Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hevak

  1. It's not dark humor, because ITS NOT GUS GRISSOM! Does Gus Kerman look like Gus Grissom? is Gus Kerman in a space suit? Is Gus Kerman in an Apollo capsule ? Is Gus Kerman discussing a capsule when he says anything about fire? The answer to all of them is no. Because it's not Gus Grissom, it's not dark humor, it's just a friggin game. And Gus Kerman is in the admin bldg. not even anything to do with a spacecraft at all in this game. Seriously. This is redonkulous, And people are making more of this than needs be, because it's nothing. But we have to find something to be offended about every single day. Why don't we just git rid of all kerbal names? Get rid of all failures in ksp and reenetry heat? Geez just get rid of kerbals, because if any one of them die it can resemble any kind of accident that happened to someone ever in the history of life on earth.
  2. Nah, I get what you're driving at, its not that difficult to get and it's cool that's your decision.
  3. I don't understand what programming skills have to do with using mods, or why you hate module manager so much? Just install those 3 mods and you're good to go. No programming skills involved, I have below zero programming skills and I can use these mods fine. module manager just allows the mods to make changes to parts and other things in the game that they need to so they can work. You don't have to do anything but drop the mods in the gamedata folder.
  4. Yeah I know, meant midnight Friday. But it's 9 or 10am release here, that's what I meant by a few more hours. Yeah my post wasn't very clear lol.
  5. At this point the steam countdown timer is just taunting me. and I was hoping for a Friday midnight release on steam, but hey what's another few hours I guess. I'm glad that there haven't been many problems with the ps4 rollout. Gives me confidence the PC version will go fairly smooth as well. Dont think I've been this excited to get my hands on a game in awhile. I've seen a few vids of gameplay and reviews, game looks great, definitely be taking up some time for awhile. I need a 200x time warp button to speed this up... hope everyone enjoys it that has it and is getting it. Well min specs are 8gb and an nvidia 480 or rad. 7870, not exactly high end cards I think? So if your 680 is following the normal naming trend I think you should be ok. Not sure how Mac vid cards translate to PC. Game Looks great, but doesn't seem too intensive really. Idk, hope your setup works though. Good luck with it.
  6. Space flight is risky business, I see it as a reminder just what is at stake, and just what was lost and sacrificed by many people to achieve what humans have in space. Also at no time did the parody the Challenger disaster, the Challenger was a space shuttle not a rocket. And unfortunately things fail and explode. These people accepted this risk, they all new what they were doing. They all would want that remembered and never forgotten. Im quite sure Gus Grissom would say the exact same thing to you. "If we die we want people to accept it. We are in a risky business, and we hope that if anything happens to us it will not delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk of life." Virgil Grissom. This does not sound like a man who would complain about such a thing to me. I believe He would say, accept it. whether intentional or not, accept and use It as a moment of reflection, as I do, and rememberance of not only Grissom, but all the others that sacrificed the utmost to push humans into a new age. I don't think the person who spoke those words above would have a problem with it. And it's neither my nor your decision on how his name should be used or remembered in anyway. And it is Gus Kerman in the game, not Gus Grissom, or Gus Grissom Kerman. It's a completely fictional character. Either way though. I hope squad doesn't give into this new plague of the world that looks to sanitize history so they can have their safe places to reside. SQUAD PLEASE KEEP THIS IN THE GAME DON'T GIVE IN SINE ITS GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH GUS GRISSOM.
  7. So forgetting the changes you want made to the stock game and parts for a moment, as they are different issues and require decisions to be made out of our control, I believe there are two options for those wanting a beefed up mk1 cockpit in the interim. It appears most discussing this are probably PC players, and I could be a bit wrong, if so forgive me. 1. I'm pretty sure you could make a simple module manager cfg, and have it apply any heat tolerance and mass changes you want. The wording of the cfg could be found out easy on the forums, idk much about it, but have seen similar things done with it. Even if you don't use mods, module manager is a small mod and wouldn't affect anything else. If you use mods, chances are you have mm already. 2. I'm not sure the method, but there is a way to "clone" a part and make changes to it as well. Taniwha did this with the EPL mod and cloned the hitchicker capsule and turned it into a workshop for his mod. Same part textures, just added some function to it for his mod. This may be possible too and you could do the above with the cloned part, buff it up and have it better withstand the heat and rename it, same looking part with new name and specs essentially. Then you have both the stock mk1 for early atmosphere then a mk1b or whatever you call it for space travel as was suggested as on possible solution for stock. Im pretty sure both of these scenarios are possible, and should be fairly easy compared to most modding. I admit I'm only relating what I've seen done in other aspects before. So maybe this could help for now, or I could be wrong. I'm also not a big spaceplaner, lol, so I can't speak to the overall issue being discussed. The request made seems reasonable enough though and if this is truly an issue then it would need addressing for stock due to the game being on consoles now. so I'm in no way dismissing your concerns or suggestions in the thread, just wanted to throw out an option for those on PC's that moght help to address the issue in a fairly simple fashion other than having to turn off, or down, heating effects in the meantime.
