MR L A
-
Posts
574 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by MR L A
-
-
Are you using a probe or a command pod?
If its a probe, you could well be running out of electricity OR, if you have comms network turned on, you could be going out of signal range/area. -
I think this might be fixed later on.
No word on it or anything but as they recently adjusted the weight (amongst other things) of the Mk1-3 capsule I can see them addressing this in the future. -
6 minutes ago, panzer1b said:
but i just really like this game and i want the devs to put in the effort that is required to make this game as beautiful as porkjet started working towards.
This.
-
Try changing the game to launch in windowed mode and then lower the resolution... hopefully the banner will stick out and you can close it.
You will have to find a way of altering the launch settings somewhere in the game files though.
-
Never seen a weekly get this slated before... but having read all the comments, I think they’re pretty reasonable with their arguments.
It seems strange to me that modders have done a much better job with textures for free than the people that are getting paid to do so... maybe the team at squad should concentrate on killing bugs and let the community do the parts/textures. Hell, I’d be all in favour of squad turning to a modder like Ven and saying “here’s X amount of money, your modded textures are now stock, thanks”
-
19 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:
can we please get a 2.5m-3.75m propellant tank? And maybe some more LF-only tankage?
instead of MORE tanks we should just have one tank with selectable length, diameter, texture and contents... the part selection screen is turning into a real mess.
-
You're running out of fuel with an aeroplane?
Points to a few things ranging from bad design to bad flying. Post some images of your craft/find some threads about efficient flying and builds
-
I too would like more scientific parts in the base game, but as people have commented above, the science points system is pretty broken in its current state.
There's many ways to solve this I think, but I can't really be bothered to explain them seeing as they stand virtually zero chance of being implemented. -
7 hours ago, Sharpy said:14 hours ago, AVaughan said:
If I want to use rcs for translation (eg for docking), then I normally set the rcs to translation modes only, and use the command modules reaction wheel + SAS to control attitude. Doing that I normally don't need rcs to be properly balanced.
Yeah. First thing to do: Show actuation toggles, Yaw, Pitch, Roll -> OFF, on every thruster available. Not only does keeping the orientation using SAS work, especially in 'precision control', with SAS on and rotation control through RCS active, monoprop is leaking like crazy.
Wow. 2k hours in and I'd never thought of this. Currently hanging my head in shame!
Just goes to show there's always something new to lean with this game -
19 minutes ago, steve_v said:
Of course you don't. The OP asked for a mod to do a certain thing, and I directed him to it.
I cut the rest of your response here because it is entirely irrelevant to my post and the post (yours) that I was responding to - which, I seem to need to remind you, was your comment about NASA and not going to do with OP.
I’ll reiterate, you are right that NASA didn’t manually adjust fuel loads or thrust, this was done automatically - but they did NOT build a craft that was asymmetric around CoM and CoT, it was balanced in terms of where engines were placed and how much thrust was produced - they did not construct a wildly unbalanced craft then fix it with computer piloting - it was balanced mechanically from the outset - with thrust vectoring to pick up the slack as fuel depleted, shifting the CoM over time - CoM and CoT were accurately aligned at launch.
in summation, my suggestion was that OP simply build a better shuttle than rely on mods to fix a poorly built craft.
-
On 8/24/2018 at 12:24 PM, steve_v said:
Eh? I'm pretty certain flying the real shuttle didn't involve manual fiddling with thrust limiters in flight, there were such things as flight computers in the '80s.
Erm not manual no, but they did automatically. As well as design the craft in the first place to have a proper placement of CoM and CoT. You really do not need mods to build a working shuttle. You just need to build it properly.
-
You could also use a mod like scansat to get altimetry data
might be useful, who knows?!
-
I could have sworn it used to be possible to actually use that small optical telescope and zoom in on things... or am I thinking of a different mod?
-
I too would like this
-
That’s actually one of the coolest things I’ve seen for a while!
whats the computer terminal mod thing called? I’ve seen it used before and I think it might be the next step for me...
