• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4,529 Excellent

About Streetwind

  • Rank
    Talks To Boosters

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I liked how cheeky the trailer is, referencing that old fanmade video from way back when. Same music, same tagline, many similar shots and vessels. What I liked less was the "not gameplay footage" part. Everyone can make render trailers; show me the actual game, pretty please! Guess that's not ready just yet. All in all, I'm cautiously optimistic. It was a given that TakeTwo would try to do more with the intellectual property they paid money to acquire. Building a new game from the ground up with a much more modern technology base, that can work. Not to knock on Felipe's original work, but he was one guy at the start, and he had never made a game before. No one could and would expect him to match the work of a studio of trained professionals. And while the game changed greatly over the years, it probably had to keep carrying along legacy cruft. Perhaps a new, clean start is a good thing. If that sunsets the current game eventually? ...Well, frankly, I have over one thousand hours in it. Even if I had not received it as a gift, I would have considered it money well spent. And time well spent, too. Kerbal Space Program, and the team at Squad, has absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. It has been one of my most favorite games ever, and nothing can take that away. Plus, it was one of the foremost early access success stories of the decade. If the torch is to be handed off to a successor, then KSP will not retire into obscurity... it will retire into a well-deserved spot in gaming's hall of fame.
  2. I know what you're trying to say, but be wary of leaning too far out the window with your examples. Any rocket stage is hard limited to the mass fraction of the tankage, even if it can devote infinite mass to fuel. A Spark engine with 320 seconds of specific impulse will be hard pressed to give you more than 6,000 m/s dV, even if you put a super-size tank on a tiny payload. And that's not quite "ten times anywhere". In fact, it won't even get you a Moho return trip without staging if you use standard Hohmann transfers. Beware the diminishing returns!
  3. @bobisback Wow, that was a long time ago. A lot has changed since then. Technically, the way the rocket equation works has not - but the way we build rockets, that sure changed as the physics model of the game was improved over time. Asparagus staging, for example, is very rarely used nowadays, as the "new" aerodynamics model from 2015 actively works against pancake shaped rockets. Sequential staging (as we see in real life) works best in many cases. As for the three rules of the thumb you quoted me mentioning? Those aren't bad, but the first is quite unfortunately misstated. Stages shouldn't have similar dV; they should have similar mass fractions. That is the same thing if the engine Isp is identical, but Isp can vary quite a bit between lower and upper stages. A few years later I wrote a different post on the same topic that I consider far better put: Even that is now outdated in parts, as the tank mass fractions have changed for the xenon parts since, but the gist stands. It directly answers most of the questions you have asked. If something is still unclear after that, ask again and I'll try to word it better.
  4. I really, really like the new textures shown off so far, both Mun and Duna. Especially in the way they scale smoothly from orbit. Modders have given us great retextures over the years, but this kind of smooth zoom has never before been possible. All of my thumbs up.
  5. You can go to and check if the parts you are looking for are listed anywhere in the 0.2.0 or 0.3.0 release roadmaps.
  6. The Twitch launcher simply indexes mods found on Curse, since Curse is part of Twitch these days. Nertea uses Curse as a mirror next to Spacedock.
  7. Yes, although for that, you wouldn't modify the MM patch that ReStock applies. You would instead write another patch of your own that runs :FIRST, where you use a +PART[ ] node to clone the part before it gets changed by ReStock. The cloned part will remain as it is, while the original part later gets replaced, and you end up with both versions available to you.
  8. None of the parts in Nertea's mods are intended to be fully realistic recreations. That said, some are heavily enough inspired to come, perhaps, within 95% of being faithful renditions of the real thing. You're playing Realism Overhaul, so you presumably have an interest in your parts being realistic as well; you'll have to decide for yourself how much stock you put in that. Stat-wise, the parts are incompatible out of the box. They work, sure, but they are balanced for stock KSP, not something scaled 11 times larger. Isp will be wrong, mass and thrust will be wrong, fuels used will be wrong, pricing will not match comparable parts, and so on and so forth. Nertea's mods do not ship patches to make them fit into Realism Overhaul. However, perhaps Realism Ovehaul does ship patches to tweak Nertea's parts? I don't know, I've never used it. But I do know that it does support a great many modded parts. TL;DR: Unsupported configuration, you're on your own - unless RO offers the support you need.
