Jump to content

Empiro

Members
  • Posts

    384
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Empiro

  1. Flag planting came be (mostly) fixed if it were only ever offered once per biome per game. You can still "biome hop" but it's not as easy. Satellite contracts could be fixed (and would actually be pretty cool) if the game required you to take up a randomly generated sub-assembly that you had to attach in the VAB/SPH. Sometimes the assembly could be heavy, or it could have an off-center CoM that you have to deal with, and so on. It would make sense -- satellites in real life have very specific uses, and generally have custom parts.
  2. I actually meant EVA reports, which can be transmitted, but they also require way more clicks to do: EVA, right click Kerbal, click "EVA report", fumble around so that you can grab back on the capsule, press F, press F, right click capsule, click stored reports, click transmit. It gets worse if you don't have a mod that shows what biome you're over, so you have to keep trying. I suppose all this is more of a Kerbal UI issue than anything else, but you get the point -- doing the above process a dozen times isn't fun at all, and I definitely enjoyed the game more when I limited myself to getting science as part of a contract reward or when the contract asks for it.
  3. Yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing things tweaked a bit. It seems that every version buffs a bunch of engines, and almost none ever get nerfed. Maybe an across the board nerfing of ISP is on the horizon. Who knows. You definitely feel it when you move from stock to FAR and back to stock. Things are far (heh) easier when you only need 3200 - 3500 m/s, and I've launched many designs that would never work in stock, even if FAR is supposed to be more challenging. I'm not sure what's the best way to do it. Making Kerbin larger would also work, though that would also make launches take longer -- I kind of like how quickly you can get something up into space currently. IRL, burns take much longer, and that wouldn't be very fun.
  4. I definitely use this, but unless you get a mod that moves science for you, you still need to collect the science manually and transfer it. In addition, it doesn't help with all the crew reports for "space low over <biome>". When you get the Gravioli detector, things get even worse because you now have "space high over <biome>". You're definitely right that I don't have to grind science like this -- and indeed in my last campaign I didn't. I ONLY did science when a contract specified that I needed to, or one that asked me to land somewhere (and only using Kerbals and science instruments that have mass and size like Goo / Science Jr), and relied on that and contract science awards to advance the tech tree. It was a far more enjoyable experience, which is why I'd hate to see science rewards from contracts reduced or taken away. That's a fine idea I think. I like the idea of having contracts that give science, and contracts that give money.
  5. It takes a lot of practice to properly land. You'll want to save before your approach and keep practicing. I've found it useful to enable the FAR flight assists for level and yaw, and also to use trim settings for most of my pitch control Also, make sure to turn on Fine Control Mode using Caps Lock if you haven't already -- it makes the control bars turn blue in the lower left. What is your glide slope like? Toward my final approach, I'm usually descending about 500-1000m per 10km at 100-150m/s (unpowered). If you're having trouble maintaining that sort of slope, then either your drag is too high, or you don't have enough wings. Flare up at the very last second to reduce your vertical velocity as you touch down. Coming in at a shallow angle means that you don't have to flare too much. You might find it easier if you get B9 and use the air breaks in there. It give you a lot more leeway and control over your airspeed.
  6. I'd actually prefer to see things swing the other way around -- reduce science from experiments, and increase it from contracts. Why do I say this? I think science right now is way too much of a grind -- go here, click a bunch of time. Wait a bit, click a bunch more times. Especially with the new biomes in .90, biome hopping to collect science isn't fun or challenging. Instead, have contracts that ask you to do a specific set of experiments at a particular biome (or series of biomes), and give me a big science reward for it.
  7. This engine is pretty awesome now. I actually thought it was an OK engine before -- as a radial engine, you trade off ISP for convenience. It used it on my Duna lander to carry a large rover underneath.
  8. I've been having odd issues with re-entry speeds as well (way too fast as you guys have said). I'll also test it out later with and without DRE to see what's going on.
  9. Having you test the same part (from the same launch) in multiple different situations would be pretty neat I think. I like the idea because the specific combination of situations you have to test makes the challenge very unique. For example, a contract that has Flight (specific speed, altitude), landed at Mun, orbiting Minmus, and in flight again at Kerbin is a very unique challenge, and combining them in different ways will give you an infinite set of unique challenges. The contract generator will have to be pretty smart and avoid generating "impossible" contracts however. To expand on the original post, I think programs consisting of multiple, logically connected missions would be pretty fun too. What would make those missions really compelling, however, would be if the results from one mission carried over from one mission to the next. For example, to establish a Mun colony could have the following missions: -Put a satellite in a polar orbit around the Mun (having ScanSat be integrated would be cool, but optional) -Some time later, the satellite "finds" some potential landing sites that are nice and flat. A new mission is generated that asks you to land within 10km of 3 different places on the Mun. -One particular site is found to be particularly promising. Land a manned rover there and drive around some specific waypoints near that landing site -Finally, identify one of those points that is the most ideal, and ask you land a colony base there
  10. One thing in KSP is that LFO tanks are quite expensive. For example, a single orange tank is $10k empty. While a Mainsail that can lift 2 orange tanks with ease costs just $5.65k. I don't know if this is realistic at all, but it does mean that going through lots of trouble to recover an engine is pointless if you wind up ditching a larger LFO tank to do so.