Edit: also cool first post and welcome!!
-
2 minutes ago, Zeiss Ikon said:
but as I recall, that's the four-chamber engine similar to the RD-108 the Russians used?
Well, the RD-107 to be picky, that's why its called the RK-7 (not 8) in KSP. The RD-108 is pretty much a twin sister though.
4 minutes ago, Zeiss Ikon said:It has lower performance with higher weight than a Bobcat (after all, the Russians needed five clusters to get to orbit; Gemini-Titan needed a single two-chamber engine). If it were available at a lower tech node, it might see some use in career before the Bobcat unlocks, but since (as I recall) they become available at the same time, I don't see where the Kodiak will get much spotlight.
Yeah, the RK-7 is pretty much a more expensive, later tech and worse performing version of the Reliant engine... I really think the MH parts need a balance pass.
-
On 7/26/2018 at 6:39 AM, Mark Kerbin said:
Sounds good, but we already have mods for that
I always think this argument is entirely redundant in the suggestions section. Why? Well we've had mods for virtually everything Squad has implemented as stock/dlc recently. We had multiple mods for communication networks, mods for Apollo parts, mods for Soyuz parts, mods for particle FX and mods for texture swapping.
I especially find it somewhat annoying when someone is suggesting something that would help fix a stock game issue i.e. contracts for building bases but no base specific parts and no way of building bases that isn't horrifically messy. -
I spend most of my time in career mode so my rockets are designed carefully around cost/performance/part count (for my abysmal PC) with the "cool" factor placing last... and honestly I've not found a use for them so far.
-
42 minutes ago, AngrybobH said:
I guess I never noticed but, now that I have it kind of bothers me.
yeah it bothers the heck out of me too
-
17 hours ago, AngrybobH said:
Look at the seams on the MK-0 tanks. I build from the left side so the left is as assembled. The right side is mirror symmetry. Look odd to you? It seems to fly ok so I'm not going to complain (much)
They've been like this for as long as I can remember =/
-
16 hours ago, KerikBalm said:
Secondly, in game time is valuable
Is it??? Honestly, I don't think I've ever felt I need to get to orbit especially quickly. Obviously I have some designs that do so rapidly but... they don't really have any practical use other than role play.
-
On 7/31/2018 at 6:39 AM, KerikBalm said:
The way part balances are now, you should just go for a full SSTO, and skip a staged shuttle
Unless you're playing career mode or have a slow PC that can't handle a huge SSTO with a huge payload.
Besides, if we all used that logic, no one would ever build traditional rockets. -
1 minute ago, Snark said:
Sure it is. Everything that is implemented means that something else doesn't get implemented.
That isn't a negative or how negatives work. That is neutral. We're essentially trading one thing for another. If we just lost one thing, that would be a negative.
2 minutes ago, Snark said:Providing a way to make it easier would defeat that purpose.
Yes, this is exactly how science works. Something that, despite the game being science based, people seem to forget is that science makes things easier. If we want to add irl science progression to the game (or even science now half a century old) it will make the game easier. It depends on what you want from KSP tbh.
-
2 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:
Ummm, really?
Balloons really can't lift that much compared to volume. You can't just "strap on a few balloons". You would need a huge amount of balloons to do anything significant with any rocket, let alone a Saturn V.
This is KSP. Do you really expect the amount the balloons would be able to lift to be anything like irl?
Plus a "few" probably translates to "as many as my computer can handle" or just one GIANT one using procedural parts or something.
Point is, an extra mechanic or part is never going to be a negative thing really. People can simply not use it if they don't like it OR they can get creative like the rest of us. Thinking about it, I bet a balloon part would come in SUPER handy for Eve returns.
KSP Weekly: Thrusting into the future
in KSP1 The Daily Kerbal
Posted
Imagine if squad were trolling us with this artwork and the actual release is quality stuff
sigh. I’m really pleased they still work on the game but Squad should stick to bug fixing and implementing features If this is the kind of art we’re going to be getting