Jump to content

wnderer

Members
  • Posts

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

7 Neutral

Profile Information

  • About me
    Bottle Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I disagree. Take Two sold KSP because its narrow appeal meant it would never sell a lot of new licenses, but from a directed marketing viewpoint, its narrow appeal is its value. It's the same reason companies sponsor PBS shows like NOVA. These are the eyeballs you want. Because of Musk's politics, it would be in the interest of SpaceX to spend money on public relations to continue to attract the kind of employees they want and to maintain support for their space program interests. Boeing with all its mishaps would also benefit from positive public relations. That's why I think NASA should run some sort of open source community effort with sponsorship from their contractors. The value of KSP is not in sales but in the contact it provides with a certain group of people.
  2. You could try contacting NASA and they could run an open source project funded by sponsors with volunteer programmers. They would buy they code and the sponsors would get their Logo displayed when you start up the game. Companies like SpaceX, Boeing, Blue Origin, etc. Companies that want to promote interest in the space program.
  3. I suggest going a route similar to thedarkmod. The Darkmod is a game built on the Doom3 engine. It is now stand alone with a deal from ID. KSP the next generation would be an "official" package of mods and external support programs built on the KSP1 engine. I think for the most part the KSP1 engine is fine. It is the chaos of competing, abandoned and unsupported mods. A pared downed standardized set of mods with a wiki and tutorials and an official group of community developers would define a path for the future and give newbies a foothold without having to get lost in outdated documentation and forum posts.
  4. It's not a problem. It's just funny to watch. I don't think it's sliding. I think it's a Dean Drive. I've repeated it three times landing in three different places. The video works for me. This forum I have trouble with.
  5. Ship Walking Video I used my cellphone to make a video.
  6. It did it on two landings. The first time I thought it was the wind and rushed around cutting chutes until it tipped over and exploded. The second time I realised it was running in the opposite direction of the chutes. I think it has to do with the wobble of the neck. I wish I had a movie. The legs are bending and stretching. It looks like it is running.
  7. Here are old threads on the topic. I copied the ladders to a new directory and made my own high temperature ladders by changing: maxTemp = 2000 //= 3200 to maxTemp = 4000 //= 5200 I'll see if that works.
  8. I want to use aero braking. The ladders tend to explode. Is there a way to protect them from the heat?
  9. Yes msbuild works. I thought I needed Visual Studio to use the csproj files. When I searched for c# command line compiler I got a tutorial for csc.exe. Thanks
  10. I looking for precisenode_1.1.3. I found the source code here https://github.com/blizzy78/ksp-precisenode/releases/tag/1.1.3 I'm trying to recompile it with the command line CSC.exe. I'm converting the csproj file to an rsp file. I'm stuck on how to convert these resources. </ItemGroup> <ItemGroup> <Content Include="CHANGES.txt" /> <Content Include="Parts\CBAtexture.png" /> </ItemGroup> <ItemGroup> <None Include="LICENSE.txt" /> <None Include="Parts\CBA.cfg" /> <None Include="Parts\CBA.mu" /> </ItemGroup> What do I do with these files? Thanks
  11. Does Kerbal Joint Reinforcement effect the new aerodynamics in KSP1.0.+ ?
  12. What I need is a structural fuselage that fits the Rockomax rockets. I don't know if there is one ahead of me when I get more science.
  13. Here are some numbers. I stripped off the solid boosters and launched straight up until the fuel ran out and took a screenshot. The mass really didn't change with the number of fins from 81.1t. fins top speed apoapsis 0 980.5 m/s 93793 m 1 vertical 977.9 m/s 93471 m 2 butterfly 953.5 m/s 89228 m 3 bf + vert 952.3 m/s 88918 m I'm not sure how to measure stability. With the butterfly, the center of lift is at the butterfly. Without the butterfly, the center of lift is above the center of mass.
  14. I don't have the cubic strut yet. I'll try that when I get them. I'm not sure the program will let me build something like that. I stumbled on this by accident. Put the basic fin on crooked and the blue center of lift shot down the rocket. It would be nice to be able to control the angle and the drag.
  15. I have three butterflies on the big orange rocket. The air flows from top to bottom. The air is funneled through the gap in wings.
×
×
  • Create New...