Jump to content

FlyingPete

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    602

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by FlyingPete

  1. FlyingPete
    The trouble with a joystick is as you describe- if you assign pitch+yaw to the stick it goes against learned behaviour from playing flight sims. Assigning it to pitch+roll makes for clumsy control of rockets and maneuvering in space. I make use of a PS3-type game pad rather than a joystick, with dual analog sticks. I set it up with the left stick as pitch+yaw, the right stick as translate forward/back+roll, and the D-pad as translate up/down+left/right. This works well enough with planes and is more intuitive with rockets. When you're docking, you have the ability to first set the alignment with the left stick, then use the D-pad and right stick to complete the docking. You have the roll axis available at all times for docking situations where this matters. I also double up the D-pad for rover wheel control. This keeps it separate from the reaction wheels and you can just disengage RCS when you're driving around. If you need to access the keyboard controls (to switch to the map, activate action groups in flight etc) you can fly one-handed with your left hand for a time without losing control.
  2. FlyingPete
    The thing about modular design is you can just add new sections to the existing ship by returning to Kerbin for refit, rather than having to launch a new one. On low-gravity bodies like Minmus or Gilly, you could just bring the lab down to the surface on top of Bramble and work there.
  3. FlyingPete
    The Intrepid looks great fun. It's almost a flying building! Docking a ship inside another will never get old, I suspect. I wonder what the Kerbulans will make of it...
  4. FlyingPete
    Interesting design concept! Usually 'grand tour' type missions tend to have an identifiable mother ship, with various smaller craft docked to it. With this it's just several components of equal importance that combine to form a whole. I'm a big user of the 'function over form' aesthetic too
  5. FlyingPete
    Scientists can be (possibly temporarily) exiled to the Mun, grinding through all that data. They're out of the way and doing something useful
  6. FlyingPete
    I think it's definitely better to persevere with the Joolbuster. I'm not sure if anyone's actually retrieved lower atmo science from Jool yet with the new aero. Even better if you could work a 1-kerb command pod (or even a rover seat) into the design for a crew report as well Just remember to 'simulate' it extensively before sending any Kerbals into the green depths- there's no abort to surface option this time!
  7. FlyingPete
    I prefer using capsules. I've built a couple of spaceplanes as crew shuttles, but to be honest they're not worth the hassle. I find it tedious launching them to orbit, once there they can't really go anywhere. So you need reusable spacecraft in orbit for running routine missions to Mun and Minmus, which need refuelling. By the time you're running tanker flights to service the orbital bus, it's just simpler to use a capsule.
  8. FlyingPete
    "The Jool limbo challenge"
  9. FlyingPete
    I went to Eve as a one-way colonisation mission back in 0.25. I figured it would be far simpler to have them become permanent residents. I gave the 'Eve Seven' a base to live in, and rovers and planes to go exploring their new home with. Now that Eve is apparently harder to get to due to the aero overhaul, it's probably more worthwhile bringing them home again- send a bare-bones ship that can get back into space (even if you have to abandon ship and complete the launch by jetpack!) rather than trying to land large chunks of equipment on the surface. My current Eve mission isn't going to put anyone on the surface at all. They gained some upper atmosphere science on the way in, then headed straight for Gilly to explore there instead. A plane along the lines of Kuzzter's "Atmospherikdipperkraft" might be a worthwhile option to gain 'Flying above...' science. Or it might end in near-disaster and strand the pilots on the surface.
  10. FlyingPete
    I think poor Mort may need counselling when he gets shown the invoice for all that hardware. Either that or he'll BSOD again and need to be rebooted.
  11. FlyingPete
    Here's the latest output_log.txt: That's a long old file- hope you know what you're looking for...
  12. FlyingPete
    You can also have spaceplanes that aren't SSTO, like this experiment I did: The drop tanks, carrying the air intakes and a couple of jet engines, get left behind and (theoretically) recovered.
  13. FlyingPete
    That makes sense now. So the Rhinos are limited by the Ox available in pods B and Q more than anything else. As long as that's less than what's available in A-D, it should work fine. It might be an idea to have bidirectional fuel lines between A-D and H so they drain evenly. Once you run out of Ox, any remaining LF in the L-R tanks can be pumped across to the others.
  14. FlyingPete
    Theoretically, a direct ascent should save some delta-V. This is because effectively your Pe is below the surface of Kerbin. If your Ap remains the same for either trajectory, that means a lower-energy orbit compared to launching from LKO. The trouble is that unless KSC is in exactly the right location, you end up almost going to LKO anyway. It's usually simpler to make a parking orbit first, then you can fine-tune your TMI burn without having to be overly-precise about your launch time. Also gives you time to reconfigure/check the spacecraft's working properly on missions where this matters. I've done direct ascents before, but only where by chance my circularisation burn ended up being iat the same longitude as my TMI burn, so I just carried on through.
  15. FlyingPete
    Looks like Bill and Wernher have been hard at work on the Weltraumfahrzeugträger! One question though- it looks as though the first tanks to drain will be A-D. Will that not shut down the LV-N engines under them first? And the last engines running will be the Rhinos under pods L-R?
  16. FlyingPete
    I'd like to see some form of funding replace contracts as a source of income, representing budget allocations from the Kerbin Government. The level of government funding could be calculated using some algorithm based on reputation earned, science gained, spacecraft launched, planets reached etc. That would also stop it being 'free money' by sitting at KSC and fast-forwarding. This would give you the incentive to go exploring rather than grind contracts around Kerbin, but you'd still have the option to take commercial contracts if you needed a bit of extra cash.
  17. FlyingPete
    Here's my latest crash file. Apparently something called "mono.dll" residing in KSP_Data is causing the trouble:
  18. FlyingPete
    Kerbulani ite domum? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8
  19. FlyingPete
    There is a new strategy added for 1.0.5 called 'Leadership Initiative'. What this does is try to rebalance the economy to encourage exploration. The funds, science and reputation payout for contract missions is reduced. In return, there's a boost to the science gain from field experiments, and you will also get increased reputation and funding from the 'world firsts society' for visiting worlds, docking, EVA etc for the first time. There seems to be a flaw in the system in that in some circumstances, you can be overrun with tourist contracts early on that don't actually cover their costs. Later in the game you usually have a spare seat on a serious mission so tourists are a cheap source of income, but early on when you're launching single-kerbal flights it's not worth taking them.
  20. FlyingPete
    And Gilly would be even easier! Just in case you feel the need to detour to Eve space to investigate the mysterious loss of Evestation
  21. FlyingPete
    I think it would be best to maintain this long-running save as a beta version in 0.90, and start afresh with new adventures in 1.X
  22. FlyingPete
    With the Alouette gone, doesn't that scupper Kenlie's chances of getting enough fuel to return home to Kerbulus? Or is there already a stash of fuel at Evestation? I'm sure he'll find something to pillage...
  23. FlyingPete
    "Mystery Goo observation from Unknown World's Space Center: The goo came under attack before proper data could be collected"
  24. FlyingPete
    Maybe Plan Kappa's Kerbin must be eliminated so that Kerbfleet's may survive? Causality loops and/or grandfather paradox alert!
  25. FlyingPete
    The fairing idea would work well if you positioned it, plus the probe core, at the bottom of the crew cabin. So the fairing initially encompasses the whole cabin and tapers to a neat nose cone on top. Once you're out of the atmosphere, jettison the fairing to uncover the hatch. Obviously this only works if you're exploring airless bodies though.
×
×
  • Create New...