Jump to content

something

Members
  • Posts

    444
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by something

  1. Yeah, have had some annoying bugs in 1.1 some of which have been removed in 1.1.3. However, reading what happens to some users out there, I'd say you should not be surprised if your game starts crashing at some point...as for the announced 1.2 version - I am still having my doubts if it makes things better - witnessing yet another change of the game engine I suspect even moar bugs to appear, while some will be swatted. So we should end up round about our current level of bugs. With that being said - I don't know if it is the right suggestion to wait. I'd say -try it but be warned - your spaceplane might just dissassemble on the spot and send itself into a transfer orbit to Hell (erm, it's users call the concept of Hell "Eve" if I remember correctly) or if pressing the EVA button puts your Kerbal in orbit of the Mun etc
  2. In Febuary, I decided it was a good idea to go interplanetary for the first time and sent the boys and girls to Duna. Now, about 150 days (380+ ingame) I completed the transfer burn to send them back home. The Interplanetary Transfer Vehicle - Assembled in orbit, dV is around 3.4 km/s in the state shown, if full of fuel, mass around 400 metric tons, and parts are around 400 something. Two Poodle engines for the fine tuning and two Skippers for the more violent stuff. In fact, at full thrust the Skippers rip the ship apart...must be new to 1.1.3 - 'cause that didn't happen to me in 1.0.5...
  3. Have had the same experience with an interplanetary transfer vehicle (although much less sophisticated than the Intreprid) - built in 1.0.5 to the maximum capacity of my computer - docking between 8 orange fuel tanks was great but it looked like a slide show. I actually had decided "to not reuse" it since playing just was too ridiculous. Now since the 1.1 update docking is just astonishing and I am all in for another trip with that mammoth... Oh yeah - and I guess we finally encountered the Jovian SOI - after like 9 months. Says a lot about a story if I read it that long
  4. Yay, so after about 9 months we're finally heading for one of the jovian moons. This story must be thrilling, considering its relatively long first act. Or are we already arriving at act three? Who knows?
  5. You time warp with solar panels retracted just to find out all energy is consumed so you cannot fire the engine anymore which leaves you with the doubtable options of reverting or adjusting the electricity in the persistent file...
  6. Bob built a disco on the runway? Guess it doesn't have a pretty long half life though....
  7. Dres being a product of a factory in DRESden? Awesome. Hopefully I won't burst in laughter if anybody mentions that city or I will have to explain a lot...
  8. How many Kerbulans it takes to change a light bulb? Well, if Kerbulans do have a concept of light bulbs, then it takes two: One to change the light bulb... ...and one to hold the coffee cup.
  9. Hmm why did Wernher reenter on a polar trajectory? If he came from Kerbulus there was no need for a change in inclination. So does he come from elsewhere but just pretends to be from Kerbulus? Also this single person bomb and rocket business doesn't seem to be very likely... I tell you Wernher is Kuzzter's version of Q and just spreads rumors for the sake of his own amusement
  10. Nah, the NuKleaR Wessels scene is way too funny... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdSJFrhb-HM&spfreload=10
  11. Wind is a difference in air-pressure along a geodetic surface which results in a stream of air. Basically wind is the reason you can fly your aircraft...
  12. Yeah, I am not sure for today's launch sequences but at least during WW2 they turned their flight decks to the direction of the wind and accelerated to a certain speed so the aircraft could take of much easier. Same procedure for landing. It is all about reducing relative speed if your runway is limited. During that time the landing and take off strip essentially were the same, meaning a failed landing could potentially destroy dozens of fighters. Today the aircraft carrier design has changed. The take off section is oriented parallel to the pointing vector of the vessel. The landing strip has a certain angle to the pointing vector - so if a landing fails the aircraft will fall into the water and not damage anything else. In the aft section of a carrier the planes are prepared for storage/take off. There are, however, different launch techniques. Including catapults used by the US Navy and ramps used by various other nations... As for the design of the Enterprise in the panels above, we clearly see a WW2 era carrier. Knowing that, we can state that Kerbulus and Kerbin probably have about the same level of technology, assuming a similar development from that point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier
