Jump to content

Razorforce7

Members
  • Posts

    147
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Razorforce7

  1. @MKI I figure I need to send alot of probes elsewhere to do science to unlock the parts I desire (HARD) if it's just docking ports then yes it's easy. I'm afraid you among others don't understand me really. I want to play a carreer on the basis of manned spaceflight historicall accuracy. As close as it can get. Thus have the 2 manned lander can, docking ports. rcs and the larger tanks. So I don't really care whether to use the non realistic element to my advantage because I don't want to and I hate it your forced to go that science lab route. Furthermore I know the carreer is in progress. That's why I'm posting. So to prevent the further development might disable people willing to carreer play like me to be unable doing it their way. @Sirrobert Many rocket parts of mods don't unlock in similar high tech trees where the parts are located I mentioned to desire. I would like to mod research points yield for experiments. Or something to alter the gain of research. But I can't mod what I don't know how to mod. Maybe you know something that could help. @Raven @1: I know, it's cool. I Cant wait for it. Maybe then the whole thing comes together. But we're not yet in version 0.26.5 or v1.00 so for the time being I just spit my complaints out giving it a chance it might flow in a direction I desire. @2: I'm experimenting on it. I don't yet know what particular mods would help me in my complaints. But if you have advice on mods I gladly hear you out. @Federally You are spot on. Much more then I am perhaps. Yeah I to find the order in which parts are unlocked rather odd. I might be retorical. But I really really believe achieving science is perhaps still as easy as in 0.22 maybe even easier. Although I haven't tried it yet I'm sure I could send the lab everywhere I want. I got plenty of SSTOs and a rocket capable of lifting 55tons into orbit so I'm not the biggest noob out there really. The method of gaining science just bugs me since v0.23 That's all.
  2. Not sure if you read my whole post but it's not specifically a thing with difficulty. But with grinding in case you don't want to use the new science lab. Which I don't because I don't want to get any kerbals beyond kerbin before I get the research points that unlock docking ports and other parts. Which is basically my point in a shorter text version.
  3. Hello best of Ksp players. Let's start by saying that I'm a relatively (new) player still after several months of playing this game. I started playing since V0.22 I stopped playing for a while 1 - 2 weeks before the launch of V0.23 It's been since a week that I started playing again skipping version v0.23 completely and started straight off with 0.23.5 in Sandbox. Just since 2 days I started a carreer in 0.23.5 And by reading update changes it seems that since v0.23 the game litteraly ruined certain of my game aspects. Which I tried to google and forum search for. And painfully coming to the conclusion I might be the first and perhaps only one to discuss what I find to have become troublesome. The Problem This problem are the changes to the carreer mode. My opinion is that the introduction of the carreer mode in v0.22 made the harvest of science points to easy. Almost all of my science was gathered by probes containing SC-9001-Jr and the mystery goo container and finally gravioli detectors and thermometers and keep sending tests on biomes, through atmospheres or on low and high altitudes around a given body and repeat till 90-100% of the availale science points were gathered. I actually send a Ion powered probe (after unlocking them in v0.22) to the Joolian system and researched 90-100% of the available science points on jool and all of it's moons on high and low orbit passes in just one single mission. That I considered to easy. I was hoping feature updates would make it harder. And what did KSP do. They did exactly that. They made it harder by rendering a science module inoperable after a single use. To counter that difficulty "Squad" introduced the new Mobile processing Lab MPL-LG-2. In addition to render this module functional it needs 2 kerbals working on it. Before this module can reset the research containers. That ^^ is what is ruiening my gameplay. And I will explain to you why. The first reason why this new system ruins my carreer gameplay is that it forces my playstyle in a direction I do not want to go. One of my idealistic ways of playing the carreer mode is to simulate a spacerace similar to the progression of manned spaceflight. This means that I want to perse simulate a apollo styled mun landing. Not completely replicate apollo. But use the similar method of hohman transfer using a command module in LMO with a Eagle lander. This requires docking ports, rcs, mk2 lander can and the MK1-2 command pod. These mentioned stock