitation... (If this information is accurate) I found this on the KSP Wiki for the RAPIER engine: " On the other hand, it delivers better performance than the J-X4 "Whiplash" Turbo Ramjet Engine at high speeds (~1000 m/s and higher) and altitudes (~17 km and higher), making it a good choice for high-speed atmospheric flight. Top speed is ~2,100 m/s in kerbins atmosphere(mach 6.2) " Does anyone have any advise for achieving Mach 7 and beyond?
  2. I would like some help further developing a Transcontinental aircraft, and application for this challenge. I've been trying to build a Mach7+ aircraft both stock and/or with mod parts (expressly the [1.3.0] OPT Space Plane v2.0.1 mod and it's Scramjet engine), FAR mod not installed. However I'm running into thermal problems. Using OPT Scramjet engines, I can't get any cockpit to withstand the temperatures at around 2100-2150m/s Below is the best I can get from stock parts (KSP version 1.3.1). Additionally, imgur album: https://imgur.com/a/yKLY0 Does anyone have some advise for me to: 1. Build a plane that will achieve Mach 7, 8, or 9, in atmosphere. 2. Build a plane that will achieve Mach 7+ and the cockpit not explode due to max temp. I'm looking forward to your helpful advise. p.s. I am aware it is possible and easier to go faster at higher altitudes, however, for the plane pictured above, this craft achieved a higher speed at low altitude with the RAPIER engines by a difference of 200m/s.
  3. I'd like to suggest placing " You may not crash! " in the list of rules/guidelines, more clearly. Perhaps as it's own line closer to the top. nestled in the line about where landing, and how many points you get for landing there, it's not as predominate as I assume it was intended.
  4. Second attempt: (5) stock parts ..... $8,832 ..... 108,847m ..... (1) "Landing" If the engine hadn't have broken off and rolled down the hill, I would have scored: .405 Imgur Album: https://imgur.com/a/o3YB7 Edit: Apparently this is a common strategy. =\ I'll try something else.
  5. My first attempt: (4) stock parts ..... $8,432 ..... 113,321m ..... (1) bounce ..... (1) crash Imgur Album: https://imgur.com/a/zuHLV Edit: Apparently this is a common strategy. =\ I'll try something else.
  6. Built a complicated SSTO/Transcontinental aircraft, with all the abilities including all experiment apparatuses, ladders, docking, cargo, etc. Adding more, and more parts and capabilities, up-sized the landing gear... build, build, build..... → Launch... ground clearance problems, revert, fix. → Launch, landing gear out of alignment? what? Fix them, move gear a little down, a little out. → Launch. Success! I get it to Kerbin north pole, Pilot jumps out to celebrate and plant a flag! Woohoo! Ok, let's get back in and go home. ..... Ladder doesn't reach the ground because I made the landing gear too tall. -------------------- Needed to make a low budget science gathering journey to Mun, it was incredibly difficult (for me, at the time) finally get it all designed, under budget, and with JUST enough dV to get there and back. Launch, fly, fly, fly, mechanic of the orbitals, sketchy landing... nothing broken... alright! Science time! ..... forgot the experiment equipment. -------------------- (years later...) Planning Mun mission to collect all possible science from each of the Mun's biomes, wonderfully designed, allowed for beautiful execution of the mission. I collected tons of science from each of the biomes, it took a while, and careful course plotting (biome hopping) to use as little dV as possible. Leave the Mun, return home, checking the list of science collected, notice an absence of gravity scans. That's odd. Those experiments don't have to be reset after they are run... What the heck happened?!? Go to the VAB, load up the craft ..... not a single Gravioli Detector was installed on the craft. Have to go back to each Mun Biome. -------------------- More Science experiment woes: Early in career mode, need science points, load up a craft with the science equipment I have unlocked... ok let's do this! Get to destination... No Materials observation?!?! ..... I had installed a Mobile Processing Lab, and not a Science Jr. because the parts look exactly the same. -------------------- Needed a satellite around Kerbol, designed one, launched it, burn to make Kerbol orbital insertion burn... Success! Time warp out of Kerbin SOI, into Kerbol SOI to circularize orbit... warp, warp, warp..... go back to normal view from map view... Can't control anything? No connection?!?!? ..... chose the wrong antennae, I was out of range.
