Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

37 Excellent

About Ruinsage

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast
  1. The point of decaying reputation is that you can't just fast forward without a penalty, negating any exploit. And balancing would not be that hard, diminished returns from several research stations near a given celestial object would fix that.
  2. So, as we now have reputation, could we use this to get a mechanic that provides science over time? Be it from stations, bases or just scientists at base being paid each day?
  3. You manipulated my quote, and I refuse to argue with someone who would resort to such cheap tricks.
  4. Manipulating gravity will not allow you to move faster than the speed of light. Gravity slows down the speed of light, it doesn't speed it up. I don't know where you got this from, but it seems rather ridiculous.
  5. "Mommy, i don't like the other kids having fun in other ways than i do" grow up
  6. It's experience that is making it easier for you. Sure, ARM and joint stabilization made an impact, but that only really removed some problems that you had to work around, and made it more profitable to make intuitive rockets.
  7. Maybe putting a limit on how much fuel one tank can give/receive, and making stacked tanks count as a single tank (so that a single engine can only receive so much extra fuel at a time). This would mean that asparagus would still be useful with smaller rockets, but less useful with lifting stages, making it better to use parallel staging with boosters.
  8. Except that can't land with 10km/s of delta-V left, which is what the challenge really is. Of course you can make something with a huge delta-V, that's just slapping fuel to the atomic engine, the problem is making something with 10km/s of delta-V, capable of getting off kerbin, and then lifting that off of kerbin, with 5.5 km/s of delta-V to spare.
  9. So, having just build a rocket capable of the criteria I stated above as the minimal demand for an interstellar round trip, I'd say my own argument is looking a little thin right about now. Then again, i did have to use an hour long ion burn for the return trip.. without which, it simply wouldn't be possible. (I used the ARM parts, and even they were struggling) I'm sure you could build an elaborate asparagus design to get the whole thing off the ground if you didn't choose to make the last stage a painfully long ion burn, but really, if the devs are going to make interstellar travel a thing,
  10. If we assume a planet identical to Kerbin, it comes out to 19.960 Km/s of delta-V, which is considerably less than what i said, i admit, but still quite insane. It's equal to lifting something into orbit, then building something that will get that into orbit, then again, and again. Have you seen the build wackjob did to get four orange fueltanks into LKO?
  11. We already have timewarp for this. The problem with FTL is that it completely removes one of the major mechanics of the game, which is just dull.
  12. Let's get one thing very clear You do not tell me i'm wrong about what my own point is You do not tell me that I am lying if I don't agree with you Now let me explain my point, from the start, as you quite clearly do not get it A return trip from kerbin to a different star system, if we assume you land anywhere when you get there, would require roughly 400.000 km/s of delta-V. That is an unfeasible amount. And yes, this is assuming there isn't FTL, which is a good assumption, as having FTL in ksp would be the single most misplaced and boring mechanic I could imagine. Which is why I only menti
  13. My point was not that should it be done is the same as could it be done, but rather that because there is no real reason to do it in the vanilla game, the discussion as to how to do it is pointless. I missed that the discussion had veered off to mainly discussing how one might implement a procedural solar system/galaxy, and instead made my comment based on the title of the discussion (the problem with a procedural galaxy). I still maintain that SQUAD should not make a procedural solar system with a single seed that is used in vanilla, because there would be no reason to, other than to make it
  14. How is that a separate issue? That's like saying we should be able to mine for diamonds on the bottom of the ocean, without anything to use the diamonds for? Sure, being able to say "I mined diamonds on the bottom of the ocean" might be nice, but if you have nothing to use them for, then what is the point? Interstellar travel is such a vast step up from interplanetary travel that they simply don't belong in the same game. Saying that the system could be used for enabling people to make a procedural starting solar system is nice and all, but if SQUAD wants people to play in the same system, as
  • Create New...