  8. 4 more days... (Hopefully if nothing changes). or 5ish? 4 and half? Lol. im eagerly awaiting this. And very hyped. But I urge people to not buy into the over hype of this game. If you do you're bound to be disappointed. I like the gameplay footage I've seen, and the descriptions of what can be done. Overall I'm approaching for what I see, not the marketing of it. That may not make sense, but I'm hugely drawn to the whole just pick a star and go there and see what you find aspect. The discovery and chance to be first there etc. that is what's drawing me in. also the survival aspects and resource gathering, while somewhat naggy like, seems like it will add a bit of idk, immersion? To the game. The gameplay footage I've seen seems like something I will enjoy. its bound to be repeating in some way, and yes some of the original names generated are just, well unpronounceable, but the bigger issue will be the stupid names and memes that people will no doubt use. Like kotaku naming a planet and a species found harambe. Internet meme crap is what's going to really ruin things. People will try to be clever and circumvent naming limits and put some really foul inappropriate stuff no doubt. The naming feature will be abused a lot, I hope the have something in place for some of the more severe offenders. I can't wait for this game and will for sure be spending a lot of time in this game for awhile. First game I've preordered and paid full price for in awhile on steam. Maybe after a few days some of us can try to meet up in space somewhere, if we can find eachother. There are supposed to be hostile aliens out there, as well as the sentinels, not sure if players can do much to eachother. But battles are part of it, so it may be good to have some people around. Once I see how it goes maybe some of the other steam users here wanting to add friends and we can see what's out there. Any PC player really, but it may be easier for steam friends to know others are there. Not sure how game communication works, or if ther is any. If I remember right I think all platforms will be independent which is sad. If I'm wrong them I'm open to possibly meeting up with anyone regardless of what platform they play on. I'm not a PC elitist, I just think it's PC in their own universe, which if any game would benefit from cross platform servers it's this game. Hope you all enjoy the game though. Godspeed and safe travels my fellow space bound explorers.
  9. This, so much this.^ And this ^, yet below. Also this ^ lol. So I think for now keep it a mod, and improve planets overall first. Then add in some new planets/moons. I'd like to a see a lot more varied features and places to see on planets like others have mentioned many times. I'd love to have procedurally generated planetary features for everything except kerbin, to add a bit a newness to each play through of the game. Possibly a few different procedurally generated features on some parts of kerbin. Though I think due to the planet, kerbin should probably be unchanged, because the options for making it different each time would be lower than you could do with say minmus, dres, duna etc. they could be varied much more every time. That is an interesting idea. Though I fear it wouldn't work well with the kraken issues that plague ground bases even on stable planets. But if the base itself could be stable enough it would an interesting concept for sure.
  10. @Veeltchnothing you just quoted says screw consoles. It says the opposite, they should be able to decide the fate of their build independently. They should control what they want without PC interference. And PC can go a different route simply because PC can be modded.
  11. Fair enough, and again good points. I'm all for rearranging parts within the current tree, within reason. I'm not for getting rid of the multi branching tree we have and going to five or six straight lines of the tech tree posted to start this discussion. But I don't want to start unmanned, I don't want to start with planes. Planes are much more complicated to build. So again this is best done as a difficulty option that either reorders when certain parts are unlocked in the current tree, or only changes the starting tech tree nodes themselves. I do not want to be forced into a tree that makes me do unmanned and planes before ever building a rocket. Just like some don't want to be forced by the current tree to do a manned rocket first. So I suggest a new mode beyond career, call it "real space program" or "historical/realistic progression" that way both sides can get what they want. Those like me who don't have as much issue with current career and progress keep , and those that have issues get a mode tailored differently. It seems if this was to be done at all, that this would be the best way for both sides to be happy?
