All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. I hope that's the case, I think they did that to give to the trailer a more nostalgic look to engage more with the veterans of the game but that Poodle that uses the old mesh instead of the reworked one is bothering me more than it should.
  3. I just found this after deciding to revisit KSP after more than 3 years of absence, these planets look absolutely stunning, and very inviting, great work!
  4. Well one thing to consider is whether the added weight of Tanks/Fuel/Oxidizer/Engines outweighs the added potential of even WORSE damage from a crash. Remember they are testing the saucer prototype on the Mun. Where the gravity is much less and it looks like the saucer had a relatively low test ceiling for the hieght it was tested at off the surface. Does all the extra weight for the backup propulsion actually counteract the enhanced risk of a crash? Would it offset the extra risk of explosion compared to a low speed impact? Remember that the pilots that were lost died when the prototype gravitic drive exploded when they couldn't shut it down in time, rather than in crashes with terrain... Edit: It's not the nuke powering it that's the problem, but the part that turns the electricity generated by the nuke into an anti-gravitic force...
  5. Kerbals has an tradition to strap 4 LV-N on the sides of an hitchhiker container. I guess their DNA have 4 strains and an backup tape level error correction. Radiation still kill cancer cells, in short its good for you up to neutron bomb levels. Anyway no issue building it on Minmus or using Saturn 5 as strap on boosters.
  6. Nothing wrong with a relaunch if only to modernize graphics (which KSP2 has added me already!), though as a standalone v2.0 would transverse KSP into a classic, better and un-ruined.
  7. Awesome thanks! I'm having trouble with performance even with the beefy machine I have.
  8. Yes, usually space planes or other craft that are difficult to shield from re-entry heating. Or pieces of craft that stick out from the shielded airstream, such as experiments attached to command pods. Hope you grabbed the science before re-entry! Yes, probably. Yes. ... They do? That's news to me (especially "aerobraking at Jool", last I checked that was a recipe for instant incineration whether you had a shield or not). It does? Significant alterations to how we build and fly crafts are not gameplay consequences? I guess I'll jump to the end of this section of the post. Ahh, back to tilt. Yes, it enhances, in the same way Minmus's inclination does. You learn a new trick to avoid paying extra delta V in certain situations, also corresponds to the properties of real world astronomical objects. ...
  9. I guess I don't understand how this works. Is it like dropping a gigantic anchor from your command module? or does it look at landing legs and wheels, or whatever touched the ground, and creates so much weight or friction it can't possibly move?
  10. For myself, and maybe many others (maybe not) - the single thing that ruins the game experience and immersion most, is the performance of the game. The further you get into your career the more laborious it becomes to do stuff. I desperately hope the developer make this their #1 priority over anything. Yes, I would like an actual proper campaign that's not hodge podge pieces together, better graphics, more interesting textures and details on planets and moons... but for any of that to be enjoyable - you need good performance. Anyone else with me on this?
  11. KSP doesn't work with multiple decouplers on parts. Only the (in your case) bottom one will attach to the core rocket. The only way to do something like what you are wanting would be to attach the top liquid tank to a radial decoupler, then the SRB's underneath with an inline decoupler to the LF tanks, then maybe add struts from the SRB to the core for stability. Alternately, you could figure out how long the SRB's burn for & match the amount of fuel in the liquid tanks to match the SRB burn time & decouple everything together
  12. Yes. Probably. Yes. No. Because my experience is different from yours. I spent hours working on my Eve lander AFTER the hours I spent making it able to lift off of Eve. Those hours were figuring out how to get it to land on Eve without exploding. And believe me, my first attempt was to "slap on heatshields" and it did NOT work. When I finally got something that only lost a few solar panels, I called it good. As opposed to before 1.0, when I literally came in from interplanetary and hit the peak of the highest mountain on the first try.
  13. People play the game in different ways, I tend to drop heavy stuff from Minus orbit, standard base with standard booster, 6 km/s with the ore. Laythe base in orbit around Minmus topping up from an tanker after resuply on Minus base and docked with booster. Chemical engine burns during most of the injection burn and get dropped, an 9 LV-N second stage burn while cross feeding into the core with all the radial LV-N. Jool in an year or before this election cycle:) Ore was be converted into fuel trying to get into Pol orbit using Ike, had it not been for reentry heating I would jut aerobraked and Laythe. This was not very practical as the added weight of the 5 inflatable heat shields and structure would still require significant braking before hitting Laythe. It would also add an very high risk. Concision from the hardbrake 2 study was negative. The pilot union protested because This looks better than most instagram photos but was overruled.