  7. Yea, two screens here as well, I'd love to run KSP on multi-monitors, your screenshots have me brimming with envy. If I were to attempt that with my current setup I may as well call it Bezle Space Program... wha wha This is an EXCELLENT post. I'm constantly trying to convince people of the advantages of multiple screens, and I'm glad there are others out there that explain and help other so well. Thank you for researching possible problems people may face, explaining the solutions, as well as your suggestions and tips. I may just break down and buy a third monitor. =)
  8. Honestly, I suggest using HyperEdit mod (you can auto-install it using CKAN), or altering the orbit information of each spacecraft in the .sfs save file. Those will be the easiest, and more accurate ways to get your 3, already in orbit, satellites to the exact orbit, and exact periods you want. The way I view HyperEdit is that if I've already gotten an object to the desired orbit and positioned them once, then I will use HyperEdit to fine tune the precision, and/or make the orbital parameters EXACT. When I know I can do it (and have done it at least once) in KSP given enough real-world time, then I'll use HyperEdit to save myself some real world time. Otherwise I feel like I'm cheating.
  9. My 5yo daughter loves your Burger Mod, I installed it so she and I could have some silly fun in KSP, but it turned out to be more important than that.  It was the catalyst to get her into KSP, properly.  Granted she still loves to make silly craft (she's 5) but she now has a bigger interest in rockets, space vehicles, and learning about our solar system.  So while you (or others) may think this is just for giggles, know that it is appealing for a young audience, and enables parents to share KSP with their sub-8yo children. Thank you for making it.  (also, my daughter was wondering if it were possible to make rockets out of pizza :D )

    BTW I thoroughly enjoy many of your other mods as well.  You do great work, and thought you deserved to know that people enjoy what you've created.  Fuel Tanks plus, and SpaceY are my favorites.  I hope you continue to develop, refine, and release new material.

    1. NecroBones


      Thanks for the kind words! It means a lot to know that it's all being put to good use, and it's great to hear about the Burger Mod making such a good impression! that's wonderful news! :):D



  10. @K.Yeon I'm not big on posting here (I prefer to read), but after using OPT parts in one way or another on almost all my craft, (many times 75%+ of the craft) I felt you deserved to know that I love your parts. In my opinion they are some of the best looking parts available for the game. They line up very well, excellent textures/meshes, perform well, it's just an all around great mod. You have done excellent work on it. Thank you for this mod, it has surpassed B9 to become may favorite parts library.
  11. WOW, this OP is amazing! Well detailed, simply explained, and the illustrations are incredibly helpful. Thank you so very much for this information, and presenting it in a manner that is easy for the lay to digest. It is quite evident that you put a lot of love and effort into it. I can't thank you enough. Great work @keptin !!!
  12. This got me to forget the troubles of my work today, and made me laugh. Thank you JebKerboom.
  13. This would be great! I'm running into conflicting action group commands when docking base modules to each other, rovers to bases, and ascent vehicles to bases. You'd also run into this when docking multiple ships to space stations. Then again, this could be alleviated if you had the ability to select which craft's action group took precedence.
