Sky_walker Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 The alternative would be to produce something under which spaceplanes have no cost besides fuel,Wrong. You'll still pay initial price for a spaceplane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerbMav Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 except to force real life into a game where real life has no bearing.This argument is void.Besides the refunding of kredits was a game mechanic specifically asked for by large parts (or at least repeatedly) of the community.I also do not think that the space program will depend on recycling as much as possible and refunding merely being a small perk - also there are further additons and refinements to career mode to be expected as the game is not yet finished, so lets wait what Squad delivers in .24 and flo them to do better based on facts later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firestorm126 Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I think best bet for recovering 1st stages would probably be to try and get the ship into the upper atmosphere before dropping it, Then from there if you put a small prope on it and some parachutes you could control it enough provided you had some fuel left. You could drop it early but you risk losing the whole ship whilst your not focused on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GusTurbo Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I guess recovery should easily depend on the biome. The rest is a balancing issue, I guess. So, recovering on the runway maybe -> 99%, recovering from the ocean -> 50%, recovering from one of the poles -> 70% , recovering from the moon -> 0% .This would it make it more interesting to choose your landing spot more carefully, as well.Give SQUAD a chance to implement this first and balance it later on. Technically, it should be not that complicated.I like this idea. It incentivizes returning to KSC, which has its own biome, so it would work within this biome-specific system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexscates Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 "Resources" is the term used to describe things that show up in the appropriately-named resource panel, helpfully labeled "resources" in the UI. It includes things such as liquid fuel, oxidizer, monopropellant, solid fuel, intake air, xenon, and electricity. It can also contain things added by mods, both traditional resources (like in life support mods) and things which just use it for various auxiliary purposes (e.g. Eurekas in Station Science).I want to set up a stock exchange to buy and sell recovered intake air and Electricty from outerspace. Imagine what rick kerbals would pay to breathe outerspace air and power there "homes?" with space electricity. I am excited.-rex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo13 Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Depends on your definition of "replace."blizzy,Is there something you'd like to share with the community? Perhaps, Squad is incorporating your toolbar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alshain Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 blizzy,Is there something you'd like to share with the community? Perhaps, Squad is incorporating your toolbar?Out of all the mods that people say should be stock, that's the logical first choice.I prefer your interpretation and hope it is true, because when I first read his comment it sounded like he was saying Squad's toolbar is not as powerful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerbMav Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 It certainly would underline even more the mod-friendliness of KSP/Squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiwiak Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 i really hope that one of these small things not mentioned areBIOMES FOR PLANETS OUTSIDE KERBIN SYSTEM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpast Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 It said the toolbar shows in 'most' scenes. Is that a hardcoded limitation, or does it just not show when no component wants to be shown in that scene, and some scenes have no stock components needing to be shown?More directly: If a mod wants to be shown in a scene where the toolbar doesn't normally show, will the toolbar automatically just show in that scene with that mod? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monger Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Why biome dependent? Distance to KSC is far more accurate. There's mountain biomes 10 km from the KSC and 1000 km.So what? Recovering a big ship from a pond is still more difficult than recovering it from the runway just 20m behind it. A plane that lands on an airport is relatively cheap to recover - no matter what airport worldwide. A plane that crashed into the jungle - not so much.Aside that: the more complicated the game rules, the less transparent and fun they are. Punishing players just because they recovered at the beginning of the runway instead at the end of it? Not fun. Punishing them because they carelessly dropped their ship in the ocean instead of landing it properly? Yeah, I can live with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyAgent007 Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Biome and distance should play a part in it but even in an ideal landing at KSC you shouldnt get 100%. I feel that anything that lands with a chute should have some return, even if you wernt focused on it. Unless it sinks under the water. But until .24 comes out its all just speculation. Once we get our hands on it, we can make suggestions for any .25 modifications to the system. Harv has stated its not a finished system and everything will be subject to changed based on how we as a group deal with it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzerbeard Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I'm curious about the O-10 MonoPropellant Engine, actually- I'm not particularly imaginative, but I can't think of any situation in which a monopropellant-burning engine would be needed, surely it'd be far less efficient than a regular LFO engine? Could someone explain the benefit of it to silly old me, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caelib Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I was really surprised when I watched a video at what all went into the recovery of the SRBs from the shuttle launches ... two ships and a bunch of crewman and some divers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikaneko Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I think the main benefit would probably be cost: i.e cheaper to equip those as orbitals for a probe rather than going for an LV-1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klgraham1013 Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I'm curious about the O-10 MonoPropellant Engine, actually- I'm not particularly imaginative, but I can't think of any situation in which a monopropellant-burning engine would be needed, surely it'd be far less efficient than a regular LFO engine? Could someone explain the benefit of it to silly old me, please? Perhaps with satellites or smaller ships that currently use ions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Well, that, and you can shave off weight by having RCS and main engines feed from a single tank. Currently, you need at least two tanks to have RCS+main engines, now you'd only need one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monger Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 i really hope that one of these small things not mentioned areBIOMES FOR PLANETS OUTSIDE KERBIN SYSTEMWhy would you care for biomes on a planet you could never see with the naked eye, let alone visit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HafCoJoe Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I think biomes should be visibly marked in map view as researched or not so you can easily tell what's been researched or not. Just me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UAL002 Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Why would you care for biomes on a planet you could never see with the naked eye, let alone visit?You may not know how the science system works in KSP. I'd take a look at that and it should answer your questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzerbeard Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Perhaps with satellites or smaller ships that currently use ions?Well, that, and you can shave off weight by having RCS and main engines feed from a single tank. Currently, you need at least two tanks to have RCS+main engines, now you'd only need one.Maybe, but I assumed the ISP of something running on monopropellant would be too low to save any weight, given the amount of extra monoprop you'd have to carry around. I'm probably wrong, though.Why would you care for biomes on a planet you could never see with the naked eye, let alone visit?He did say "Kerbin system", which is Kerbin, Mun and Minmus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monger Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 He did say "Kerbin system", which is Kerbin, Mun and Minmus.Ah! Okay sorry, I misread that. Yeah, that would be actually nice. Visiting other planets to gather science points is currently kind of boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warbird Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Does recovery extend to parts we drop during launch?Probably if you have sufficient number of parachutes attached to the jettisoned part (similar to how MCE handles recovery).Max has confirmed that parts that you don't actually "ride down" will not be counted as recovered and will adhere to the existing deletion rules pertaining to dispelled parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laie Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Otherwise it'll force people to land on a runway and then spawn small, cheap tanker, refuel, attach new cargo (mobile crane), and fly again.Cool down, people. We have no idea yet how limited funding will be. I presume that you will get enough kerbucks to pay for a lot of lost stages... In other words, that the game can be played and the goals be met with standard, run-of-the-mill rockets. Nothing's to stop you from being a mizer, of course. You can land your spaceplane and spawn a tanker if you feel like it, because, freedom. But I can't believe that the game will make that kind of thing mandatory.The truly fancyful designs may be unaffordable in career mode, though. But then again, if funding is balanced such that new players aren't scared away immediately, then it will allow the veterans to launch quite a few pointless missions on the side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiwiak Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 by the way... why was 64 bit version not mentioned?i hope that harv just forgot.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts