SkyRex94

Clarifying the above questions: funds per ton payload means how many funds you spent to bring up your payload per ton, but without the payload cost itself: Example: 15t payload costing 1000 Funds. Ship with fuel and Payload cost 50000 Funds. After delivering payload and recovered your craft you got 45000 Funds back. That means: 50000-45000-1000 = 4000 Funds to bring up the payload. 4000/15= 267 this example cost 267 F/t for payload delivery. So payload cost gets subtracted, which means only the weight of the payload counts, regardless how expensive the equippment is. And for what is payload: Everything you leave in a stable orbit. That means if you can leave fuel somewhere in a stable orbit, it is also payload. But i think a pure fuel lifter will get a note that states 'fuel lifter only' because such a craft is not very flexible in terms of operation scenarios.

So 0.25 is out. The challenge is now opened! I simplified the points again, since its about an lifter and not an interplanetary transfer craft (that could be payload). Entries can be made right now. I will make my own entry as soon as i find the time for it (ASAP)

Nevermind. Occured when started first time from steam. Tried starting 64bit, textures fine. started 32bit exe directly, textures fine. Got into steam again and started it there again, now textures on craft are crisp sharp, so fine. Didn't changed a thing, don't know what it was, try the old on/off trick. worked for me

No, i seem to have the same problem. Graphic and Texture Settings are on high though, so o don't know why it's doing it. It seems not everybody has that problem.

UPDATE: 0.25 allows to set the Science gains yourself, so you can adjust the difficulty on your own. Therefor i updated the late node numbers, to make it possible to beat the tree in hard mode. New numbers: Get all stock parts: 14860 Points , Finish Tree : 40860 Points.

I want and probably will use the hard mode. But i'm still thinking of a way to counteract the kraken without turning quickload on .... You're hopefully still able to 'make' quicksaves, and if kraken attack occurs i will quit game turn quickload on, load state before, quit game, turn quickload off again. This tediousness will prevent myself using quickload on other cases than bugs and gamecrashes, and forcing me to deal even with the most horrible crashes.

No Problem And for the overheating: Thats just inaccuracy of KSP (As is that a Nerva would only need liquid fuel and no oxidizer). For a NERVA it would actually be good to run at full thrust all day long. In a fission reactor you have to cool the fuel elements all the time to prevent meltdown. In a normal power plant thats done by water. In a NERVA this heat is actually used as the propulsion, the liquid hydrogen flows over the fuel elements of the reactor, heating up and providing propulsion, cooling the reactor in the process. You actually have to run a cooling system while a NERVA is shut down to prevent overheat and meltdown, through constantly letting the fuel cool the reactor. If on full throttle the reactor would be fine as the heat gets carried away into space. while shut down it uses its own heat to power its cooling system letting the fuel cool the engine, so technically a NERVA would overheat as soon as it rans out of fuel. And all the fuel that was connected to the circle of a NERVA is contamined and radiates. So don't let your Kerbals touch or even drink any of the fuel that was in a craft which had an LV-N attached

A lot of people seem to think everything 'nuclear' is bad, radioactive and blows up like hell if exploded. It's not the fault of this people (mostly), because i think the term 'nuclear bomb' was a very poorly choosen name in history and now leaves its mark on anybody who isn't interested in physics. Fission Bomb would have been better, or even Chain-Fission Bomb to differenciate it from fission reactors. But it's too late, now most people think everything nuclear is evil and potential catastrophic For your question, short physics crashcourse: Look at Tschernobyl or Fukushima, there isn't a big crater, just collapsed buldings and a lot of radiation. A NERVA(the LV-N) has such a small fission reactor inside, so if it gets destroyed it'll be a normal explosion as every other engine, but a lot of radiation will be released. A fission bomb has to be specifically build to be that: a bomb. Otherwise it won't explode like a fission bomb. And the term 'nuclear' is just scientific for 'atom' or atom-core, everything solid is nuclear, (so no radiation), you , me , the planet , everything is made out of atoms. And it also hasn't anything to do with radiation. You can even fission non-radioactive materials, but the thing is you'll gain the most energy with uranium(or plutonium) which are slightly radioactive ( the fission products even more) . But everything radiates radioactive, just some materials more others less. Don't think now fission reactors are totally safe, they're not as seen with Fukushima and Tschernobyl. But thats because the radiation, not because potential huge explosions. (And please, when nuclear fusion is far enough developed to be in the media, please don't think it must be bad because it contains the word 'nuclear'. It's not. It's the same process happening in every star. And it'll solve our energy problems. )

I can submit an entry immediatly: Look into my Signature and view my Jool 5 Report: lowest was around 119000m, yeah not everybody had a capsule, but at least Jeb was in a Mk1Lander ( maybe count it as a One Man ship and without EVA)

Since Media Release is confirmed for today, the release will 99% next week. Which isn't including the 16th

So this thread seems to become a disscussion about where the Career Mode in general should go, to fit everyones playstyle and imagination. And i think thats a good way. For me i think the TechTree and the way of gaining Science needs an overhaul as i already pointed out. Some pages ago i also used the Term 'Endgame', but seeing the debate about this i would like to clarify what at least I meant by 'Endgame'. I don't think we need a FINAL goal where the game is finished. What i meant is there should be a 'reason' why we are doing the things we are doing in career mode. Something like, you know, hey Jeb that trip to Vall wasn't for nothing. And that reason inside the gameworld, for immersion with the space program. Sure there is Fun for us as a player to go to Vall, or for Roleplay reasons or whatever you want to do in sandbox, but in career having a reason why the Kerbals are doing it gives you more immersion. I don't think it'd be a good thing to ty Partunlocks onto 'Landed on planet X', as suggested earlier here, because that on the other hand would destroy the freedom to steer your Space Program where you want it and how you want it. We already have the Science archieve collecting all the reports, maybe some change to that Science Archieve, giving it somewhat more meaning, could be the 'Endgame' reason we need. And another personal thing: For me KSP is a game of Engineering and Exploration. The Engineering part is pretty good already, the Exploration not. In RL Space Agencies go to places, because they want to explore it, see what its like, gaining data about it, and see how it behaves. There's not so much to see in KSP right now. What we would need is an immersive outfleshing of the planets, giving us things for the Exploration taste of the game. Right now, you go to Duna, land on Duna, see:'hmm its red and has some mountains', but no reason or feeling to do anything more than just do Science and go again. So two ideas: 1. Static immersive objects: Like Vulcanos, Geysiers, Caves, Ice Volcanos, Waterfalls(Or Liquidfalls), Icebergs, Lava lakes, hot smokers, Solar erruptions. And these are static Game World Objects, like the Anomalies, but some of them animated of course. 2. Procedural Exploration: We all need the same Planets and the same Terrain, to be able to talk about and help each other to get to the different places. But this doesn't exclude that we could all have our own Exploration once we are where we wanted to go. Think of it as an advanced Ground Scatter, procedural generated things at random locations (depending on biome and planet), where everybody can explore and ecounter things for themselfes. Sure after quite a time we would all know what can be encountered in which biome but we can't point an exact location, giving everybody some reason to explore. (Ever heard from the game No Man's Sky?) Some examples i have in mind: Different kinds of Animas on Kerbin in different biomes; Spots of different interesting soil(minerals, water traces) which can be researched for Science, on bodies that are ecentialy rocks(mun,ike,dres,Tylo); Bacteria hotspots in the oceans of Laythe; interesting Rock Formations, like the mun arches; shrap ice formations on geological active ice planets; Why people land at anomailies, because they're interesting. Imagine a lot more interesting places but all in different locations for each player.

Besides making gaining the Science more fun, and decreasing Science with each biome visited, i have another suggestion for squad. It would keep the 'Science as a way to intoduce parts for newbies' thing but also give the experienced ones something to spend spare science on. Implement something more 'Endgame' into the Tech Tree: -like more Endgame Nodes with one or two parts per node, but Parts you might want, but don't really need to get everywhere: like a 2.5m NERVA, or a 1.25m ION, a massive Solar Panel, all to scale with the current part values, so you don't nessesarily need them, especially when you're new to the game. -OR/AND TechNodes, not unlocking parts, but other things: ex. pretend there's a pluto analouge far behind GP3 , but you'll only be ably to see it after you researched something like 'experimental Telescopes' , or unlocking(aka discovering) a Comet - or have one or two really advanced parts, costing nearly the value of the hole Science pool, so you'll have to explore everything before getting there, but which would give you a target 'why' you're collecting all this extra Science: like a Quantum-Vacuum-Thruster But that would still not solve the clickfest issue. Most importanly make gaining the Science fun. If gaining the Science is fun and feels Exploration-like, the reason 'why' you're gaining Science would become more obsolete and can simply be 'because i like doing it' . But right now its just clicking

Okay, as we're talking about the Mun we don't have to watch for the rotation as the mun is tidally locked. So the EASIEST but most fuel consuming way of precise landing: You obviously need an orbit going over your target as a starting position. Now if you've a lander with a high TWR and a lot of spare fuel: simply burn retrograde directly over your target until your predicted path is a straight fall down on it. then you have to slow down your fall and smothely touch down. The EFFICIENT way: start the retrograde burn further away like a quarter or a third of an orbit if you have low TWR and/or less fuel. but watch where your predicted path hits the ground. This has to stay alway BEHIND your Target so it has to look like youre going to overshoot (several hundred km), since you'll lose more and more horizontal velocity during the braking. While you're doing your normal landing procedure the predicted path will move closer and closer to the target. And thats a matter of practise and experience, you should ideally be exactly onto your target when your predicted path is a straight down fall. Use this and the rest is practise and soon you'll have more experience in doing it. (Until you're trying it with an atmosphere, there you'll need even more practise and can't really counteract as soon as aerobraking begins. Unless you've a plane)

The current Science Pool is HUUUUUUUGEEEEEEEE! I made my own Tech Tree some Weeks ago(T-7 Technology, on KerbalStuff) and for that i figured out the total Science of KSP. Just over 73.200 Science Points , you only need around 11.000 to unlock every Part in the Stock Tree, there is A LOT OF SCIENCE IN THAT POOL you're speaking of.

It could be something more interesting 'to do' like the impactor experiment from KSPI, or a big Science experiment that needs to be assembeld first out of modular big parts, or an experiment that needs to be manned, giving some purpose to manned missions, or an experiment that needs you to find something (other than a biome) not on any map, but randomly scattered, giving the game a more Explorationary taste , there are a lot ways to make it less of a clicking fest

Biomes on all Bodies sounds great. Maybe they'll do the hole Science System Overhaul!!! More things to do, or actually things other than click on part things to gain science. And If you read this Squad: Decrease the Science per Biome per Body: I mean first landing first biome: you get 100% Science like it is now. 2nd biome were you gather Science only 70 % , third 50 %, 4th 30% , 5th 25% .... and so on. That encourages for exploring new worlds but doesn't punish you if you wish to research a certain body more

But wouldn't the speed be much higher? Even if an objects enters kerbins(Earths) gravity well with nearly no relative velocity to the planet, while inside the gravity well the Planet would accelerate it, espeacially if it's on an collision course. I don't lnow the numbers but i think there has to be a minimal impact velocity for all 'interplanetary-collision-objects' (even from a nearly-the-same-as-target-orbit) which should be waaay higher than 1000m/s ?

If someone has Universe Sandbox 2 , he could simulate what would really happen in such a crash

Jool, as its nature as a Gas Giant, and its moon-system. But if GP2 gets somewhere near my wishes for it, it will become my new favorite (Blue With Rings, a Titan and an Iapetus(and some others))

So 188/20 = 9.4 According to the results until now, there seem to be quite some skilled players arount. But the numbers are not representative yet. And keep in mind, a skilled player might be more interested in reading and writing in the forum than the 'average' ksp player who might not visit the forum at all. That also undermines the value of this poll. I predict there are a lot of skilled players in the average of this forum, but not so many in the average of ALL ksp players.

I don't think the 0.26 feature is upgradable buildings: Look what had to be implemented to make destroyable buildings?: A state for each building saving if its 'destroyed' or 'not' The destruction switches this state. And the rebuild after destruction switches it again. Nothing i would call 'serious Groundwork' To make buildings upgradable you just need more states and things to do with an upgraded building, so that seems unlikely. Aproaching it scientificly: Obviously a lot of ArtWork was needed: To create the Destructed Models, the animations the explosions, the collapses and fireballs. But you can't reuse the Artwork for the buildings, because you need new models for every new building you want to destroy. And its obviously viewable, i mean it 'is' the secret feature so it isn't the groundwork needed for it. The buildings aren't destroyed dynamicly as seen in Squadcast, it's the same animation for the same building, and it's the hole building or nothing, so no 'just blow the edge of the roof' and the rest stays intact. What i mean is it's an animation for each building played when the system desides to change the state of the building to 'destroyed'. BUT they have splitted up the 'clickable buildings' into more seperate buildings. What i mean is that the water tower and the launch pad are different buildings physically, and each commdish or the different sections of the runway. Splitting the models into new functional groups and setting the borders for them was something that has been done. So i don't see any groundwork to make lets say the VAB upgradable or buildable at the beginning, although they could use the splitted models to lets say add the water tower to the launch pad, but i don't see what gameplay value that could have, maybe you've ideas for that but i don't think it is upgradable buildings at all. What has also been done is something like a 'health state' for the buldings, to detect when it has got so much damage that it'll blow up. And a detection system to detect when a non-craft-object got hit by something. until now only crafts are affected by any collision. With 0.25 also the KSC buildings achieve the ability to detect a collision on themselves and react to it (with exploding). And a system had to be implemented to modify the current state objects in the game (assuming a destructed building will have a different collision mesh than an intact one) and this model replaces the place of the intact model while this building has the state of destroyed. (But that could've been already there, i don't know, maybe mods like KerbinSite using that already) And we have to think of a purpose for the 0.26 feature, because upgrading buildings to unlock parts doesn't make any sense. We have a unlocking system for the parts already: called TechTree. Destroying buildings is fun cause of explosions and has an effect on your budget. Upgrading wouldn't be fun to watch, would cost money and i can't think of anythink getting unlocked through that. Maybe the planets but that would counteract the freedom to go where you want. AND they needed to apply animations on non-craft-objects in the first place. Every non craft thing is just static right now. Maybe you can build a new launchpad or runway anywhere on Kerbin, but (apart from making the game harder or change the view) there isn't any purpose in that either since the equator is already the best launch position. And Craters are a much too easy feature to be the BIG 0.26 Groundwork needed feature. just apply an overlay Crater texture at the coordinates you impacted. Or you mean deformable terrain, but i think that would be far tooo big as you'd have to save the currenct shape of every single planet in the game everytime you save, and i can't see groundwork for that since KSC is just destroyable and not deformable. Maybe it'll be more Buildings on Kerbin, that would be a big art project too. OR they've finally decide to flesh out all the planets a bit with Geysiers and Vulcanoes and Solar erruptions and waterfalls and caves, using the ability to apply animations to non craft objects. But honestly i'm not sure which is the most realistic since all the ideas have pros and cons why and why not they should make it. Personally i'd like something with all the other planets, not just Kerbin, to flesh out the things to do at your destination instead of making Kerbin prettier. Besides: We get new Explosions, it seems they are to scale to the part exploding. So do you think they also applied these to the asteroids? We won't have a crater but if an E-Class Asteroid makes a huge massive Fireball-Shokwave on impact there will be much more reason to redirect them on collision course, and much more fun to crash them on purpose?

Yes i landed on Tylo. 3 Kerbals and lotsof Science. for Pictures look in my Signature for the Jool-5 Report

So since i doubt we'll see a Science System Overhaul in the near future by Squad why not make a mod for it. If someone likes the idea, has the spare time and the passion to create a mod, here's what i've in mind: A 'Better than Stock Clickfest Experiments' Mod: 1- A modular Experiment: Having a big Part that can be manned with a Kerbal, maybe a size of 1.5xScienceLab. And it is quite heavy, like 10-20t. To do the Experiment you need a Craft containing lets say 5 of these Parts and all need to be manned. And if activated it needs to stay manned for around one Kerbal Month before yielding the Science. With a big and unhandy modular part like that it would give you reason to build a Space Station or a Base, since you'd probably bring not all the modular parts at once. Espeacially with a Base it'll be probably easier to Land the Modules seperatly. 2- Changing the Seismic Accelometer to the 'impactor science' function it has in KSPInterstellar 3- A Surface transition observation Experiment : Once activated it needs to cross the line to 2 other biomes than the one it has been started in. Gives a Task to Rovers (at least on Kerbin, Mun, Minmus) 4- An Ice Core Experiment: Works only on Ice (Kerbin Poles, Vall, Eeloo , maybe Minmus) 5- A measure the Site Experiment: modular Experiment, needs 3 modules at least 1km apart from each other and each has to be activated (aligned) by a Kerbal on EVA. Gives something senseful to do to move more than 3 feet away from your touchdown place. (6- an Alternative to Nr. 3, an 'interesting place' Experiment: once Activated it shows your current and close by target coordinates on rightclick. When target reached it shows randomly a new close target, this for 3-4 times. Maybe simply reconfiguration of the PressMat for this new function, after all we already have a atmo-clickfest-science with the NoseCone. Purpose for Rover) 7- change the Mystery Goo to a 'live form behaviour Experiment' , pretending it contains some mixture of micro organisms. It needs to stay a certain time in the Enviroment before yielding the Science, time depends on place,(fast in Space, because it affects the organisms very fast, slow on lets say Laythe or Eve, which may be not so harmful to some resistant organisms) What do you think?

