• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Urb4n0ninj4

  1. This is a great resource, thank you very much for providing it!
  2. Has anyone found a decent way to balance the heating values to offer a bit more of a challenge? I feel heating even turned up to 120% isn't terribly challenging. Or am I the only one who's feeling a lack of challenge? Don't get me wrong, I love the update. I just like to challenge myself. I've fiddled with the physics config a bit, but no matter what I do unless I drop straight into the atmosphere at 3,000 m/s I can't seem to use up the heatshield. I know re-using them isn't an option, but they're so pristine after re entry I'm worried Jeb might try I'm sure balancing will work itself out in the future, but if anyone has dove into part configs and tweaking the physics I'd like your input.
  3. Me too, and I cannot get my craft to blow up at 120% no matter how hard I try. I ran a test yesterday, dropping an MK1 command pod with a heatshield, and mk16 parachute straight down through the atmosphere at 3,000+ m/s I got to about 1,000 meters above sea level before I pulled the chute. Heatshield deteriorated to about 44 units of 200, the parachute had no problems taking it down from 1,200 m/s to 40 m/s in roughly 3 seconds. Kerbals would have been TOAST. I love the update overall, but I look forward to some tweaking. Right now i'm toying with the cheat menus thermal physics, hopefully that will provide more advance trials for us more seasoned KSPers. And on that note... "Solar Luminosity at home" and "Solar insulation at home" mean in the debug?
  4. I see, well I don't frequent the suggestion forums, but if it is suggested so often, perhaps it should be included in the "already suggested" sticky that I read to avoid a repost, and highlighted green as "planned".
  5. This may, by a stretch go along with "Better crew management " in the "what not to suggest" category, but I feel it's an unrelated issue. If I'm wrong, I apologize. I would like to see crews saved when building ships. For example, having 2 parts that have room for crew, getting ready to launch you want them in only one (but it defaults to the other, "starting" pod). Set the crew and hit launch. Well I forgot something, back to the VAB, fix it, and launch again. Well now the Kerbals have changed seats like a class of 3rd graders messing with a substitute teacher. It happens too when switching from part placement, to crew manager, back to part placement. And if you don't catch it right away it can have profound effects on a mission...or sanity.
  6. It's times like this I wish I took some physics classes...
  7. Rocky loose ground? I mean if you infer from the splash page for the game, the rocket is dug into the ground, pretty well too...what's the impact tolerance of that command pod, like 17m/s? If it hit the Mun that soft and moved that much ground, I would think that a kerbal hitting the surface at 5m/s would still build up matter in front of him to slow him down. I mean, I know that is just a fun little thing shown on the front of the game, but how else does one infer how loose the Mun surface is? My ultimate point here is it seems friction across ALL bodies in the game is lacking, not just the Mun, Kerbin too.
  8. I dunno man, I am getting a lot of slipperiness on near-flat parts of the Mun, at as low as 5m/s. I'll have to get a video of it I s'pose. Not now, obviously...I'm at work (shh!)
  9. Totally agree. I hate how helpless they are I see it on ladders mostly though, when you get out of a vehicle they just slide up or down until they reach the end, and off into space.
  10. Oh, I agree that the low gravity affects the movement of kerbals and vehicles alike. But get your kerbal going 5m/s horizontally and let him hit the surface, and he will slide like the surface is smooth as silk. I would just like to see it act like the surface is made of the dust, dirt, and particulate it is visually represented as. It would make things a little more predictable. Though I'll admit the slippery surface is humorous...but keep it to Minmus' frozen lakes.
  11. Are there plans to add friction in the game? Any would be nice... Watching Rovers and Kerbals alike slide across the rocky Mun surface (or any surface, really) like it's made of ice has spelled frustration and doom for many a mission. Anyone know of decent mods that might add something to the game to satiate my need for a more realistic planet surface in the meantime? My slippery Kerbals thank you all in advance.
  12. In case anyone wants to feel better about how much they pollute their Kerbin orbit... http://www.alexras.info/code/orbital_objects/ I feel much better about myself. I also kind of want to try to accomplish this much junk.
  13. When you play almost 200 hours worth in 5 months of owning the game x.x
  14. I would like to see this tested, because this sounds like a good way to do it, and at the same time sounds bizarre. edit* Ninja'd...I figured it sounded too easy to be true
  15. OMG I'm so sorry! I watched so many dang videos I got everything mixed up. Scotts video was with the Ferram Aerospace mod, coupled with seeing the "Nosecone" in the update log, I must have completely mixed everything up...Sorry guys My bad... Now I feel like an idiot x.x
  16. I saw Scott Manley do a test of the efficiency of the nose cones on some RT10 SRBs, and it looked impressive. But I did the test myself on the larger, BACC SRBs and didn't seem to get any promising results. I set one off, straight up, no nose cone, no extra attachments or anything and it got to a an altitude of 17,820m, with a speed of 1252.5 m/s at the moment the fuel ran out After adding just a nosecone, it only reached and altitude of 17,577m, and a speed of 1245.4m/s when the fuel was exhausted. I'm not a scientist (by any stretch of the imagination), but the way I tested it was doing individual SRBS (separate launches all together) and then recorded the data at the time the fuel ran out, then observed two launched side-by side (one with and one without a nosecone) to observe changes in real time, and sure enough the SRB without a nosecone gained altitude slightly faster than the one with (pics below) If anyone has any input that would be fantastic, or suggestions on how I could test this further. Apparently some amount of structural instability is impossible to remove, as one SRB started drifting ever so slightly because the launch structure wobbled when loaded...But this still illustrates the results regardless.
  17. I actually have never taken a physics class. Sadly not a prerequisite. I went to a Community college for a associates in Drafting. Much appreciated!
  18. "Airlock" and "Aningaaq" from the soundtrack to "Gravity" are wonderful when things go well, then "Debris," and "Don't let go" for any tense moments or catastrophes.
  19. I've lurked here or there on the forums for a month or so, not long. I've only been playing the game since the Steam Summer sale, when I noticed KSP on the front page. Before that I was playing Kinetic Void, but haven't touched it since thanks to KSP. I've logged about 140 hours in this darn game since the purchase...I don't know how it has gripped me so, but as Buddy the Elf would say "I'm in love, I'm in love, and I don't care who knows it!" I'll probably be fairly quiet on the forums and only voice my 10 cents when I have a way to contribute. I'm a design engineer, fresh out of college pretty much, and thanks to KSP have realized I really wish I had payed more attention in math and science class and went further with it I guess that's the short of it!