Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Yellowburn10

  1. Holy Kraken, I am so glad I was wrong with my initial prediction of this update, this is incredible! I am beyond excited for this! It's just another one of those things that I never knew I wanted until I saw it. Thank you 1000x over! Also, is all we know about the release date is that it's in winter? Like we talking December-winter or like February-winter? Gosh I hope it's the former.
  2. I really hope that since we now have official repair kits, in the future we'll be able to repair more parts than what is already available. This would be a great opportunity to implement a more detailed "damage scale" to parts. Much like the current repairable items, instead of having an impact go from "Not a scratch!" straight to "This thing is filled with TNT!" we could have a stage in the middle where the part is just simply damaged, and needs repair before continuing usage.
  3. So it seems like my initial speculation about this update was correct, an update that will focus on more things like bug fixes and quality of life issues. Nailed it!
  4. I keep saying "I'll only use quickloading for bugs and glitches, and not anything that's my own fault" and I never adhere to it. I just can't help myself. If this game was perfect and glitchless I'd gladly turn off quicksaves for an ironman-mode career, but since that's not the case I guess I'll keep telling myself this lie. I've never played through a science or career playthrough all the way to land on every planet or unlocking the whole tech tree, etc. I always end up starting a new one, either because I get board of my current save or I want to experience the next newest update from the beginning of a new save. I've never fully completed any Eve mission I've attempted, leaving poor kerbals permanently stranded on the planet. Now to be fair, Eve isn't the easiest planet to complete a mission on, but the fact that I've never bothered to try to finish even one makes me sad inside. I've owned this game for several years now, but have never completed or even attempted any forum challenge. This is just my own fault, plain and simple. I'm thinking to break this soon though, I really want to attempt something like the Jool-5 challenge for real.
  5. I'm willing to create a little wager: let's see what happens first, KSP2 is released, or Starship gets into space for the first time. Place your bets now.
  6. Yeah, I would disagree. Just from looking at the screenshot, not only does it have the earth, an accurate Soyuz orbiter, and a completely different UI, but this game also appears turn-based? I'd sooner call simple rockets a clone rather than this, and simple rockets is far from a KSP clone.
  7. Very nice touch, it always slightly bothered me that in terms of lighting we really only had a big light, a slightly bigger light, and landing gear light.
  8. I always get surprised by these texture updates, just seeing the contrast of the before and after always makes me go "Wow..." While I am excited for this, I was personally hoping to get one more bug fix release before now. But, seeing as we haven't had a "theme" for this update announced yet, I'm cautiously optimistic that this one may focus on big fixes and performance, while finishing the new textures for the rest of the planets.
  9. I went and added more detail and adjusted some things about the rocket. Here's the new iteration: Not only did I add finer detail to the outer layers, but I also adjusted the length and size of the individual stages, making the proportions slightly better. As a funny little coincidence, it's size in comparison to the Making History Saturn 5 replica is close to the size comparison to the real rockets. And here's some more pictures of the rocket doing an actual mun mission: If people like this enough, I'll try to upload and share the craft file. I had a fun time building this, and am pretty satisfied with the result.
  10. Yeah, enough said. I was in the mood to build a replica, and decided that I wanted to try to build an N1 rocket. It has most everything in proportion to the real N1, with 30 engines on the main stage, 8 on the 2nd, 4 on the 3rd, and so on. The lander is somewhat bare bones, but functions the same way as the real lander would have. The scale is in kerbal proportions, with the whole rocket being just a little smaller than the stock Acapello rocket. As you can see, it mainly has the shape of the N1, but is without much of the finer detail on the rest of the rocket, but I still feel proud of the result. Maybe I'll come back to it later and add some greater detail.
  11. Short answer, no, nothing is being missed. It was purposely designed that you couldn't "buy" reputation or science from the admin building. However, I suppose from a purely gameplay perspective, it would make sense to be able to trade cash, reputation and science points freely between each other. But since that's not the case, I like to think about it like this: With reputation, that one is simple when you think about it; you simply can't "buy" a good reputation, something like that needs to be earned. It's not just some numbered resource, like cash or science, but it's supposed to represent how much the rest of kerbal kind likes your space program, and how much they're willing to send you quality contracts to do for them. And honestly, if a real space agency was giving me money to try to give them a better-than-they-deserve reputation, that would look pretty shady, no? As for science, well, that's also simple: nobody else has "science" as a resource that they can give you. Your space program is the only organization who is out there in the solar system trying to learn more about it, and as such, you're the main provider of science. You can sell it for money, but then that science would presumably be "used up for research" like we do with the tech tree. In that light, it'd be a bit silly to try to trade money for science from kerbals who don't have it. It'd be like if NASA went around and asked if anyone had any Moon rocks for sale. Of course, this is just my own head canon, but I feel it makes sense.