  12. I see no more branches, in fact I see the opposite I see less. I see a straight line, a straight linear progression in each of the tech categories there. If I want electronics I have to unlock every node in that to get to end. That is linear progression. In the current tree I would skip many of the rocketry nodes I would be force to take in that tree linked. i don't agree with a change to tech tree layout like that, it's more limiting, yet it's being presented as more choices. its contradicting.
  13. Please quote where I said that, please do. Or just keep putting words in people's mouth cause you can't have a decent discussion. in fact I said consoles should get their own build, tailored to consoles. That is quite the opposite of saying screw consoles. Consoles and PC should be seperated, because PC can be modded for issues like this, and what PC players want is most likely not what console players want. Neither side should be forced into something because of what the other platform can or can't do, or wants. So please quote my post where I said screw consoles, or else please just stop responding to me with your inane and asinine comments. You just degrade your whole point by resorting to putting words in others mouths to try and further your agenda.
  14. I pretty much completely agree with this here. Which is why another alternate career mode seems it would best serve this. And maybe fun wasn't the best way for me to put, maybe intended way is better. Ksp is intended to be about rockets and interplanetary flight by its creator, that is what they wanted and how they sell it. but you're right others fun is different, some really like making planes on kerbin, others like trains and just crazy weird stuff. That's all good. it seems though that you Slashy and @KSK are having more of an issue with how science is generated more so than how the tech tree is laid out. At least that's what I'm getting from many of your posts. Due to how science is generated to allow you to progress through the tree, you are sort of forced into doing certain missions, and then unlocking certain nodes before others or in a certain order? This I feel is a different issue and changing the tech tree layout will not change this aspect of the game. i could certainly see and have a discussion about changing how to generate the needed science currency to progress through the tree in a different manner, I think this could fix some of the issues people have. I could also see a difficulty option as I and others said to allow planes first, or unmanned first if some wanted to go that way. But to me the linked tech tree in the first post is nothing but linear, and more so than the current tree layout. forgetting the science point generation issues for a moment, at least with the current tree you have a much more varied path to some parts. I could skip early batteries and do some other nodes first and then get some better batteries without having to do the first initial nodes. How is the linked to tree mod giving me more choices on my progression and play? I don't need the little batteries, but in that one I would have to unlock all early batteries and solar panels to get the better ones. Yeah it's more realistic to unlock that way, but I don't want realism like that, I want to get the parts I want and ignore the parts I don't at the same time, the current tree allows that much better in my opinion. There are nodes I never unlock because I don't want those parts at all, yet in the linked tree, I would have to unlock every single part I don't want just to get one part I do. At least with the current tree with multiple branches I don't have to unlock every part I don't want to, though I do have to unlock some of them.
  15. I actually agree more with what you suggest, if it was done as another game mode though. I feel many people are happy overall with career mode, at least a close ratio of those that are happy with to it to those that aren't, and as such I feel it shouldn't be completely redone. But I could see and accept a new game mode being added and tweaked more to yours, and others liking. Changing the way things are researched or the way research is generated, sure that would be fine. And I think if a it was done as a new game mode it could be easier for those that want a complete change to career to come to a consensus, because it's not ruining a whole mode for those who like the current one. I also understand this viewpoint, though I don't agree completely. I have changed my progression through the tech tree in other game plays. But again you make fair points here. But really the point of ksp is going to space, and exploring other planets and moons. And I, myself personally, feel that making this take longer is not very good for most players, especially newer ones. The fun is launching those interplanetary craft. As it stands now I feel it takes long enough to get to the point where, for the average player, it's already hard and long enough getting to where you can do that. i know ksp isn't like an mmo, or sub based game. The goal isn't so much to keep players playing as it provides no financial gain to sqaud. But it seems this discussion hinges on the fact that more accomplished, longer playing players want a different challenge after several years. This is why I don't think current career mode should be totally changed to the way some want. But as I said above I think some of these ideas, if people could have a reasonable discussion and come to a consensus, could be beneficial to those long time payers who have done 10's to 100's of career run throughs already. but only as a new game mode beyond the 3 modes we have. But I'm not for gutting and redoing career mode, as I like it. Sorry others can't accept that. I accept contrary opinions here, it's sad some others can't.
