Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Meecrob

  1. Okay, but fins and thrust vectoring exist. If you want to use your mission architecture, then cool, more power to you. Most rockets launch vertically and use active guideance to aim themselves. If you want to make things "Kerbal" I don't have a counter argument. We have different goals in our assembly techniques, and we both have fun playing the game, so cool. Other points: I have a quick video to show how you can make your own launch clamps at whatever height you want them...give me 5 minutes or so. Edit: Still debris, but you can control the height less annopyingly. I chose to just not use them.
  2. Lol, please understand, I am not defending launch clamps being debris...in fact, I'm saying they are so stupid, I don't use them. Edit: You are correct, they are totally broken. They have zero advantages that I have found. Maybe someone else has an advantage other than "its more realistic to not have a rocket sit on its engine bells"
  3. You answered your own question. Its easier to just make a symmetrical rocket and not use clamps. They are literally superfluous unless you have an asymmetric design. I don't feel like moving my rocket to 3m above the VAB floor to make my rocket not look stupid on the launchpad. Its not like they are realistic; show me one real life rocket that has "launch clamps" like in KSP. There are launch clamps in real life, but they are not truss structures.
  4. To be honest, they are always a pain to attach. If I don't have the rocket only slightly above the VAB floor, they look like stilts. Maybe I just didn't have the patience to figure them out. Either way, I'm glad I'm not missing anything by not using them.
  5. Thanks! I've tried a few ways. Lots of ways work some of the time with some reverting, but I think I found one way that works most of the time. I'm just fiddling with it a bit.
  6. Go play it and find out as a dress rehearsal, then restart and implement a strategy to attain the most goals possible.
  7. I'll drop a hint: minimize frontal area and toss some airbrakes on. The game is a little unrealistic now. I can drop in from orbit at 0 degrees AoA and I need engine power at the bottom to climb out. Edit: I might have exaggerated a bit...Depending on how low I want to pull out of the dive, it is possible for me to bleed off enough speed to require engines. If I am more aggressive, I can carry 600m/s + through the maneuver
  8. That is one strategy. I tried out a few. Here is a failed one trying out lobbing the lander at the target. I'm still editing the final bit, I dont wanna give away my solution just yet.
  9. Lol, how many tries? Too many? I've totally been there. Not trying to land a plane there though, so I imagine its got a pretty beefy STOL kit?
  10. Awesome job! your plane is a bit slicker than mine...I obviously abused clipping a bit. In my defence, I didn't have the science for a bigger cargo bay. My flight time is about 20 minutes. I'm getting through the editing, here's the next installment:
  11. Apologies for the 720p. Potato computer here. I'll finish editing the rest tomorrow.
  12. My apologies. I thought you were being sarcastic and was going along with it. The fact that KSC from KSP1 is different than KSP2 is not really an argument. I mean would you think it was cool to charge $50 USD for a literal copy of KSP1 KSC? The rest of what I said was to highlight how little of an achievement it is to simply make KSP2 KSC =/= KSP1 KSC. I agree with what was said upthread, KSP2 is so-far a straight up graphics, music and mission upgrade. As in, if KSP1 did not exist, the current devs would be floundering because they didn't come up with the concept to begin with.
  13. Hey, can you please take the tutorial on how to cut stuff from your videos? Are you using VSDC? If so, here is a link: https://www.videosoftdev.com/how-to-cut-part-of-video
  14. The person is obviously a fanboy. Look at them defend the game so hardcore. The issue is they still have the "new car smell" of KSP2 fresh for them...once that wears off, then they will realize "hey, this game is awesome, but there are these relatively minor things that need fixing that they keep not fixing..." We are not "bashing" the game or the devs by pointing out they need to fix some obvious stuff. Good point! They definitely needed a professional team backed by a big studio to change KSC so much! I mean, for sure there are no real life examples to draw inspiration from.
  15. Exactly! I'll post a video in a bit, I'll show you what I did
  16. Lol, okay we got a fanboy in training here, we just gotta wait for them to go through a few releases and see the bugs that irk them don't get fixed. Welcome to the group, @blanoun!
  17. I think that the cartoonish part of KSP can be incorporated into the experience...I'm not trying to say they aren't cute kinda thing. My point is that after you hook people in to playing the game, if they do like it, they will probably want challenging things to do. But not as big a jump as is currently.
  18. Amen, Its the hardcore players that come up with the ideas for mods that in the future make it into the game. Edit:sorry, thought it would merge with above.
  19. Ok, look, you are trying to argue me on a diction issue, so let me be more clear. Yes, they want to attract players of all ages, that does not mean they are the target audience. Lets use some logic: Lots of adults have $50 USD spare. Lots of kids do not have $50 USD to spare. The game is very complex. You can enjoy the game at a more basic level. No offense meant by that, I was playing the game at a basic level for a few hundred hours til it clicked. I'm not sure lots of kids would want to push through the learning curve. I doubt enough to target them as the biggest market. My point is that you cannot market a complex simulator to a demographic that has no money or attention span. Also, you need a beefy computer to run it, this isn't something for iPads and whatnot, its for desktop computers and gaming laptops. Can you comment on my comment instead of commenting on me? It is a forum rule, after all. If you are trying to antagonize me, try harder, and on topic.
  20. The game is not for kids. I don't know where you got this from, but it is a complex simulator. Sure, kids play KSP, and I'm sure there are some kids that are extremely talented at it, but that doesn't mean they are the target market. This game is roughly on par complexity-wise with MSFS 2020. Are there kids playing it? Undoubtedly! Are there kids shooting CATIII ILS approaches? Programming flightplans into the FMS? Heck, even flying flights longer than an hour? Certainly not the majority of kids. Most of them hop in a cool plane and mess around aimlessly for a bit. The issue is that, like MSFS 2020, KSP is a game of delayed gratification. Something kids are notoriously bad at. Its usually older people who have the concentration to actually utilize the top end of these types of games. Also, yes, you can land on Duna without docking, sure. You were the one upthread who mentioned that lots of the game was boring. I dunno, a rendezvous and docking seem to break up the boredom, and make your craft way more efficient too!
  21. Seriously. It feels like you would get awarded a "participant" ribbon just for hitting the spacebar. Also, the "lore" of a coffee addiction isn't interesting at all. When Apollo 11 landed, and the astronauts were debriefed, Gene Kranz wasn't like "Yeah, its cool you guys completed the mission, but seriously, have you tried this coffee?" Also, what is up with the sightseeing missions on Kerbin requiring a Lander Can? Why would you encourage players to use a part designed for use in a vaccuum on Kerbin? Finally, please stop with the capybaras. They have nothing to do with spaceflight. You guys sound like the stoner hippies from my high school who irrationally loved llamas and emus. Yeah, ok, they are kinda cool, but you can stop shoehorning them in everywhere. We get that you like them, but it comes across as trying too hard to be Maxis.
  22. I know this is in jest, but there is an element of truth to it. In the example above, the "real life" way to attach the decoupler would be circumerentially, directly to its parent part, but the Kerbal way is a floating node in the middle of the circle the decoupler forms. Its a shortcut taken to not simulate each and every fastener on a craft. Anecdotally, I have had luck in not running into these issues by avoiding connecting two parts of different sizes together. YMMV I bet once the devs attack some lower hanging fruit, they will address this, but as it stands, it works, but looks awkward. It does not affect the simulation part of the game though.
  • Create New...