• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,716 Excellent

1 Follower

About KerrMü

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Overengineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Hi In anticipation of the update I started a new career yesterday. Now it was time to set foot on Mun. How did it go? SPLENDID!!! Why would you even ask? Don´t you think Bob is looking embarrassed right now? well, GOOD. HE pressed the wrong button. (And bill is broadcasting his entire knowledge of swearwords to the whole planet) Que rescue music after the dl of 1.10 is completed.
  2. Hi Nate. Glad to hear from you and your quick response makes me think that it´s probably genuine. I obviously can´t speak for everybody here. My distrust that I expressed in the other thread is not at all directed at you and your fellow devs. It´s just that the limited information I got out of that article doesn´t give me a warm, fuzzy feeling in my stomach. plain and simple: I lost trust. But with this ^ you could probably give it back to me and I hope others as well. What I particularly liked about the development of KSP1 was how public it was. We almost always had something to look forward to in the next update and dev diaries delivered more often than not some pictures with that info. Regarding KSP2... well, I´ll wait and see. But, and this is a big but: If the publisher is acting too unethically (we have to be realistic here) for my taste, then I won´t buy your game. Sorry. Greetings to your colleagues. Especially your former ones. I hope they all got new jobs and are well. Cheers, stay safe, Mü P.S.: I´m not playing as long as you are, but when I started there were no wheels and I distinctly remember a launch tower at the pad. Ah, good old simple times...
  3. I´m very sorry to say this, but that´s just what happens again and again when an indie project get´s bought by a big developer. What I particularly liked about KSP was that it was developed by a very open and friendly independant development team. I´ve been sceptical but had high hopes for KSP2. I´m afraid that ship has sailed. There is still a chance that this is going to be an awesome game, it just becomes increasingly less likely. ^ pretty much what I thougt.
  4. Hi MR L A Sorry for the late reply, I`ve been away for the weekend. I couldn´t find any good pictures of it, so I flew a quick mission to bring Bob up into orbit to my new tanker/asteroid miner/supply ship "Kamchatka". Recently I bolted that Dream Chaser-esque thing to a `reuseable´ booster experiment just to practice landing with it. So far I´m really bad at that. Sometimes, just sometimes it works. But I need to figure out how to strengthen the landing legs without adding too much weight or drag. Speaking of drag: The 1st version of the Chaser had only two sparks for propulsion. But at landing approach on the "glide path" the blunt tail caused so much drag that it just fell out of the sky. So I added the two Junos just to extend the descent phase and make the landing more controllable. This thing is the opposite of a glider and even with the Junos not really capable of level flight. The right side of the last pic shows the normal launch configuration with a throwaway booster. Ignore the tower. At some point I wanted to bring landed science data back to a lab in orbit. I´ve forgotten why. Anyway, I hope this is what you asked for. If not, tell me. Have fun, Mü
  5. Hi everybody I´ve been a busy builder today. I´ll come to that in a minute. I took a break for a few months. I had simply run out of ideas completely and my current carreer had gotten tedious with so many upcoming big and complicated missions. Over the holidays I got bored and opened up KSP again and changed my playstyle. More short missions, less headscratching and definitely more goofing around and trying new things. For a Kerbin ground science contract I would normally get my transport plane, put a rover into it and drive and fly around around for 2 hours to get to all the POIs. Now I just built a supersonic scibomber. It get´s to anywhere on Kerbin really quick, drops a few probes out of the back, and that´s it. I love that thing. Sooo much fun to fly. And no more 2 hour long asteroid capture nuke burns for me. This is the new multipurpose Tug. Quite a bit more omph than my old nuke powered potatoroid catcher. Ok, it´s less efficient, but who cares? And I scrapped my overcomplicated upcoming Duna mission. This time I´ll just send a little hab, a rover and a lander. ISRU und all that stuff can come later. The only thing ready for the mission is the crew transport, 0.5g artificial gravity inclusive. Just for the sake of it. Let us slowly come to what i´ve been up to this weekend, shall we? Last week I stumbled upon a monolith on Mun and sent something completely unnecessary over there: Then a thought came to my mind: "Heywood Kerman should take a look at that monolith." But how to get Heywood into Orbit??? Well, from time to time I try to build something like the Orion 3 spaceclipper from 2001. I just love the design and it´s normally a fun challenge to build. So this weekend -again- I sat down with a simple plan. But ideas emerged, problems appeared, sollutions were found, frustrating bugs were... seriously, I thought the thing with engine plates and structural rings not shielding their innerts from drag would have been solved by now... but at the end I´m really happy with the result. I think it looks kinda nice and the flight characteristics are not bad at all. Ok, I had to clip some rapiers together, which I wouldn´t normally do, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ In the end I´m having fun with KSP again and it feels good to be back. Have fun guys and gals, have fun, cya
