swjr-swis

Yes, I do this at times when I absolutely need a bit of separation. Most of the time though, I make sure the boosters are centered with their empty center of mass on the decouplers, ensuring that at decoupling, they simply 'slide' down with hardly any torque. Also, I am using the hardpoints too, both small and big. Small ones make great wing-like connectors for small planes. The large ones I have been using for big radial boosters, because of the more streamlined looks, but also because I can place two or three in a row, disable staging of the outer two, and it looks and works like one part, while allowing a LOT more clearance for those huge Mammoth based boosters I sometimes use.

This is sounding more and more like yet another fun and versatile part is going to be ripped because realism in a game. One would think any kind of perceived OPness is already quite simple to resolve: dial it down when making it part of your design. This is already possible now, with stock game controls, without affecting anyone that happens to use its current full potential. Once it is nerfed however, the opposite can no longer be done and it's up to mods again. Seeing where this is going, I'd like to put in the request early to have the current vector added as is to the historical parts pack, for those of us who still like to game in a game...

Me imagino que instalándola. En serio: no lo dije explícitamente porque el hilo se trata de las notas de desarollo de SQUAD, pero la noticia a que me refiero es algo dicho en esas notas. O sea, que se trata de una versión todavía por salir (1.1).

It could be the demo.

Hola Novak, te extiendo la bienvenida al foro como participante. Primero, responderé con la traducción que pides: ---- As you know, once you finish the tech tree (a rather easy task), science points are let's say not of much use... or at all... A way to regain the interest in farming more science (after completing the tech tree) would be to implement a system of "improvements" for the existing parts. I am talking of minor improvements, at a high cost in science points, which in connection with other parts would make our ship a "fraction" better. These improvements would be very small, maintaining the game's level of difficulty and challenge. I give you an example: As you can see, to lower the mass of the C.R 7 RAPIER by 0.1t, we would have to spend the chilling 1800 science points (from an initial total mass of 2.0t it would end up being 1.9t). As you can see the improvement would be laughable, but adding up the improvements of other parts it could crank up our ship a notch. The thing would be to keep the combination of improvements applied to all parts to up to 5% of efficiency in total. The game would keep its level of difficulty, but it would add more incentive to explore and above all to keep the interest in acquiring more science. ---- Ahora, un par de comentarios, si me permites. No lo mencionas específicamente, así que en caso de que no te has dado cuenta: hay un hilo activo justamente en cuanto a este tema en el foro inglés. Te recomiendo a visitarlo, por lo menos para comparar si quizás tus ideas ya se mencionan ahí o hasta que grado concuerdan o difieren de lo ya discutido, y probablemente sería el mejor sitio para postearlo. Y en cuanto a lo que propones, mi parecer: me hace la idea básica de usar los puntos de 'sobra' de alguna manera para extender el juego. Lo que no acaba de convencerme es la manera que mencionas, porque puede ser cosa buena o mala, y te explicaré. Aunque a primera vista parece buena idea de cambiar los parámetros de ciertas piezas con los puntos ganados, como el peso que mencionas, esto conlleva un problema: con el cambio afecta todos los diseños de naves o assemblajes que durante la carrera has acumulado. Un cambio de 0.1t de peso, en una sola pieza de una nave masiva puede tener muy poco efecto; pero en una nave mediana o pequeña, o si són muchas piezas las que cambian, los diseños que el jugador ha optimizado a través de una larga carrera pueden verse afectados en balance y obligarle al jugador a retocar los diseños que quizás le han valido durante toda la carrera. Tener que retocar gran parte de los diseños, o tener que aprender de nuevo la manera mejor de pilotar naves que ya creía conocer, podría caer bastante mal y en vez de ser causa de alegría e interés continuado/revivido en el juego, habrá jugadores que lo manden a la porra y terminen ahí su carrera para empezar otra. El que esto no sea simplemente hipotético se deduce de la manera como siempre parece haber un grupo considerable de jugadores que se quejan de cambios a piezas que hace SQUAD de una versión del juego a otra, aun cuando los cambios de manera objectiva parecen ser a mejor. La verdad es que no qué alternativa hay a tu propuesta. Si la mejora en piezas se hiciera introduciendo nuevas piezas más avanzadas, en esencia es lo que el juego ya hace, y el árbol tecnológico simplemente se extendería. Y tanto si se hace de esta manera o la que tu propones, lo único que parece hacer es atardar un poco más el momento en que llega el 'final' de la función de los puntos de ciencia. Una vez en ese punto, estamos otra vez en la misma. Por eso creo que la solución necesitaría venir de algo fundamentalmente diferente. Lo que te digo aquí es simplemente mis propios pensamientos al respecto, así que te animo a postear tu idea de todas maneras.