  13. Decided that it was time to bring a scientist to the base on Minmus which featured a science lab for some reason... So refilled my spaceplane (right hand craft on the image) in orbit, sent it to Minmus orbit, docked with the orbital facilities and thought that it was best to refill on the surface. As the space plane was designed for LKO it didn't feature one of those KAS fuel line connectors which turned out to be a problem: The mining base on Minmus didn't feature any KAS tools so I could not re-attach the existing connectors and docking on top of the small fuel ferry (middle craft on the image) was not feasible due to weight distribution. Turned out I sent a supply vessel to Minmus for the sake of having a screwdriver there. Probably the most expensive screw driver of the entire career save... http://postimg.org/image/ljcphxnfv/ Oh and just in case you wonder - the left vessel on the image does is a mining rig which was designed and launched prior to the discovery of the orange fuel tank
  14. Beethoven's symphone No 9...gotta love that. Oh, and a Deus ex Machina device finally popping up ... Oh yeah and the German language @Kuzzter is employing here. Really gotta love that. I mean, it is nice and always makes me giggle a bit as it is technically correct but not applied in everyday language (Weltraumfahrzeugträger being the prime example) but I really had to suppress laughter upon reading Fliegenstrudel. Na denn, guten Appetit.
  15. Might be a bit chilly there - she's freezing! Seriously, never observed anything like that.
  16. I love my big vessels and yeah ... if you have a several hundred meter long space craft there's nothing like docking with a smaller vessel to it. Gliding between the engines or fuel tanks gives you a nice feeling for the 600+ part monstrosity you sent through space...it is somehow majestic. Add a nice sunrise to that and you got one of the most beautiful scenes in KSP.
  17. Having a look at the anatomy of Kerbals and Kerbulans we have to conclue they're pretty similar, probably even genetically identical. Similar to how the Romulans left Vulcan as they did not agree with the Vulcan's pacifist ideology, I guess the Kerbulans left some millennia ago and settled on Kerbulus but never made it to the nuke.
  18. Death by Coffee Cup. Had to think of Vin Diesel before I found somebody else linked to that scene already... Auch der Deutschlernende Herr Autor scheint die Lektion Werbewirksamefirmennamensgebung erfolgreich abgeschlossen zu haben.
  19. Nice try. However, this does not explain why tires adopted this behaviour after migrating to 1.1 although they had been in use before the version change without any pathological behaviour ...
  20. "What native English speaking country are you from? I imagine English usage regarding "a couple" is not dissimilar in Canada, the UK, and Australia. I wouldn't presume to argue with a German about when to use "doch," for example. " This is so funny as doch is the word you guys are missing. It means "I am right and you are wrong - end of discussion". You don't need to give any further arguments - you just say doch. Well and then, as your antagonist disagrees you reply with nein (i.e. no) which basically means "No, I am right and /you/ are wrong". So instead of writing entire novels about who is right and who is wrong, you can simply compress everything you just said to this discussion: Nein. Doch. Nein. Doch. Nein. Doch. and so forth. Congratulations, you just mastered the mental level of a German Kindergarten discussion. This is my toy! Nein. Doch. ....
  21. I am excited. Seriously. With Kenlie learning chess this now becomes the space based version of The Hunt for Red October. (Go watch it if you did not do it so far. It is one of Connery's better performances) Already see the Kerbulans removing the distance safety from their torpedoes...
  22. Given a constant learning curve of a game and a static level of skill of the players the number of players achieving a certain goal will exponentially decay with the difficulty of that goal. That's plain statistics. It's the same thing in every game. Now in most games the skill level is adaptive and the learning curve is not constant but monotonous - so we might see something different than an exponential decay, but it is a nice approximation anyways. Orbiting is hard enough for most users - I had my fair share of struggle with it. Landing on the Mun? Dude, there are entire topics where users tell exactly how they failed their first Mun landings. Minmus? Seems as if inclination wasn't everybody's friend. Docking/Rendez-vous. Hard for many users... Going interplanetary? Just when you learned how to handle maneuver nodes and how to get to Minmus, everything is screwed once more as you now have to learn about transfer windows... Landing on Duna - erm yes, my first probe lost its engine due to the state of the atmosphere, the number of chutes and the fact that it was lacking some 20m/s dV... So, to be honest, I am not that surprised, that many users never go interplanetary - it is hard. Very hard.
×
×
  • Create New...