  6. I like it. It´s not to far from the original but looks much nicer. And I think for an interstage engine tankbutt variations aren´t necessary. But if you revamp the Reliant and Swivel (yes, it will be controversial anyway, but at some point in the future - hopefully near future - it has to be done ) could you please include versions without tankbutts? those would be perfect for the engine plates. Thanks. speaking of tankbutts: Hemispherical tanks, maybe versions of the adapters, would be awesome! Like the spaceshuttle tank nosecone version. Anyways, as always I´m exited to learn what you have planned for the next update. This is a nice start
  7. *like* Biggest like of all times in fact. Just yesterday I couldn´t remember all the action groups on my asteroid tug. Love you guys
  8. Looks like an emotional day in KSP today with the announcement of KSP 2. By coincidence I had quite an emotional moment myself today. I wanted to build this, fly this and do this for a very long time:
  9. ...... gobsmacked...................can´t process..HOLY something. Seeing an orion drive and a fusion drive, they can´t possibly leave out the radiation aspect, can they? Anyways, absolutely cool trailer. And I am relieved to read that KSP 1 will be developed further. And I belive you guys. After all you are making my most favorite videogame of all time. Hope everybody keeps their job or falls up the ladder at some point. @ star theory games: Good luck, this is a hard community to please.
  10. The book I read was in german, and I can´t find it at the moment, so that´s useless. Just start with the wikipedia article "rocket engine nozzle". That´s pretty good and in the external links there is a NASA pdf "NASA Space Vehicle Design Criteria, Liquid Rocket Engine Nozzles" that goes in much... much, much more detail. Maybe some of the other fine folks here on this forum would be able to provide more literature? Edit: Ok, Mr Manley made a video about this. I missed that one. Thx for posting @Loskene
  11. That is a rather complicated topic. In short, rocket nozzles are often optimized for best performance in intended environment. Lower in the atmosphere the air pressure confines the exhaust gasses kind of like a nozzle, so you don´t need to put a big and heavy metal one on the bottom of your rocket. The lower the surrounding atmospheric pressure, the less it pushes against the exhaust gasses. You can observe that when you watch videos of rocket launches. At launch the exhaust gasses look like a column of fire, but higher up they spread much wider at the bottom of the nozzles. This lowers the efficiency of the motor, so you need bigger nozzles to force the gasses to go out to the back and not so much to the sides. In KSP this is just simulated with different engine specs. There are just some engines that are really good at launch, some are good higher up in the atmosphere, and some are best used in vacuum. The aerospike rocket engine that we have in KSP but not quite in real life is an attempt to deal with this problem, but has draw backs on its own. This is a crude simplification and there are other factors like the actual design of the motor and so on. I suggest you read further into this topic. It´s quite fascinating and understandable without a physics degree.
  12. Updated an old design to new technology today. Took it out for a testflight, left it alone for an hour, came back and found it near the southern ice caps. Ok, it doesn´t fly straight. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  13. @Shadowmage Hi, 400 RPM seems to be the sweetspot. Thank you very much for that info. This was very helpful for my little project. From earlier Duna planes I kinda knew that surface is key, but for testing this craft started out with 2 motors with 4 blades each... I could have just left them at home. Now I ended up with 4 motors and 48 blades and it flies really nicely.
  14. It´s been a long time since I thought "hmmm, could I fly this over to the island airfield?" Turns out I could. Phew! Just before the sun went down. I barely made it. Fuel was running out and the landing involved extreme amounts of luck and very little skill. I´d say this heli is a step into the right direction, but it definitely isn´t good. It is controllable with my old flightstick, but with keyboard... not really. Maybe I´ll be able to improve it with more experience. Oh, and the fenestron isn´t there just for good looks. I cheated a little bit. Six of the 12 blades are for steering, the other six for yaw trim.
  15. @Noir Thanks for the clarification. You´ve put a lot of effort in it and I think I now understand much better what is bothering you. And I agree with you on many points. I´m pretty sure and hopeful there are some improvements on the way. And like you said, in a game the devs have to make do with some compromises, like somewhat simplified equasions on the side of physics for examle. Maybe some values could be tweaked to improve the behavior of the turboshafts. And yes, the fuel consumption feels a little bit awkward at the moment. Kind of unintuitive. So, for me it´s time to go to bed now. Can´t think straight anymore and it took far too long to find the word "unintuitive" in my brain. Whatever you do, have a nice time.