  16. Wow really? Are serious right now? This is why there Is no point to discussing this with you. I conceded many points to you. I don't like your tech tree idea. But yeah forget my whole post that explains I'm fine with making an option to go unmanned or space planes first. Just not your tech tree way of doing. You are the hypocrite, and you constantly contradict yourself. And if you want to get that way, you're the real whiner here. Waahhhhh it's not the way I want change it now. Like a petulant little child not getting his way. Can't have a decent discussion with anyone who thinks different than you. Just insult them, so right back at you. You want your way and screw everyone else. You won't concede anything in anyway at all. And i said use the mod you linked, you've been here a long time, your a PC player, you can mod it just like I did. So learn to comprehend what you read instead of getting upset and insulting people who disagree with you. I never once insulted anyone in my post.. So you can go shove it you know where. @KSKIt kind of sounds like you want a whole different mode of gameplay designed altogether, not quite career. Not quite sandbox but in between. And you make many fair points. I don't really have the issues you have with career mode, and I've started many new saves. I wouldn't want all that you suggest though. the realism I mentioned is because that it what others mentioned in almost each post for changing it, make it more realistic. I don't care one way or the other about realism vs ksp, it's a game not a simulator to me. Also it seems this discussion has branched into not only changing the tech tree, but science generation, or how it's used as well. It's really looking to change the whole way career mode works, which I why I say it seems you want more of a different mode of gameplay altogether. But there is not point in having a dissenting opinion that conflicts with veeltech in anyway, he just insults people because he wants things his way only. Best of luck
  17. First the only really beneficial choice I see from that tree is you could focus on spaceplanes more if you wanted. But the biggest thing is, the current tech tree is not as linear as that one you link. while the current tree may seem to just throw parts in random groups, which yeah it does, they unlock in a fashion in which you will use many of those parts at the same time. That tree you linked is much more linear, at least in the stock tree there are different ways to unlocking different nodes. Especially the farther you advance. Your tree is just straight lines, straight linear progression. And I see less choices being made there. Im willing to agree that spaceplanes, or more importantly atomospheric aircraft should be separated better, or more. I get that people like aircraft better than rockets. I think the current tech tree, except for the first intitial nodes, does a decent job of this already. But I could see more separation being to done to it. And also since almost every post mentions realism or IRL, what was first rockets or orbiter aircraft like space planes and shuttles? That's why I said atmospheric aircraft, because spaceplanes should not be first if you keep mentioning realism. Like I said i see lots of contradiction. lets forget consoles for a bit, and honestly consoles have their own problems, and any choices made for consoles should be handled on their own. Really consoles should have their own builds, it's the only way they will get a good console version. Anything done to benefit consoles will most likely only be negative to the PC version. so let's forget consoles, if I liked the stock tree, but wanted to flesh it out more and installed ctt to expand the stock tree into even more nodes and make even more choices for me and the way I want to play the game, then why can't those of you in this thread I know are PC players not do the same? You linked to a tree you like, so why not use the mod? Why does the game have to be changed to your way? Why not learn to mod and make your own tree exactly how you want? few people are going to ever agree on how the tech tree should be. As you can see in this thread there is a pretty close ratio of who even wants it changed at all and those who want the tree unchanged. So the best approach is to keep the current tree and let those who can mod it the way they want. Consolse should really have their own builds as I said,because they have their own problems. They should be dealt with independently. The most I could agree with is this. Make it a difficulty option to start with airplanes that can't go to orbit. I'd even say hey let them do spaceplanes straight from the start. I could go for a difficulty option to start unmanned. But that is it. Forcing payers into either of those scenarios as has been suggested here is not good when you claim to want more choices. I do not like the tech tree you suggested with that mod link. I don't want it at all and much prefer the current tech tree layout to the one you suggest. Could some parts in the current tree be adjusted? Sure possibly, but I think currently as weird as they are grouped, it provides a decent progression. You unlock parts you will need to take that next step like better probe cores, better science stuff, better engines/tanks, better landing components to make better landers. I have to work my way thoughtfully through nodes to achieve what I want. Trees like your idea lend themselves to neglecting whole areas and focusing on one, where is the decisions in that? I just see people focusing on one or two nodes in your tree, like jet engines and flight control. Or rocket parts. Maybe one or two points in electronics for batteries, but then they will inevitably be neglected until the other nodes are finished. I see less choices, and less control over my progression there, not more. and I really see less hard decisions, there are less decisions anyways. Plus I have to unlock all electronics in a linear progression. Whereas in the current tree I can weave my way thru it in different ways, considering every node after first two tiers tends to have two previous nodes that can be used to get there. And each choice I can branch off up or down to get to a node farther down the tree. so modding is simply the best way to address this issue. Anyways, ive stated my desire to keep the current tree, and my opinions as to why. This is a thread where little agreement is going to happen from both sides. So I'm not going to go round and round with this. We disagree on the majority of it. Also don't take my console comments and twist them. I'm not into the PC elitism, this game was just made to be modded from the start, and as such it doesn't lend itself to consoles very well. So because of this fact, they really should be developing them independently in most aspects. Sure you can make one main build, and then tweak the console side to better serve that player base.