FAR/NEAR: because to fullfill the requirement of being believable, the shape of the craft should matter. And it wouldn't matter in stock. Don't worry about 0.25, i will simply push it to the top as soon as it gets opened, but for now there aren't any cargo bays in stock and all the wing parts might get realigned with 0.25 and with this being mainly an atmospheric craft challenge i think it should start with the new plane parts with 0.25, no matter when it will be released.

Build a Craft as usable and practical as the SKYLON concept This is the Ultimate Challenge for designing a somewhat realistic runway launching craft which can bring a payload into orbit for an affordable price and usable by everyone. But it should be believable that something like it could somehow work in the real world. Target: Design a Craft which will be as usable as the current Skylon-concept and have the same advantages. This andvantages are: Being able to operate from every big airport in the world, so every country will have the opportunity to join in space travel and being able to be maintenaced in any normal Aircraft Hangar. So no need to build a tall VAB or even to build a Spaceport, just using the next airport. RULES: - It has to have wheels of some kind, to be able to roll into any hangar without extra equipment needed. - When landed it has to have a maximum height (including payload) of smaller then an upright standing Orange Tank, to be able to fit in any Aircraft Hangar. - It has to be able to bring some kind of payload into an at least 75*75km Orbit - It has to be able to return to the place where it launched - No parts should crash onto Kerbin (although it is allowed to drop things, if they would burn up during reentry, proof with DRE) - NO part clipping, not even possible clipping, especially no air-intake clipping, volume of craft has to be the sum of the volume of all parts. - Mod required: FAR or NEAR - Parts allowed: only Stock, to make it fair - Mods allowed: Any Visual, any functional/data, NO parts or reconfigs of stock parts/fuels etc. - ask if unsure So it doesn't necessary have to be a SSTO or a Spaceplane, the rules don't forbid to do something else, but it has to be as practical and usable as a SSTO-Spaceplane would be, according to the rules. Points: ( (Maximum payload in kg ) divided by (funds per ton payload) ) ---> higher number is better You have to proof two different flights and your final points will be the middle value of the points of these two flights, so proofing reusability. It's calculating max payload within because its just as important to bring as much stuff as possible in one go up there as it is to do this at reasonable price. You can't build anything big if your highly efficient Plane has a maximum load of 0.5 Tons of payload. Example calculation: craft cost with payload 100.000 Funds / Payload Cost 20000 Funds /Payload Weight 15 tons Funds per ton: 1st flight 101 F/t , 2nd flight 99 F/t Calculation: 1st flight: (15000 ) / 101 = 148,5 2nd flight: ( 15000 ) / 99 = 151,5 middle Value = 150 Points How to Enter: Submit a picture of your loaded craft next to an orange tank to proof the height limit. Proof (pictures or video) the two needed flights for an entry, including clear pictures of: Craft cost with payload, payload weight and cost, final delivery orbit, start landing and flight, Recovered Funds after both flights showing the cost of the used fuel/(jettisoned parts) Ranking FAR: 298.6 points --- Cygnus Link 89.44 points --- SkyRex94 Link 55.78 points --- SanderB Link ... Ranking NEAR: Let me know your opinion about the general idea, the formular for calculating points and the Name of the challenge itself if you can think of anything better. And of additional rules if you understood what i'm aiming for and you see a loophole in the current rules. Request: If someone here is good in designing graphics and is in search for a new little project: What about a Signature Emblem for all competitors of this challenge (like the ones from Jool-5 or K-Price), to enhance your signature. Everybody can feel free to post any Design for a Challenge-Emblem in this thread. The best and most cool-looking Design will be choosen for this Challenge and the Designer will be Mentioned here in the Main Post. Cheers SkyRex94