parts I find benefitial for a apollo styled lander. Parts that I have not yet unlocked. And unlocking them requires THOUSANDS of science points still. While having already gathered EVA science on both kerbin, mun and minmus. Orbiting above almost all their Biomes and both at high and low altitudes. Gathering the necessary science points to unlock the parts I deem benefitial for a apollo styled mun landing requires me to get science from the other planets and moons. Historically accurate if you look at human spaceflight. Before the moon landing several sattelites prior to the landings went to venus and mars and other research probes. Ofcourse IRL spaceflight science gain wasn't based on science farming by probes such as the veneras, mariners, Cosmos and Mars probes. But by researches and progresses made here on earth did docking ports and other parts become available. I still find it mysteriously what a test on a science module and a mystery goo module allows the construction of a docking port or the production of a new fuel container. But ok, it's a game. It needs to have a unrealistic system of unlocking. What does this all mean for me? It means that prior to launching a apollo styled mun landing in carreer mode I firstly need to make a similar heavy styled apollo rocket to get a big science lab to the outer planets with any of my Kermans on it completely blasting my sense of realistic spacefligt out of the window. Or alternatively I could launch 10 Sattelites into LKO and wait for a transfer window to one of my desired planets and then take all 10 of them there so that each science module can resend the test which makes science farming that way a complete grind and absolutely unrealstic and stupid and inacurate in perspective to human spaceflight. So my suggestion to the devs (squad) and other KSP designers is to... A: Add a module to unmanned probes in order to reset science modules B: Overhaul the science system completely C: Go back to how it was and implement any other additional configuration on how to make it harder to get science. D: Yield much more then 20% on transmitting gathered science. Something in the range of 50-60% so you only need to send 3 probes per celestial body to get most science. Which still is pretty darn stupid since back in the day before apollo man had only send several probes to venus and mars. And sending several probes to Kerbins analog of planets thus eve and duna isn't gonna cut the necessary research points. My case here is closed. I made my point. I'm curious on the comments about this. Furthermore I would like a temporarily solution to the problem as I did progressed many hours into the carreer already and I don't want it lost. So is there a way to cheat science points. Or to edit files so that I can make it that a science transmit yields 100% science or that it would reset automatically again as it once was.
  4. Hello there. I'm looking for a way tot modify stock rover wheel rovemax model xl3. I want tot because im building a super sized rover that acts also as a base. A incredible project for sure. The rover is zo huge that its wheels cover themselves over the edges of the launchpad. It consists over 500 parts. The problem with my available rover wheels (stock) ones is that their impact tolerance does not support the Weight. Because when i drive over a hill and the wheels Come down again usually one perhaps 2,wheels come down first. And my super rover has 28 wheels. But the default impact tolerance of the stock rover wheels dont tolerate that 1 of 28 supporting wheels suspension gets to hold 50+ tons. So they flatten ons by ons. Your first response might be that it might be a alternatieve tot use mod wheels that meet the demands. Do you have a adviced mod? However im typing thuis thread on my smartphone. Because I got internet problems on my main computer locally. Expecting tot get it repaired on monday when the shops open again. Zo if.its possible to edit the rover wheels xl3 in the meantime? So i can work out my project straight away. Im sorry for spelling mistakes due tot typing on my smartphone. I hope you can help me.
  5. I was aware that reallife geosynchronous sats are to closing in by small orbit changes. I do not know but I suspect they do alot better then mine. Meaning irl sats reposition themselves like mine did but over a much longer period. I was hoping I could indeed tweak the orbits so that they would remain stationary for the most part during 100+ years. I never thought I would have to dig as deep into changing save file parameters and then still not be able to achieve that. I thought a ion engine on a relatively large sattelite weight could do the same if you fine tune it. While working on my speed and altitude I will also pay attention to all the sats orbital periods. I will use the assistance of Engineer and Mechjeb. Later today because I'm going to work now Thanks for the assistance so far.