  18. My thoughts and opinions. The tech tree is not "awful" but sure I suppose some things could be changed a bit. But I have no problem with the tech tree. But I've also switched to ctt which adds to it. Either way in stock I had no problem with it. comments to what I've read here. No hard decisions with the tech tree? Really? I'm always thinking about how I want to progress through it, and have to make difficult decisions. Like do I go for more science instruments first to help with gaining ground science to progress through the tech tree. Or do I go for bigger better rocket parts? So decisions are there and decisions must be made. No X m sized engines when you unlock X m sized tanks. Really I get the frustration with this but seriously? So developing a fuel tank means you know how to make a bigger rocket engine suddenly? No sorry, it's not like that. They are two completely independent paths and should be. Also larger fuel tanks don't have to be used for larger engines. Yeah your craft might look weird, but still it's not required to have a larger engine. Spaceplanes should come before rockets because that's how real progression is?No sorry not going to fly at all. I suck at spaceplanes and would have dropped this game quickly if forced to make them first. No, the rockets should be first, it makes more sense for the game. But I think that spaceplane tech and rocket tech should be completely separated as much as possible in the tech tree to give more people choices on this. And honestly they are already pretty separate, But I'm sure this could be modded to be even more so. Manned or unmanned first. As many mentioned there are mods that do this,and honestly that is the best way to approach this and many other aspects of ksp. It's the best because ill let you in on a little secret many here forget. You don't play like I do, and I don't play like everyone else. So a handful of people in a thread unhappy with the stock tech tree does not equate to its awful and squad should change it to suit you. I see close numbers of I don't like the tree and I have no problem in with the tree. So why should it be changed just for you? And guess what, just don't send kerbals in your first craft, use the stayputnik and other probe cores. There you go you have a much tougher career start, but it can be done in stock. And yes for most of you in this thread I know for a fact you are using PC, so yes you can mod it. And yes that is a valid answer. As Hodari said this is not something everyone wants, or even a good portion of the player base probably. And not many will agree on how it should be changed, so yes it's better handled by mods, this game was meant to be modded to flesh it out. Sorry if you don't like that, but it's the way it is and the way it will be. Maybe 10 mins of looking into a game before buying it will tell you this is the way ksp is setup. for console users, sorry modding is not an option, that is really the fault of the choice you made though. This game doesn't lend itself to consoles well, because it's made to be modded. So there are two options, try to get squad or more importantly flying tiger to tailor the game better for console. Or try to make them allow mods on console, I mean Bethesda allows mods on console, so it can be done, if people want to make mods for console that is. This is a PC game ported to consoles, unfortunately this means it won't be the same and may have limitations, it's what happens. Just like when console games are ported to PC and not made to utilize the better aspects of the PC I'm stuck with an inferior product for my platform. Telling people that their thinking is "everything that is wrong with the game" is not going to help your argument either. And if you want to, I'll throw that statement right back at you, everything you proposed is wrong and you're the one trying to ruin the game. But how does that help anything in a discussion? the game is kerbal space program. Not kerbal flight sim. And it's not meant to be realistic. Yes you are asking for it to be realistic no matter how much you claim you aren't. Because damn near every post is saying how it needs to be more realistic in X sense. I see very little proposed here that would really be of any benefit. In fact I see tons of contradiction, you say the stock tree is too limiting, yet your suggestion is to limit what players can do even more, forcing them to play how you want to play. In my stock tech tree, beyond the initial couple of nodes, you can go straight for the majority of spaceplane parts of you want before unlocking the bigger rockets, if that floats your boat. I mean I skip all the space plane part nodes, so you can just focus on them. This current system does allow for the best solution to all, the proposals in the pro change it crowd simply aim to force everyone to play the way they want them to. I'm sorry I just can't agree with that. And I don't want the tech tree shown in the op, sorry I just don't like it and don't think it improves the game in anyway. It just limits it evenmore.