  14. Well you can always DL a mod, install it, then go through the part files and delete the ones you don't want.
  15. Yes, Lack Luster Labs has A LOT of rectangle and square parts, windowed walkways, Habitats included.
  16. 1. Adding basic craft stats to the game - I agree with adding craft stats into the stock game. The thing I've loved the most about this game is learning. Reenforcing terms and math I've used in the past, learning of new terms and procedures, and learning to plan out missions before they leave. Because of this I think it would be great for a new player to learn what Delta-V is, and how it is used. Having it as optional is obviously ideal, perhaps even unlock-able after a criteria is met. We all know that people play KSP differently, some just like to build, some just like to fly, some like to plan missions, some want to conquer the system. I believe a majority of people that will pick up the game will not be prepared with the knowledge to conquer the system and easily travel to other worlds. They will be experimenting with builds and missions. If the option were there to display craft stats, like mass, TWR, and Delta-V they could begin to learn WHY their craft or mission didn't work. Providing a problem and/or situation to solve; rather than a "mystery" to solve, AND THEN a problem to solve. To this end, I believe craft stats would be a good addition to the stock game. An indispensable utility for the pros, and a learning tool for the beginners. 2. Re-entry Heat. I agree with the devs on this topic. However I can understand why some players would like to have it in game. How about the ability to select re-entry heat to be turned on or off in the settings? Like selecting a difficulty level. 3. Tech tree/Tutorials - I agree there should be a few more tutorials in the beginning of the game, there are many tools and procedures that are left to the player to "run into" and then not know what to do. The tech tree could be reworked a little to be more well rounded, and science a little harder to get. As of now you can build 1 to two craft and easily unlock a majority of the tech tree with just a few missions. You are able to unlock all of(pretty close to all) the techtree with out even making it to another planet. I believe the science requirements and when you unlock parts of it should reflect the kind and amount of parts available. Either tweak the science or add more parts. 4. Unmanned/Manned - I believe this can be address with a tech tree adjustment. 5. Publicizing development schedule - Letting the public know your full direction, schedule, and priorities for stages of development would be a bad thing for the entire community. 6. There's a mod for that - From what I understand Squad is not that big, and from what I assume can't afford to be big. So the amount of Devs available to dedicate to aspects of the game is limited. Because of this I don't expect them to be able to keep up with player demand for more options, more parts, more features, and all the other creative ideas that the public comes up with. I actually like that mods are allowed to be applied, and that the community creates their own additions to the game. You get to, well, modify the game as you wish. If you want to fully cheat, you can, if you just want a little more information about your craft you can. It creates a level of player involvement with their game, you can choose to have pure stock, just one or two mods, or a plethora of mods.
  17. That's looking really good Ironwatsas. I'm having a long process with my base structures as well. Kind of taking a little break at the moment. I'm liking yours, good work.
  18. This is my first attempt at designing a base. please be kind. Here are the first 6 structures of my base, I've still to build the Kethane purposed structures.
  19. I'm wondering how people design a variety of things. Rockets - When I design a rocket I more or less build the rocket under the payload until I get the Delta-V I want in each stage. If I am creating complex fuel lines, for "asperagus" staging then I might sketch it out on paper first. Base - I recently started designing and building a Base, for which I sketched out what kind of structures I wanted (but not parts) then experimented with building in both the SPH and VAB. Getting the structures to line up for docking was tedious, I wish there was an easier way. Spaceplanes - When I attempt to build a spaceplane, it's trial and error, and 90% of the time it's error. I'm horrible at designing spaceplanes, I wish I was much much better. Space Station - I have yet to design a space station. Refueling / interplanetary - I've yet to design either of these. I've just built an extra large rocket with a stage that was docked so I could meet up with it in orbit after a landing. So I'm wondering, how do you guys plan, design and build for your missions. On the fly in the building? paper sketches? spreadsheets? part lists? I ask because I hope to learn from any advice you might have.
  20. I'd tried that initially, but it got really top heavy, really fast. I'll look around at some mods to see what they offer. I only have a few at the moment. B9, KW, Keth, RemoteTech
  21. Those are pretty sweet!Where are you getting blue lights? And that Goliath... I like that a lot! Excellent work.
  22. How do you get the boom to pivot? I've been wanting to do the same, I have a smaller one, but I want the arm to rotate.
  • Create New...