Mycroft
-
Posts
638 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Mycroft
-
-
2 minutes ago, JTpopcorn said:
Part count is a bit high, but capitals have been used in the series before.
Personally, I'm not sure how I like the look of the missiles mounted on the outside of the hull, but I do really like those I-beam pods.
PS. Throw all your pictures into a single Imgur album and embed that. That way you don't need spoilers at all.
Yeah if this was in the series at all, it would be a capital ship for sure. I'm glad you like the pods. They were a last minute thing and took it from 450 parts to 658
. I kinda didn't have a better place for the missiles I mounted on the outside and I wanted an "armed to the teeth" look so they went out there.
BTW those pictures are all part of an album already, I just wanted to have them in the post itself so fewer redirects were needed.
I dont know, I suppose I'll wait to see what @ScriptKitt3h thinks before posting it to KerbalX....
Thought: what if on the missiles that are side mounted, I just use wing pieces behind them instead of those steel plates?
-
Soooo i went to the drawing board and came up with this lady:
SpoilerSpoiler(For some reason the other spoiler only lets me have so many images in it so here's the rest)
What do you guys think of her? Would this ship have a chance of acceptance if submitted? She has 23 twin I-Beam shots, 16 medium guided I-Beam tipped missiles, and 4 large guided I-Beam tipped missiles. Oh and 658 parts weighing 285 tons. A tad over the limit I know. But I'm kinda hoping her firepower will make up for that.
-
Hey there Kat! Been a while! I just wanted to drop by and suggest something...
So I noticed that when I have notifications the vast majority of them are: "Craft X was just added to hangar Y that you follow." So I was wondering if we could possibly extend what you did with the craft uploading notifications and say: "Craft recently added to hangar Y" or is that not possible? I like the bulk dismiss, but I also like to look over the crafts that are added and see if there is something cool I might wanna download. Bulk dismiss makes it so easy to miss cool craft, hence my suggestion to make the site more intuitive and apply your excellent idea about craft uploaded to craft added to followed hangars.
Oh and also i found a spelling error:
When you click "Add links to your channels" this dialog comes up:
Links to your channels
then theres a box prompting you to enter your "forum profile ID"paste the url to your profile page on the forum, or just enter your profile id ie: 35203-katateochithen theres a box prompting you to enter "youtube channel or user" (I suggest we tack the word 'name' on the end of that phrase)then theres a box prompting you to enter your "twitch chanel name"In "Twitch chanel name" channel should be spelled with two 'N's but its not.
I know I know, I've been gone for a while and the first thing I do when I come back is try to fix stuff and make corrections. Sorry. I really do appreciate how awesome KerbalX is. Hope its not too annoying
-
Anyone up for a flying Duna rover?
https://kerbalx.com/Mycroft_33/Rover-Lander
It just needs to get to a Duna orbit and can land on its own steam from there with fuel to spare for sick jumps! Top speed on level ground is 40 m/s or ~100 mph!
-
Shame on you for bragging
shame on me for posting twice....
oh...
DARN POST MERGE!
...foiled...
(btw @DarkOwl57 congrats)
-
I would probably be classified as an engineer, with the occasional moments of flight controller (I often enjoy teaching new players). But if you look at my Kerbalx page, you will see all my craft have one thing in common (besides being huge and overegineered and usually capable of more than they were designed to do). They all have a purpose. I never really enjoy building craft just because, I enjoy building craft designed to do a certain thing, and usually end up being able to do it with fuel to spare. Some of my designs are fairly innovative, and I hold the current record for the top three most massive craft ever posted on KerbalX (not to brag, but that's just a fact). In fact, I even designed craft to beat my own mass record without using tweakscale. That was their purpose. I really enjoy community space programs actually, not because I like the interaction, but because I enjoy the challenge of building crafts to meet certain specs. When I built for @DaGuyAboveYou's CSA, I really enjoyed it, and the design I came up with, based on my tests, worked rather nicely. The reason I ended up taking a break from KSP was because I didnt exactly have a point to build craft for. I know a few scientist KSPers (who doesn't?) and I never was exactly interested in being ultra-efficient, just reasonably efficient. I remember when a scientist friend of mine nearly choked when I said to add more fuel if it didnt have enough delta-v.
All that to say, since I find it easier to build things when they have a specific purpose, I suppose I am an engineer.
-
This challenge looks cool! If anyone is interested, I have a 227 ton battleship id like to see how performs... but we dont have the CPU resources to run a battle and film it. If anyone is interested, @ me and I'll post it. Just testing the waters here.
-
4 minutes ago, MiffedStarfish said:
@Mycroft for your armour, were you testing against Stock or BDA weapons? If you mean stock, then I agree except that I would use half structual plates vertically, as it is higher impact tolerance. As for the stock missiles in vacuum, I don't think personal piloting makes a difference. If the missile is going 0.0ms relative velocity to the target, you can press target hold on sas, full throttle and hit perfectly on the centre of mass every time, which just isn't possible at long ranges with manual control. My go to missile does this, it is fired from 1.5km away, has an ant engine for fine tuning exact relative speed, impacts at around 350-400m/s and deals at least moderate damage to everything I've fired it at. (I've fired it at ALOT of ships, most of them weren't built by me) If you were talking about BDA combat, ignore this as I don't like modded combat and don't use mods.
Two things. First, My armor was tested against modded weapons of just about any variety i could find. Secondly, about stock vacuum missiles, that would be true if the targeting system targeted the CoM. Sadly for the missiles, it does not. It targets the first part. So creators like me can make it harder for attackers by offsetting the first part as I did on my Andromeda (https://kerbalx.com/Mycroft_33/Andromeda), rendering that feature useless at best, or at worst, a lot less useful. And yes I found that relative speeds in excess of 250m/s do lots of damage, and oddly enough, my armor does actually work on it, but not super well.