  19. Didn't one of the devs @SQUAD say that the reasons for this is because they used and actual map of the earth and tweaked it into something for the game? I'm pretty sure I saw this mentioned before. Also how is Africa for ksc location not the first one mentioned? Lol it's the most obvious of all. Also below your Korea location is basically a distorted looking British isles. And to me yes the kerbin deserts area does look similar to the Gulf of Mexico. In fact to me the whole continent with the deserts kind of appears as North America, with the whole continent slightly twisted and then some extra land tacked on and removed from various parts of it. And possibly Alaska moved to the west coast where California should be. That's the area with the giant crater, it resembles the main Alaskan landmass even with the arm of Alaskan islands jutting out towards Russia. The contintent in the northeast section near the northern polar ice looks very similar to a distorted European continent to me. It even sort of has an India jutting out of the south end, though it's slightly misshapen as well. But again I'm almost certain the map of earth was used to create this, and I could of swore squad mentioned this was the case at one time. Also humans are programmed to recognize familiar shapes in things too, so it's not surprising people see familiar shapes that may or may not be there, and at times people will see different things in the same place. So yeah lots of similarities, whether intended or not is another matter.
  20. No I don't, that is the point, so many things could be removed from this if we really wanted to sit here and pick at it. I mean the parts list alone could use a trimming, some are really not often used much. Someone somewhere probably uses these parts though. But really as soon as we start pushing to remove stuff where does it stop? And what is the criteria to determine if something is useless enough? Also we need to remember that this game is made for modding too. Maybe there were plans, or still are plans for stats. Either way they are utilized by mods and have a purpose. Stock is certainly another story, but it doesn't warrant removal of the stats, which have little impact on performance of the game itself. to keep alive a thread about kerbal stats for 2 years seems a bit much when it has zero impact on the performance of the game, and removing them is in no way going to improve the game at all. That's just my view. But if people want we can ride the slope all the way and really get into what is useless and should be removed, but it's very slippery indeed.
  21. Well a few mods actually use these stats quite well. As others said they also influence the kerbal reactions inflight So maybe there were more plans for stock, or maybe it was made for modding. Either way my big question is why do they need to be removed? Really what negative impact do the have on the game? And some people have mad use of them. Or it's just they do nothing to you, so no one needs to have them? I mean if we are going to remove stats may as well get rid of kerbals altogether, they really do nothing. I mean whoopty do you can plant a flag, or remove data from a science part, nothing else to do on Eva, just automate that and get rid of it all. Well unless you have a few mods than all of this matters much more. This is partly the way the game was intended. Also due to posts sort of like this, and others around this forum we have no idea what is really planned by the devs, because you can never freely discuss plans without people getting up in arms. Dont forget that the professions had no use at all for a long time and they added a little to it, yeah not much. But now you need pilots and engineers for flying and rovers. And again mods take this even farther. i don't see stats leaving the game, and I for one hope that they don't. Sorry if having them ruins your gameplay, maybe just try to ignore them since you dont really see the stats all that often.
  22. Hey check out raptors craft thread here, I don't see anything that is exactly what you are asking for, but there are a few interplanetary ships requiring a couple launches and docking. Also a few duna landers if you want to land. Maybe they can help you with some ideas at least and you can alter some to get what you want. unfortunately my build skills are such I can't really help. Good luck with your travels hope you find something.
  23. disregard this, I messed up posting. Sorry
  24. It's also why the teams for race cars use massive camber settings to maximize the contact patch when cornering, where it is needed most, and sacrificing contact patch on the straights where it's less of a concern.. Even your car uses camber, albeit a lot less, to help with cornering performance as well. take a look at any race car and look how far they lean the tires over when it's sitting still, and then look at how the tire reacts when the car turns, the whole tire is now in contact with the road surface.. its also, to some extent, why they run specific, often lower tire pressures to control the contact patch size when the tire heats up during use. There are other reasons for this as well, but part of it is the ballooning effect that happens with increased pressure, resulting in the outer edges of the tires losing contact due to the middle of it expanding more. obviously not directed at you Red Iron Crown, just to further illustrate the point you were making above.
  25. They did no such thing at all. People are just trying to twist it that way In this, I must find something to be offended about time of the world.. many rocket failures look similar to the challenger, or any other space craft failure. Because things tend to move that way when they fail under those circumstances. I watched the challenger disaster many compared it to live as a child, I have no problem with the video and only see basic similarities. I see no astronauts about to die in their video. Kerbals are fake creations, and part of ksp is the failures. I saw nothing wrong with the 1.0 video, but then again I'm not one of those, must find something to offend me today types. Forum jockeys have never been the best at getting beyond finding reasons to get upset at game companies.
  • Create New...