Nice, I haven't tried yet no. I did strap an Oscar-sized LFO booster array to my Juno TIE fighthers and put them in orbit that way, but the boosters were decoupled semi-asparagus style, so not SSTO. I gave yours a test ride. The main fuselage flexes too much for me, I can't control it smoothly enough to get up there, too much loss in wobble-drag. I'm calling it the Wanderfound Wasp, cause every pitch up action it wants to sting me with the Juno . Are you using KJR, or a couple hidden struts, to keep this rigid?

La última noticia, y de bastante importancia para los que juegan KSP en Windows: acaban de decir que la versión x64 funciona de manera estable.

What does it say about me that I fully expected Haywood to just rolls his eyes and ask "What did he do this time?"

I did. Top speed and altitude suffered a lot, and it became uncontrollable. I lost the fun in trying before I found any kind of acceptable balance. I'm sure I'll revisit it one day to tinker more, but it's not worth a submission here. That's ok, it served for the purpose of the other challenge and as a proof of concept. I've been having a grand time since 1.0.5 came out creating all sorts of Juno-based contraptions. A whole new side to KSP I didn't even know I'd enjoy.

We may already have collided with another universe.

If you added the probe core to an existing design, and it happened to have a command pod or seat: did you try rightclicking the probe core and selecting 'command from here', to make sure? I don't know what else to suggest. I am not running mods right no, so I can't test this. Maybe ask over in the MechJeb thread?

@Wanderfound It's nice to see my name on the scoreboard, but it doesn't deserve a place there: my entry does not comply with rule 2.

I don't know. I remember getting e-mails from this one Nigerian guy that had a heap of money and needed a worthwhile cause to invest it in, and someone to help him with the administrative transaction...

Absolutely.

Works for different types of objects. Now how about five base modules that are landed some distance from each other, but from orbit even at highest zoom, they still look on top of each other, and when you mouse over the area, KSP defaults to all except the one you actually want.

I wasn't actually arguing for a survey. It was brought up to illustrate a point. I will leave it at that.

Just noticed CKAN lists 666 mods as compatible with KSP 1.0.5. Someone add another compatible mod quick, before the Kraken awakes!

Invisible collisions around the space center... I would check that one mod first. The author claims it's broken in 1.0.5, although there's been some interim work/patches that may fix it.

Not the most perfect method, agreed. But I'd think it's statistically a little more sound than 'probably' 'I'm pretty sure' or 'it would surprise me if'...

I'm surprised no one offered up the most obvious solution: send up a few ISRUs and Klaws and mine the sucker to dust.

Haven't heard of this before, but maybe you need to place the probe core/command seat/pod in a different orientation (facing forward, as in the same way that you would place it on a plane built in the SPH).

Get 10k of 'extra' science points, and you discover there's more planets beyond the orbit of Jool (add Outer Planet Mod). Get another 20k points of science and you discover a nearby star system (add OtherWorlds Star Pack). 30k points more, and you unlock warp drive (add KSP-Interstellar), to actually visit the new system. Get 42k science points more, and you get the answer to Life, the Universe, and everything. The Magic Boulder reappears, except it is hollowed out, inhabited, and bigger on the inside than the outside. Jeb begrudgingly has to pay up his bet with Bill, and Val gets to say I told you so. You get a cookie.

If there's anything Hollywood has taught me, it's that bringing people back from the dead is generally a bad idea...

Se sabe que aún están en ello, la versión que viene (1.1) será en Unity 5, y que no han dado (como nunca dan) fecha exacta, pero en las notas del 6 de enero dicen que 'de seguro quedan todavía algunas semanas'.

Post a survey with the question, and you'll know.