shifty803
-
Posts
12 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by shifty803
-
-
In your SIMPLEX tech tree mod page you recommend setting 50% science. When using the tech tree with SIMPLEX Kerbalism, is that still the recommendation? It was my understanding that Kerbalism may already be scaling the science. Thank you!
-
Note that the Cygnus Enhanced mission (ORB-4 and up) will carry the ATK circular solar arrays, while Demo and ORB-1 through -3 carry the three-panel Dutch Space arrays.
(Enhanced uses the large PCM, designed for significantly more cargo)
These arrays may be had in the Near Future Electrical pack, but I am not sure about the scaling relative to the service module. I suppose tweakscale could be used.
-
I also recommend Better Than Starting Manned if you are interested in a challenge.
-
This thread is amusing, because I was talking about this with my buddies at work the other day. Our job is not cutting edge anymore, has not been for several decades. The only rocket scientists these days are guys doing plasma dynamics research, or reactor research, etc. The rest of us are just rocket engineers.
-
First forget everything you have read about launch windows. Then follow this guide. I used to dread going there, but this method is so easy, and about four thousand delta v.
-
Balancing costs -
I am just thinking out loud here, so feel free to disagree. What if costs are set such that nuclear fuels become more of a limiting factor than the actual reactor prices, etc.?
That would tend to encourage mining resources in game, while making it potentially less grindy on the money side of things. I guess there is a fine line in this scenario, because one could find themselves grinding resources instead.
The starting fuel in the reactors would probably need adjustment as well.
-
Hello all,
Playing through the game as one does and I noticed a price discrepancy. The 2.5m aegletes reactor is more expensive than the 3.75m one. I think a random extra zero is to blame(or missing if you want to go the other way). Current costs as I know them:
1.25m fission kiwi - 100k
2.5m fission aegletes - 2.5 mil
3.75m fission aegletes 2 - 500k
2.5m fusion - 2.5 mil
3.75m fusion - 10 mil
So, either way the 3.75m fission, or 2.5m fission need price adjustments.
Still all praise to wave for going all out.
Edit: I know I can adjust prices in the config files, but I don't want anyone else to be confused, plus which way should I go? More inline or more expensive?
There are quite a few typos in the costs. For example, check out the electrical generators, specifically the large ones. I suspect you will be amused. Going out of business, everything must go! Basically what happened there is the "cost" field got switched with the "entry cost" field. In any case, WaveP is aware of these issues I think. I suspect his costs were somewhat arbitrary. Balancing stuff takes a great deal of time and effort, which he has not really had time to do yet. Plus there's more than one philosophy on how to do it. Take a look at the prices on Fusion reactors.
I really hate the fact that an LV-N cost 8700 when fission reactors are going for 25k to 2.5M. I wonder if we should change the LV-N when installing this mod.
-
I am playing the science only mode and have discovered the same problems. This seems to be a significant and previously undiscovered bug, otherwise I would refrain from parroting previous posts.
Another issue you may have missed is that all parts are upgraded without unlocking the necessary nodes. For example, my tier one fission reactor shows as dusty plasma both in-game and in the VAB.
-
I am fairly new to the game - just a 0.23.5 BTSM playthrough under my belt. I decided to do some sandbox with FAR installed, and of course this mod is perfect for that purpose.
I was hoping someone could explain the interaction between FAR and some KW parts like I am a total noob. I have searched a decent bit but am having trouble finding a general and definitive answer.
When is it beneficial (considering FAR) to use non-tapered interstage connectors vs. stack decouplers? I understand that FAR looks for "exposed" nodes in vertical stacks. Therefore it seems like a stack decoupler would work fine in most cases where the engine is the same diameter at the attached tanks. However, I can imagine you'd want an interstage connector when the engine is smaller than the stack.
The part that confuses me though - an interstage connector grants the "shielded" aerodynamic status to the engine, while a decoupler does not. In a stack with all 2.5m parts, for example, would this make any difference in overall drag?
Thanks for the help! Terrific mod!
-
The new version of KSP seems to have broken this and a few other mods. Or at least you get the incompatible message when starting up.
[1.12.1] JNSQ [0.10.0] [23 Sept 2021]
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
This may be subjective, but stock KSP running the latest version of scatterer has a far more realistic atmosphere then JNSQ running 0.772 or similar.
Is this a result of upgrades or changes to scatterer in the latest versions, some issue inherent with scaled solar systems, or just that myself and the JNSQ devs will agree to disagree on how an atmosphere should look?
When I play with my son on his less modded save I am always struck by how much better stuff looks, which is unfortunate since I find little challenge in stock scale myself.