  6. Hello fellow Kerbalnauts. I have a issue. I can't launch fully stationary geosynchronous orbits around Kerbin. I mean fully stationary? I know I need to send the intended vehicle to a altitude of 2,868,750meters above the Kerbin surface at a speed of 1009m/s - 1009,1m/s. That is correct right? ^^ Anyway if it is correct then I have done this! However I tend to play within the same save file creating my own space programs universe over the course of Years, I said [Years] After the launch of my geostationary sattelites I spend 6 years into the simulation of my save file. I have 4 geostationary sattelites in what I thought would be geostationary orbits since these 6 years Click But these sattelites have taken distance towards each other. The sattelites whom I thought where stationary are moving closer to each other. Meaning that either 1,2,3 of them are moving towards each other since they all repositioned. Or all 4 of them did (probably that <<) Or away from each other making themselves closing in. They do not remain stationary from each other. By my wishes they should each fullfill a quarter section of the orbiting space they rotate (if you know what I mean) Like a sliced pie in 4 quarters. Without one of the four sattelites overtaking one of the other geostationary sattelites. That is exactly how I launched them. Each of the 4 sattelites was intended to fullfill 45degrees of orbital space. But as you can see by the picture I posted none of them really fullfills that role anymore. Here is another picture with explanation in it Click This 4 sattelites GEO stationary system is to simulate earths geostationary sattelites to simulate a sattelite system that enables global communication. Other then that it really doesnt serve anything in case you were wondering. In simple terms I dont know what causes the instability. But I do suspect it has something to do with the fact that even although the sattelites are at the correct speed and at the correct height they are in fact not following Kerbins equator evenly. Or in other words they have a slight 0.0.1.1.1.1.1 [fill in] difference in the orbiting plane that's causing them to reposition themselves disorderly closer to each other over the course of years. Is that the case? might that be the case? If it is the case how do I ensure optimal equatorial alignment? Can you guys give me the exact math involved up to the last decimal that KSP can process or give other parameters that ensures that my geostationary sattelites remain stationary for over 100 perhaps thousands of Kerbin years (if that's possible) If it's not the case that equatorial alignment is the cause of the problem which I do suspect then what is the fix of this happening?
  7. Hello fellow Kerbalnauts. I have a issue. I can't launch fully stationary geosynchronous orbits around Kerbin. I mean fully stationary? I know I need to send the intended vehicle to a altitude of 2,868,750meters above the Kerbin surface at a speed of 1009m/s - 1009,1m/s. That is correct right? ^^ Anyway if it is correct then I have done this! However I tend to play within the same save file creating my own space programs universe over the course of Years, I said [Years] After the launch of my geostationary sattelites I spend 6 years into the simulation of my save file. I have 4 geostationary sattelites in what I thought would be geostationary orbits since these 6 years Click But these sattelites have taken distance towards each other. The sattelites whom I thought where stationary are moving closer to each other. Meaning that either 1,2,3 of them are moving towards each other since they all repositioned. Or all 4 of them did (probably that <<) Or away from each other making themselves closing in. They do not remain stationary from each other. By my wishes they should each fullfill a quarter section of the orbiting space they rotate (if you know what I mean) Like a sliced pie in 4 quarters. Without one of the four sattelites overtaking one of the other geostationary sattelites. Here is another picture with explanation in it Click This 4 sattelites GEO stationary system is to simulate earths geostationary sattelites to simulate a sattelite system that enables global communication. Other then that it really doesnt serve anything in case you were wondering. In simple terms I dont know what causes the instability. But I do suspect it has something to do with the fact that even although the sattelites are at the correct speed and at the correct height they are in fact not following Kerbins equator evenly. Or in other words they have a slight 0.0.1.1.1.1.1 [fill in] difference in the orbiting plane that's causing them to reposition themselves disorderly closer to each other over the course of years. Is that the case? might that be the case? If it is the case how do I ensure optimal equatorial alignment? Can you guys give me the exact math involved up to the last decimal that KSP can process or give other parameters that ensures that my geostationary sattelites remain stationary for over 100 perhaps thousands of Kerbin years (if that's possible) If it's not the case that equatorial alignment is the cause of the problem which I do suspect then what is the fix of this happening?
  8. @smidge204 It's solved. I nuked Kerbal from orbit with my thermonuclears, antimatter bombs and compressed it into a black hole. I then saved it to a new directory in the multiverse and everything is working again I did try to remove the "TechRequired = veryHeavyRocketry" lines. But there are alot of part.cfg files in the ksp directory. I did picked out the ones related to the 3-2 heavy rocket ones. But there was only one part.cfg file with that line in it. My persistens.sfs file listed 6 lines with fuelTank 3-2. By removing them it did indeed removed the extra fuel tank notations in the tech tree. However the tank was still greyed out at the launch assembly and researching the tank again duplicated it just as it did earlier. But none of that matters now. Somehow copying over the saves to a fresh copy did the trick and I can use the fuel tank without problems.
  9. @smidge204 Like I said to Skorpychan I do not mod. Atleast not yet. So its complete Vanilla free of anything other then the base package. I also don't cheat or have ever done so nor via using unlimited fuel actions by alt + F12. I understand however that their are editable entries, files that can mend the issue. Anybody care to answer?
  10. I'm sorry, I for instance don't yet MOD KSP or have experience with where the Jumbo-64 file for instance is located or in which document the entry files are located which you think are dupes? Care to reference me to the specific files?