  11. Yeah definitely put me in the camp that Shuttles aren't really worth it in KSP (or in real life, for that matter). The large, expensive LFO tank that a shuttle ditches costs about the same as the smaller LFO tank + engine that a disposable rocket ditches. Add to it the design challenge, plus the time it takes to land the shuttle, it means that it's much faster, simpler, and only slightly more expensive to use a disposable rocket. If cost is the main concern, then designing an SSTO space plane is much cheaper, and yet still simpler than a shuttle. The shuttle just has no niche in KSP. However, it is still a fun and rewarding challenge, and I've designed a shuttle similar to the real-life shuttle in KSP.
  12. Right -- the numbers are available but it's hard to do the math in my head in the middle of a flight. If we have the actual net acceleration, we'd be able approximate delta-v losses in our head fairly easily. Much of the stuff we think about in ksp boil down to delta-v, so having a number that's more easily converted to delta-v is helpful I think.
  13. Actually, I've always found the S1 SRB pretty useful. While I do love the massive SRB in KW (and I think I'll probably give SpaceY a try too), I've found that the S1 is extremely useful for medium sized rockets. Even though the S1 has poorer TWR than the BACC, it only has that because of the extra fuel it carries (the empty TWR is better), and it still has much greater payload lifting capacity (21.5T vs 13.125T at a TWR of 1.5). Toward the end of my rocket designs, I always ask, "OK so what will I need to get my first stage off the pad and have enough Delta-V to make it into space?" I use Kerbal Engineer, so I know exactly how much dV and TWR I have. For medium sized rockets, I've found that the S1s provide a decent boost to TWR, and often provides more delta-V than expected. The BACCs never do, and seem especially disappointing when I add a bunch and it only adds a few hundred m/s delta-V. This is especially true in FAR where I often have to limit the thrust on my SRBs, and I rather they provided more delta-V because SRBs are so cheap and economical. I don't consider limiting the thrust on an SRB to ever be a good thing, because it implies that I'd be able to get further if I had the same engine running at full bore, but with more fuel in it.
  14. Awesome! I'm glad you're looking into this and fixing the issues. I have a small request for the flight info display: would it be possible for you to show the amount of (maybe approximate) drag in terms of force and/or acceleration? It seems like the numbers are all available already (coefficient of drag, velocity, atmosphere thickness, etc.), and knowing the amount actual amount of deceleration / drag forces would let us plan our trajectories and designs better.
  15. Yes, this is getting discussed in the other forum: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/103569-Boosters-RT-10-beats-BACC-in-every-way
  16. Rover wheels and landing gears can break from a hard collision. Solar panels can break if you have them open in the atmosphere or if you bump into them. Engineer Kerbals can also repack parachutes. I think that the utility of an engineer is pretty limited at the moment in stock. I think Mods can definitely make good use of Engineers though.
  17. I think it likely happens in KSP due to errors introduced during SOI changes if you're at a high time warp. Asteroids generated by KSP usually only have a few m/s beyond escape velocity (and sometimes, it's pretty clear that they're in a non-escape orbit, and only escape because the AP lies beyond Kerbin's SOI). If you time warp really quickly, it's quite possible that the velocity and entry point are shifted though that it just gets captured. A Munar gravity brake is also possible, but that can only happen if the asteroid's orbit intersects the Mun's.
  18. Does anyone have good advice for spaceplanes with the new drag models? It definitely feels like it's going to be a much bigger challenge to get any sort of SSTO spaceplane that can lift a heavy payload to orbit now that you need 30-40% more delta-V in your LFO stage to make orbit.
  19. Yes, I've definitely noticed that the BACC could use the boost (heh). I found myself naturally almost never using them in my hard-mode career games where cost is a big issue. I either use RT-10s for small launches or S1s for big ones. The BACC just sat around collecting dust.
  20. Is it just me or did this change massively increase drag at higher altitudes? In the last version I could get to 1,500-1,600 m/s on jets without too much of an issue, but now I struggle to break 1250 m/s on even the lightest planes. In previous versions, it also felt like after I stopped my rocket burn I could coast into space and only lose about 1km off my AP, while now, I'll easily lose 5+km of altitude.
  21. Well good luck with all that. Looking at your craft, one thing to make sure is that your engine exhaust isn't hitting other parts of your craft. Press f3 and check the logs to make sure. One other piece of useful advice is to turn off gimbals for the engines in front of the center of mass.
  22. The good news is that you got the right idea on how to do long burns like this. However, what you can't do is split the maneuver node across orbits. You'll need to do a 7 minute burn, cancel the maneuver node, and create a new maneuver node, then do another 7 minute burn, and keep going until you're done. Maybe some of the other folks here have a trick they like to use, but doing this this way has always worked OK for me.
  23. The part description usually mentions it. I've always preferred the http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/AV-R8_Winglet .
  24. You make spaceplanes mainly for fun. Especially if you're playing with FAR, they present a unique challenge that you won't really get anywhere else in the game. Even in career mode, I rarely will make a spaceplane other than for the challenge / fun. It takes me all of 10 minutes to design a rocket that can lift 40T, and another 5 minutes to launch it into space. If you use lots of disposable SRBs, it won't be that expensive either. Even if I have a ready-to-go design for a spaceplane that can haul 40T to orbit, it will take me 10-15 minutes to climb and gather speed, and another 20-30 minutes to land it back at the KSC in what is a risky and stressful thing to do.
  25. Kind of in the same vein, but has anyone found a good way to keep the antennas extended? I've found that if you decide to transmit data using them, they'll retract after you're done.
×
×
  • Create New...