Jump to content

AbhChallenger

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    240

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by AbhChallenger

  1. AbhChallenger
    I support this.
  2. AbhChallenger
    Is there any possibility for engines that run on methane to fit into the balance? So we can build lifters that are similar to the New Glenn or the SpaceX Mars craft?
  3. AbhChallenger
    That is the thing tho. Unless I am mistaken. RL probes did not use engines with such large bells. That means their ISP sucks but the weight was lower. So what I would like to see if possible is a cluster of lower ISP and lower weight engines that are basically just higher thrust RCS engines bolted together. Something to cover the gap in the early game until you unlock the superdraco later on.
  4. AbhChallenger
    One thing I have noticed is that there is no engines in the earlier lineup that are good for small lander probes. Meaning either using a mount that partially covers the bell that you attach legs to. (Which looks unrealistic) or using a stock engine (Which is OP compared to your parts) is there any chance of an engine cluster that is designed for small lander probes in the early game? Even if it means a significant reduction in ISP
  5. AbhChallenger
    I have yet to try any mods that change the stock system so this looks like a great new way to play KSP. I have a few questions. #1 From what I can tell there is a planned update in the future? Not asking for an exact ETA but is it more in the ballpark of "Play some other games for now" Or "After SpaceX relaunches a rocket" ? Not trying to be rude. I just would like to know when to plan on my next save. #2 One of the things I disliked about the contracts in my last save was that I never got the initial exploration contracts after then Mun. Does Galileo do more to encourage the player to explore new destinations? #3 Does that atmospheric changes encourage the use of boosters and higher TWR at launch?
  6. AbhChallenger
    EDIT : Turns out I am an idiot and did not realize that the sound I wanted was part of RealPlume. I should have installed that first before complaining about the sound. I will leave my post up in case anyone else is confused. --------------- Been using this in my latest career save and I have been enjoying it. However, I have to admit. The sound is not the best. It really breaks immersion when SRBs don't sound like solid rockets and big rockets still sound like the classic engine. Is there any chance of sound changes in the future? So that big rockets really get you saying "Look at that big rocket GO into the clouds at ten thousand feet!"
  7. AbhChallenger
    Going to go a bit off topic here but I noticed a while ago you were working on an interesting Launch Trajectory Analysis tool. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/36476-WIN-MAC-KSP-Trajectory-Optimization-Tool-v1-5-0-Optimizations!?p=2074193&viewfull=1#post2074193 If you still have any plans to work on it. Would it perhaps be possible to implement some kind of solver like this? http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/65011-WEB-1-0-KSP-Optimal-Rocket-Calculator-v1-19/ Especially if you can simulate atmospheric flight. I know that has little to do with slingshots. Yet it really would be useful for designing cost effective lifters for a variety of missions.
  8. AbhChallenger
    This again? Already it is cheaper to use solar energy to add a gigawatt to the daytime grid then... Just about anything else. No matter how many advancements fission makes. It will not be enough to justify the cost and the time to activation. And before anyone whines about subsidized solar. EVERY power plant in the US (And likely most of the world) gets some kind of assistance from the government. Solar likely gets far less and still manages to be cheaper. I can become a power plant next month by having grid tie solar produce excess energy to feed back into the grid. As opposed to a reactor that takes upwards of a decade to activate. Fancy thorium can't compete.
  9. AbhChallenger
    The only way this could work is if this were a stupidly expensive contract. So that there is no incentive to abuse it because the player is not good at building or piloting cost efficient lifters.
  10. AbhChallenger
    In b4 the lock.
  11. AbhChallenger
    One of the best movies I have ever seen. Most of the negativity I have seen comes from frankly space nerds like us who know the difference between a Delta and Atlas rocket. It is a holywood movie. Not a documentary. I went into the movie expecting to be most excited by the Hermes and the Hab. However, Matt Damon really was the best part how he depicted a human trapped in that nightmare. A really human view of "space is hard" And that what was so great about the movie. Space is very hard. And there is going to be more disasters. And people will sadly die as we push towards becoming a spacefairng species. That is obvious. And it is absurd to think that human beings will act like perfect PR NASA astronauts in such situations. I absolutely loved how the Sojourner rover became the Willson of this movie. A many million dollar rover becoming a pet. Loving it!