  14. First Law disabled. Removing bandit.
  15. Looooonnnnng-time veteran of KSP here. Been begging for stock airship parts for the entirety of the 7 years I've been playing. Will KSP2 finally satisfy my craving for giant floating bases and carriers?
  16. Agreed. It's more productive to speculate on what Star Theory are adding in to the game, and to be honest, if a stack load of KSP1 players start hyping for some feature or other, ST might add it to the base game at this stage. Mods will come later.
  17. I don't have it on ckan (and have not used since 1.0.5) if you I want I can try to put it in but I only have dev build with me so it might take a bit.
  18. @Pappystein I see I wasn't the only one to look at the unpressurized cargo bay and stick an Agena docking collar into it. Hope you are doing it right and EVAing to the station. Anyways, couple other concept arts from Lockheed. This one is some sort of offshoot of MOL: And this one is based on the Saturn IB LV: I find the skirt around the bottom interesting, since it seemed to be there to protect against what looks to be radial mounted thrusters on the upper part of the station.
  19. Ah, actually I remember that a bit now. I always found that argument silly since you can turn reentry heating off in the difficulty settings. Here, of course, that doesn't work as well since you cab't turn this off so easily. I still reignited it, though. Oh, and while we're at it #BringBackTheBarn (JK, I was actually on the anti-barn side. Although with a certain rocket company building things next to- not even inside- tents, it may be a bit more realistic now...) Right... because they followed safe reentry practices. I can't remember the last time I forgot solar panels, for example. Same kind of thing. And yet, nobody complains about power generation being a thing! For simpler vessels, yes, it's just one part. But... just one part! Is that really so cumbersome? it's so much more realistic this way! And then there are landers and aerobraking ships that need more complex heat shielding- you can't let your engines be exposed while reentering, and yet you're going to ant them again later. How are you going to deal with this? Yes., of course the answer is heat shields, but you still have to take into account the geometry. (All that being said, I can kinda get behind integrating heat shield functionality into capsules, since you're never going to need one without the other. Obviously don't do it with lander cans, etc. For the rare occasion you might not need a heat shield with your capsule, just remove the ablator before launching. But keep the heating in, so people can learn firsthand why recovering upper stages is hard, etc.!) (And yes, I do remember taking off too much ablator on a heat shield and blowing up at least once. The spaceplane stuff is all from experience too, although again I had no idea what I was doing and haven't touched spaceplanes in a long time. Might have been 1.0.x, so I guess that might not count.)
  20. I play almost axclusively in a 10x rescale of the stock system. The main problem is that engines, even with realfuels, are drastically underpowered. Most engines fall in the 200kn thrust range, when you really nead engines in the 600kn thrust range for instance. I've played with a mismash of custom config to alter engine performance for quite some time. So I've finally decided to produce a mod along the lines of Stock-Realfuels configs, but aimed at making the engines ballanced for 10x rescales. For mods that are obviously designed to produce replicas of real world spacecraft I've tried to balance tank, engine and part sizes inorder to produce launch vehicles with similar performance and properties as their realworld counterparts. For instance and bluedog Saturn V or Tantares Proton should have performance similar to the real Saturn V or Proton. For more general engines I've tried to balance them so they fill a similar niche as they do in Stock, but for a 10x rescale. I'm also trying to give more options for fuel use, including solid rockets (so we can use HTPB etc instead of "solidfuel"). At the moment I have full support for: Bluedog Tantares Stock Expansion: Making History. Near Future LV Partial support for: Stock SXT Planned support for: Near Future Spacecraft Kerbal Atomics Restock/Plus I'm at the point where testing is needed. I've tested that everything works without errors, but not done much in the way of balancing. I resize engines, tanks and sundry parts (decouplers, fins, structural etc) to keep things consistent and allow the building of realistic replicas. Bear in mind this is still alpha, so there's LOTS of gaps where I haven't configured things yet. Any ideas or suggestions gratefully recieved. Also, if you have a mod you'd like supported let me know. Current Alpha: Alpha 1 - Download Licence: LGPL3
  21. Probably already posted on this site years ago...
  22. This is a bad idea to put into a DLC. Life support should be a core mechanic, and station gameplay should be built around it. Otherwise, it's kind of boring. Running resupply missions is OK, as long as you don't need to do that too often. There should be functionality in place to reduce requirements. Fully closed loop off planet life support would probably be necessary for interstellar flight, and colonies should be fairly straightforward to make self-sufficient (otherwise, it's not really a colony, just an extraplanetary base).
  1. Load more activity