  11. Hi there, I finally have gathered all the neccesary research points in career mode to unlock everything. However there is a special case item part namely the Rockomax Jumbo-64 Fuel tank. The orange spaceshuttle liquid fuel tank one. This part is very special. It's the only part as I have found so far which you have to manually Research after you have spend the science points on unlocking it in the first place. You do so by right clicking and click "research" on it. If you dont the item appears as "Part model requires an Entry purchase in R&D" Where I assume R&D stands for research and development. Or your research depertment for short. This is thus what I already said I did. But the part remains greyed out at the launch assembly and continues showing the message that it requires Entry purchase in R&D. When I then revert back to the research department the Rockomax 64 fuel tank has switched from a Unowned status to a owned status. But I can still right click it and research the thing. But the process repeats itself everytime when I find it still greyed out at the Launch assembly. Another thing is that when I repeat the steps the ROckomax Jumbo-64 fuel tank duplicates itself in the R&D interface as you can see by this picture. Click I hope somebody can help me out with this. EDIT: (OFFTOPIC Q) Anybody care to explain why the Jumbo-64 tank is special in its purchasing steps in the career mode. And why it costs some sort of invisible money (as do all parts) while there isn't even a currency exchange going on in the game?
  12. @harold705 Thanks. @sirrobert. I know i know. The reason i didn't use fuel lines and landing gear is because i play carreer mode. I just didn't yet unlocked one of both. I have NOw though.
  13. Game, simulator or w/e. Assuming you could see KSP either way as a sim it's just a realistic addon. And as a game tidal locking would give the game new dimensions and a broader experience if you like to use such a feature. Btw, I hate to break it to you. But even although KSP doesn't highlight it on the website or on matrix signs out in the streets the word simulation has a very exact definition. KSP simulates a miniature solar system with certain physics (tidal locking left out perhaps) So it is a simulator. A gravity simulator to be exact. "Game" is just how most may call it, possibly how the devs will concerning they don't mention the word Simulation. But you also can't change the definition of the word "simulation" either. Furthermore I find it sad to hear again about the many implications that is preventing to enable controlled tidal lock. I hope the request got through to the devs anyway and I hope it's not a to unworthy addon in relation to the effort of implementation in a new kerbal version.
  14. Hello, I was just wondering if a new feature could be added in perhaps a future version of Kerbal that would allow micro rotational control over a vessel. I actually searched for a "how to" because I wanted my geosynchronous sattelite tidally locked. But then found links, threads that told me it goes against game mechanics. The main part of Kerbal that prevented it was that a simulation of a craft not under SAS or in a free rotation could not be switched or simulation speed could not be warped. And in any other way Kerbal doesn't simulate the gravity and tidal force on a spacecraft. The craft itself simply isn't part of the spacematter in kerbal. And for those reasons it can't be done in 0.22. Now all my crafts in orbit are locked at a fixed position in space. This might look completely normal and expected to a space telescope but it's not what most sattelites are about. So theirfore the suggestion that if their ever comes a 0.3 or 0.4 or 1.0v of Kerbal space flight simulator. Could the mechanics of this sim be changed, overhauled (euhm whatever necessary) so that one would have the ability to tidal lock their own craft. Obviously with a necessary maneouvre node and capable thrust micro management apparatus to get it done. Almost all real world sattelites are tidally locked to the surface that they orbit. Because for the plain and obvious reason that those antennas, cameras [fill in] have to be pointed to the surface where things are received. It would be ironic if this feature had no future of implementation. And I'm sure something like this is on the drawing board. I'm just reminding the devs that it is a very likely new addition and I'm just curious if you to would also like this option implemented.
  15. Hello there, I'm relatively new to Kerbal. It didn't escaped my notice that Kerbal has alot of mods by browsing around and such. I don't have any mods installed as of yet. I'm sure I'll have plety. Any general sites that hosts them all. If not any central database, euhm exchange? Thanks if you could answer the above:sticktongue: I was however making this thread because I wanted to know specifically the following. You have a default set of "flags" in Kerbal 0.22 you can choose. The flags that you "plant" on those surfaces you expedition on. And simply the flag that is displayed that you carry as on your username. I wish to download additional ones. In fact I am most willingly searching the Soviet (russian) space program flag. If you dont know which one that is, I mean Rosjcosmos (I'm not actually russian though) Perhaps one in the name of KerbCosmos with a similar logo. Or just Roscosmos if it's available. But if not available perhaps it's something to develop. I'll be awaiting your response:wink:
  16. I just came back to reply that I got it. In fact I got the hang of these maneouvre nodes near to immediately after it was suggested by you guys. I thought I had to reply to it. I got to a encounter with eve. I even did a munar landing and a Minmus landing in the same mission and got back to kerbin with the aforementioned rocket. Discovering that my rocket was a bit to overdone. So I shrunk mine down to the bare minimum for a return munar mission. Know it's this one, alot smaller http://imageshack.com/a/img600/3342/1cpb.jpg And thank to you for your share of information.
  17. The reason I might pull it off is despite knowing things about astronomy is that I play around with things like universe sandbox or orbiter spaceflight simulator once in a while (the latter not that much tbh) It might be ironic to some that I did land there (and got back) w/o using instruments and then come here to ask how to instruments work:sticktongue: Maybe I should make a non instrumental mun landing video then if I got spare time. Meanwhile I just watched the 2 aforementioned videos that explained those maneouvre nodes to me. It seems quite understandable and I'll try to practice with it tommorow. The Mechjeb and the protractor mod are a little in depth in terms of information and multitude of different options. Atleast I have new things to work on. So far I think I have my question(s) answered so will the post status be. But if you have any additional comment, usefull information i.e. i'd gladly hear it.
  18. All wonderfull information I didn't yet know. Thanks everybody, gonna check it all out.
  19. As you can see, this is my first post. And I'm here to say that this sim is absolutely terrific, I love space and spaceflight. Never knew this sim existed, wish I had found it sooner. I've played it for over a week now. I made suborbital rockets, spacewalks, full orbital rockets. I even made a 5 stage moon rocket that got one of my kerbals walking on mun and minmus and returned them back safely to the earth .... uhm Kerbal I mean ofcourse. This is my moon rocket. http://imageshack.com/a/img818/5060/qhih.jpg To be completely honest. I havent yet learned how to properly navigate. I only have understanding about gravity and planetary orbits because I'm fond of astronomy in the first place. So for that reason I have understanding of it. The way I got to the moon was orbiting kerbal in a way that the plane aligned to muns orbit and then I fired my rocket into a elliptical orbit roughly past the opposite side of kerbin. I wasn't always completely accurate so I sometimes had to retro burn speed in the hope that the mun would pull me into her orbit. I didn't fail a moon mission because my moon rocket is pretty decent and if I was innacurate in my aproach I knew usually what to use my fuel for in order to fix my aproach. Basically I'm trying to say that I have no idea what instruments to calculate byforehand how to exactly insert my burn in a transmun injection transminmus injection. I basically just guess where I should posibly hit one of both and havent yet failed in my instinctive qualities. I'm sure there are some necessary instruments, data that I can extract from tutorials assuming some would share them with me. I'm actually not asking this because I want my mun, minmus missions perfected. The thing is that I decided to take a sattelite trip to "eve" with these newbysh poorly inaccurate transfer methods. Just guess only once how hard I failed? Well, actually not to bad. My understanding in getting to eve is to leave kerbals orbit in kerbals retrograde position around the sun when eve is still about 1/6th orbit behind kerbin. Or in other words when eves orbit inclination is so many degrees behind kerbin (how many must that be anyway?) By leaving kerbin in the correct position I lower my periapsis around the sun, hoping that this route closes down to the same position eve is about to at the moment I reach eve at my pea around the sun. I got close, very close. about 500,000,000m close. Obviously not close enough to be captured by eves gravity. Or to burn into his orbit with the fuel that I had left. Out of interest, I used this probe to get to eve that I mounted onto a modified version of my moon rocket. http://imageshack.com/a/img819/3186/p5um.jpg Oh and this is the orbit chart to show you how I got my orbits worked out atm. http://imageshack.com/a/img69/4671/z6w9.jpg You see that my path with eve might intersect. Another navigational piece that I think I cannot deal with yet is that eves ecliptic (angle) around the sun is a little different then kerbins. And if not then the angle of my probes orbital plane does not match eves ones at all as you can see right here http://imageshack.com/a/img89/3494/zije.jpg Long story short is that I don't know how to really perform interplanetary travel. I only basically (which is incompletely) know how to plan the course and perform it. I don't simply know to do a trans injection to any place. Can you guys help me with some reading material, or tips of any kind.
×
×
  • Create New...