  9. Yeah, no worries. If you (as in, the Restock team) don't do a F-1 analogue that replaces the MH Mastodon, it's not that great of a loss. Stat-wise it's pretty much the same as a Mainsail anyway, albeit better-looking... but that argument falls flat when a Restock-improved Mainsail is already available It would be nice to have, so I could tweak it to fit a different niche, but it's not worth upending your roadmap over. Chuck it on the maybe-pile for 0.3.0? As for the service modules... to be honest I had to look up what you meant, despite having had Making History since its release. Umm, yeah, never used a one of them. Not a big loss either! Besides, if it's a part in Restock+, I'm not expecting it to match MH's part behavior exactly, or maintain precise compatibility. You're already going with different names, for starters, so that kind of sets the tone. Are you sizing the extra engines as 1.875m out of the box? Or are you mirroring the MH way of them actually being a different size but having a switchable 1.875m variant?
  10. Question - I see analogues for the Making History engines in future Restock+ roadmaps. Two 2.5m, one 1.25m and one vernier in 0.2.0; and two 1.875m ones in 0.3.0. However, that means that there's a third 2.5m engine unaccounted for that Making History adds: the F-1 inspired Mastodon. Is that intentionally left out, or has it been overlooked? Its variants are very poorly set up in MH - for example, it offers you to use a 1.875m size base instead, and the bell is narrow enough to fit, but the collider remains 2.5m. So it would definitely benefit from the Restock treatment, even if it has to wait until 0.3.0.
  11. The electric engines in NF Propulsion will offer you oodles of dV, if you can stomach the long burn times. (BetterTimeWarp can help you with 10x physical timewarp options.) Reaching solar escape and shortening the trip through the void is easily possible with those. You can power them with solar, particularly the blanket arrays of NF Solar, but if you're looking to field the biggest toys, then you won't be able to get around NF Electrical and its reactors. Alternatively, you could look at Kerbal Atomics - another of Nertea's mods, though it has a forum thread of its own. That mod has fancy nuclear engines. They don't quite have the sheer dV potential of the electric engines, but they do have more thrust.
  12. Might be worth going back to specific version notation in the thread title, instead of "1.7.x". Count on it that .2 won't be the last patch of this version cycle...
  13. Goodness gracious, I should have installed this mod sooner. It's so good. The Pug, in particular, is so good. ...Perhaps it is a bit too good, even You see, since installing Missing History, I have no used the Terrier even once. Before, I've always had the choice between it and downsizing to something like a Spark or a cluster of Ants, which in some configurations is superior due to the lowered mass, even if the Isp is worse. Now, I have an engine with a lot less mass but almost the same Isp, so it handily beats both of those options. Add to it that I routinely throttle the Terrier down for most applications anyway... I just landed a 2.5m sized lander on the Mun even, with a single Pug, and it wasn't even that awkward. I suppose that the Terrier will make a return as a lander engine on worlds with slightly higher gravity, like Vall, Duna and Moho, but for anything in Kerbin's SOI, the Pug is better every time. Example: a simple 1.25m upper stage with a pod, parachute, heatshield, decoupler, FL-T400 tank, and an engine: Terrier: 2320 m/s, 1.52 TWR Spark: 2481 m/s, 0.56 TWR Pug: 2562 m/s, 0.82 TWR (with onboard fuel removed) Pug: 2736 m/s, 0.78 TWR (with onboard fuel included) In my experience, when one engine completely crowds out all others in the same niche, it's deserving of some adjustment. I recommend lowering its vacuum Isp by 5, to 335. And/or consider moving it to either Propulsion Systems or Fuel Systems (it carries onboard fuel, after all) for research. Note: these are recommendations based on my own limited viewpoint. If you are happy with the Pug as it is, that's okay.
  14. Not sure if it helps - you probably got that far yourself already - but the basic gist is this: Under ...\GameData\SquadExpansion\Serenity\Resources is a file called rocsdef.cfg, which covers all the special, interactable terrain scatters. By modifying these ROC_DEFINITIONs with Module Manager, it should theoretically be possible to add the BG objects to your own worlds... assuming the CELESTIALBODY{ } node takes Kopernicus world names. You can even change the displayed name, so you don't end up finding a "Mun Rock" on, say, Gateway. You can filter by biome, mark which objects can be picked up by a Kerbal, and so on. ScienceDefs.cfg in the same directory has the texts you get when interacting with the objects. The expansion also sometimes generates targeted contracts for specific objects, for which there is a config file in a different folder. Now, a ROC_DEFINITION lets you specify a prefab and a model, which is how you would add your own. I'm not exactly sure where Squad stores theirs, since the definitions don't specify the full path, so you'll have to experiment with where to put them and whether or not it finds them if you just put in their names.