  12. AbhChallenger
    By the time we have the technology to send a lander within a reasonable time (Look at how long it took NH to get there even with its high speed) we mise well send astronauts there. There are still discoveries being made by scientists going over the voyager data again and again. I suspect we will still hear about discoveries made from NH data alongside news of the first humans on Mars. So it is not like the scientists will have nothing to do. Going there with traditional chemical rockets is a complete non starter.
  13. AbhChallenger
    Other mods should not play a factor into the balance of SpaceY. They are supposed to be extending the stock balance. Stock fuel is the Magic "LiquidFuel" If you are going to compare it to any real world fuel then you mise well just install the realism mods. They can be OP compared to the real world as long as they are not OP compared to existing stock KSP parts. (Except for of course part count and the ease to build compared to asparagus, boosters, etc..) They can have an ISP of 800 for all I care. As long as it is balanced so that it does not become the obvious part to use for every situation.
  14. AbhChallenger
    Um my thoughts are this thread is rather pointless because KSP will soon be Unity 5.2 So why ask if the devs need to do anything different?
  15. AbhChallenger
    Um no. Multiplayer requires certain things added yet will change nothing for single player play. Except maybe good things such as increased physics bubble. Camera improvements. etc.. The absolutely worst thing that you will have to endure is them taking longer to implement some long term single player stuff. It is not going to wreck the game and you know it. You are just mad aren't you?
  16. AbhChallenger
    For me the only way I would purchase such a DLC is if it had everything needed to simulate the solar system. #1 Humans (With correct sizes which includes the pods) Instead of tiny Kerbals. #2 Complete Solar System and moons in high detail (Such a DLC have higher system requirements than stock) #3 Correct fuels and realistic tank mass.
  17. AbhChallenger
    Squad would have to be pretty stupid to not move the priority of multiplayer to near the top after they have stabilized KSP x64 on Unity 5. Multiplayer = Sales So yes I think KSP will eventually have multiplayer. Developing it is not going to be easy. Yet I think they will do it.
  18. AbhChallenger
    Well personally I hope KSP introduces a concept of "Cramming Kerbals into a capsule all the way to duna and back = bad" We have mods that add life support limitations. But seem to not mind about the space and how long they live in that space. Of course that means we have to have new parts. And of course that is bad for the current 32 bit limit so I can understand. However, in the future I hope things like inflatable habitats and mars direct style habs will be a requirement on normal difficulty for missions to Duna and beyond. Of course that should be a slider so people who like the old way can continue to play without being forced to.
  19. AbhChallenger
    Any suggestions on when or when to not use "moar boosters" ? Specifically soilds as I do not like to use asparagus.
  20. AbhChallenger
    With KSP 1.1 on the horizon will you update this great tool to include any changes made to stock parts? If so is there any chance you can include the SpaceY main and expansion parts?
  21. AbhChallenger
    I don't like doing asparagus staging. I would rather have wide launch stages like the Saturn V. Besides that adds a ton of part count. Which harms those with weaker CPUs. (Sadly the Devs are making it seem that the Unity 5 jump will be much less beneficial to FPS than I had hoped)
  22. AbhChallenger
    I disagree. If your memory is that close to the 32 bit limit then you likely won't install the expansion to begin with. 10m and even 15m should be added to this pack so you don't have to worry about keeping a bunch of expansions up to date. Don't get me wrong 15m is going to just look silly on a planet the size of Kerbin. However less parts = moar FPS. So it is useful for folks with weaker CPUs
  23. AbhChallenger
    can i haz 10m stuffz?
  24. AbhChallenger
    "What does the scouter say about it's power level?" "IT'S OVER SIX THOUSANNNNNNNNNNND!"
  25. AbhChallenger
    #1 Minecraft and KSP are two different games. #2 Smartphones, PCs, and the WiiU are completely different from each other. Do you seriously think Squad will start leaving features out of the WiiU version because of lack of memory or CPU power? If so I have a bridge to sell you.
×
×
  • Create New...