  12. I keep seeing responses for this thread, but the title's cut off at the end, so it just say "Kerbal Space Program 1.10..." so I never know if it's an actual 1.10.2 patch or just this thread again. Why you gotta keep giving my hopes up like that?
  13. Pretty nice, it's like if a stealth bomber was designed in WWII.
  14. That's just one way to use it. But who says you have to take the lab with you to every minute valley and crevasse? Why not have a separate craft go and collect science, then just bring it back to a base or station that has a lab? Like as an example, a space station could send a lander or probe filled with science equipment down to the surface of a planet, gather all the science available in the area, then head back up to the station to analyse all of it with the lab. Then you could repeat the process over and over, eventually gathering all the science from a celestial body, at full value, all without ever needing to leave. Sure, it would be a bit resource intensive, and refueling the lander over and over might be an issue, but it's far from impractical or not worth using. The lab would still have a very good and practical use, giving a good amount of science without being too OP. And yes, of course it would be a nerf compared to what the lab is capable of doing now, but that's kinda the point of what YaBoy was wanting to discuss.
  15. I feel like the mobile lab should be a place where, instead of gaining MORE science from an experiment, it should just be able to give you the full amount of science via transmission. It would make sense, considering that instead of bringing the science back home for analysis in a lab, you literally brought the lab with you to analyze it instead. It would still take some time for analysis, since a mobile lab wouldn't be a robust institute as the one in the KSC, but the results could be worth it if you don't want to wait however long it would take to get that science back to Kerbin on it's own.
  16. All I would want is the long-ago promised Gas Planet 2. I've been wanting something like it ever since I learned about it, and while mods have delivered such in droves, having something "official" would be great as well.
  17. When you car's almost out of gas and you think to yourself, "Man, my car's gonna need some more delta-V."
  18. This is honestly one of the best looking large re-entry vehicles I've ever seen. And it's actually aerodynamically stable? That's better than most other large re-entry vehicles I've made.
  19. Hey, that's awesome! How does the part count compare to one made without flags?
  20. I've changed the title of the thread to better match the discussion this thread has created.
  21. I've been doing a lot more testing recently, and taking everything learned here into account. I've now moved on from testing proof of concepts to actual working prototypes! First is the electro-prop: I based this design largely on what KerrMu had posted, and what do you know, the thing actually flew! Sure, it took a moment to get off the ground, but it's far more than any other design of mine. There is a noticeable difference though, mainly this design is powered by fuel cells. While heavier than solar power, it makes a small amount of fuel go a long way. The main improvement with this design over my own was the larger wing design and more efficient design of the engines (I.E. Not enough propellers). Now the rocket: This design has progressed a lot farther than the electro-prop, mainly due to the fact it has a "payload" of a science bay, SAS wheels and a small docking port for refueling. The main difference with this one was switching out the terrier engine I was using before for a NERV engine. I had forgotten that the NERV still works like a charm on Duna, and with it I could make a craft with similar Delta-v as my old designs, but at a fraction of the weight. Plus, I've had much more flight testing with this plane more than anything else, and I've been able to take off, fly and land with reasonable ease for a Duna plane. As an unintended feature, this plane also happens to be a Duna SSTO. So there's that. Thanks to everyone for the tips and advice! Hopefully I'll soon have a craft I'm satisfied taking with me to Duna for real.
  22. I'm trying two different designs, electro-prop based and rocket power based. My current designs are all essentially proof of concepts, basically trying to see if what I'm trying to do is feasible. None of them so far have made much progress when it comes to actual flight, although I admit I've been working more with props than anything else. Their thrust is abysmal in Duna's atmosphere, but my design incorporated fuel cells for some incredible efficiency. Unfortunately, I haven't gotten much more than around 40 m/s at best out of them so far. I need some more testing with rocket planes for their performance, but from what I've gathered so far, their weight is a real pain to factor in.
  23. Well, I was planning a large excursion to the planet in my current career save, complete with a base, rover and a ship to get too and from duna orbit. I thought a terrestrial airplane would be nice for exploration and for getting to certain spots quicker than a rover, but not as resource intensive as a spaceship.
  24. Recently I've been trying to design an airplane to be able to fly on Duna. I've gone through many designs so far, none of which seem to work well. Rocket planes are often too heavy and cumbersome, while electric prop planes never seem to get enough thrust in the thin atmosphere. At this point, I'm wondering if planes on Duna are really that viable in practice. I was wondering what suggestions, if any, might help out, or if it's even worth it in the end?
  • Create New...