-
4 hours ago, NotAnAimbot said:
Problem with mods is that it makes any kind of stock armor useless. Just try shooting at a 10 2x2 thick armor plate with even the M230, and it's going to be destroyed pretty quickly. There's no armor mod for now, so we have to make do with stock weapons in space.
I basically agree, in my own research, I found that the best armor is layers of 2x2 metal panels separated by octags. Spreads heat and impact. 4 layers can take a lot of heat and structural damage. Problem is, that is ultra heavy and part abundant. Especially combined with its limited use, this weighs things on the side of the guns heavily, especially in vacuum. It could be argued that this is already the case with stock vacuum missiles, since putting an i-beam on the front will deal lots of damage, but I believe the fact that stock missiles have to be personally flown makes it both more awesome and partially evens the odds. There are no comparable armor mods at the moment, as @NotAnAimbot so kindly stated, but @Sidestrafe2462 if you would like to work on one, we would support you.
-
My company? Well when I was little, I came up with a fantasy world called 'Coalonia'. They had huge spaceships, so of course when I came to KSP, I had to include that for nostalgia's sake. I spent a while on deciding what name to use but eventually settled on "Coalonia Military Aerospace Unlimited Inc" and so CMAU Incorporated was born.
I used this flag for my KSP flag, as it was a space themed thing from an online logomaker
Pretty simple.
I even have a company joke that the real motto of the company is "Go big or go home" since we build stuff in the 100+ kiloton range for giggles. RIP my poor laptop.
-
I recently came back from a break from KSP and the forums, and was a little surprised to see Sal's avatar everywhere. I discovered this thread and was sad to hear that Sal was leaving. I remember the many times when he helped me personally, living by his rule of a tap on the shoulder, when I made some of my many mistakes. Even when I first started, I could tell Sal commanded great respect in the community. And not just by the intimidating 'SQUAD Staff' title under his avatar. By the way everyone treated him, but most importantly, I could tell he commanded respect by the way he respegted people. @sal_vager, I know I'm a bit late with this, but I want to say that I will miss you greatly. You were always one of my favorite mods, and I deeply respected you. May you fare well in wherever you choose to go, because a man who knows how to command respect in one place can command respect in any.
Sal, I salute you.
(cue 21 kerbal-gun salute) totally not an exuse to blow kerbals up
Sincerely,
Mycroft, Incomplete Nerd, and CEO of CMAU Incorporated
We will miss you.
-
CMAU Incorporated is back up! It may be a bit before we can compile our submission, but we are officially reopening for business, after a few months break! We are glad to be back, and hope to make many vehicles for the cause of HKA!
-
uhm.... Wasn't this thread supposed to be terminated because of too much friction? And not reopened?
mean while: -17 (+)
...because neutrality...
-
Just now, StupidAndy said:
what I do is have two windows open, one with the submission thread, and the other in the LP. also you can be a company due to rule 2.2J, but it would be helpful to some (not me necesarraly) people.
Yes, we thought it would be helpful since the current organization (according to provider) is not user friendly if you are looking to launch a given payload and dont necessarily care who designed it, but that order has value if you only trust a few launch providers or distrust some others. So my request was that we have both, one on this thread, and keep the other thread the way it is, so people can use both.
-
Hello, CEO of CMAU Incorporated here. We came to this thread looking for a launcher, and were disappointed that there was no list of availiable lifters in the OP. @TheEpicSquared Could you please add such a list, similar to in the OP of the other thread, but perhaps organized by payload tonnage instead of launch provider? That would save a ton of time for both payload providers and launch pproviders, as both could see what launchers were needed and what were not, as well as what options are on the market at the moment. Thank you for your time, and we would definitely be interested in participating in the future, both as launchers and as payload providers. But we would prefer to know what all the options are first. Thank you for your time!
Mycroft,
CEO of CMAU Incorporated
-
5 hours ago, Thomas P. said:
No, it is you ignoring the suggestions of others. Yes, this is caused by Kopernicus. But about 3 updates ago I implemented a workaround for it, and people posted about it in your thread
Please try to actually fix problems instead of outright blaming Kopernicus for it. Thank you.
I understand the fact that you feel blamed for the problem here. However, no one singled you out, or pinged you, because we understand that you are most likely working on a fix. However the case remains that there is in fact a glitch in Kopernicus (a truly wonderful mod that we would be screwed without) and the proposed workarounds only work for some people. Honestly, I found your words highly ironic as it is sadly your job to actually fix this glitch, not people who depend on your mod for their own. Now I'm quite sure that you are working on a fix but I would respectfully request that you refrain from blaming people for not installing your partial fix, and claiming that they do not listen to the requests of others, without knowing the whole story. This will get us nowhere. I know @daniel l. and he does actually listen to the requests of others very well. All suggestions are taken seriously and responded to. Also please kindly refrain from taking on such an aggressive tone in posts on another modmakers thread. You and I both know what that does.
Respectfully,
Mycroft, CEO of CMAU Incorporated
-
8 minutes ago, Sharpy said:
Yes, this is an intentional limit - designed primarily to prevent dumping 6000 tweakscaled LLL's Ballasts in one spot, and calling it a day. Building HEAVY is easy. Building BIG is much harder. You'll need your megastructure to distribute mass over a large area, or be considerably lighter than it would be "naturally" and so on. Or you'll need to modularize. Or you'll need to build off-KSC.
Generally, when building big, glitches are your bane. I'm looking forward to submitters posting new interesting ways of working around them - as they are bound to encounter them.
Cool! I don't use Tweakscale as a general policy, so big and heavy go hand in hand for me. I would like to make a submission at some point, and I have a work around, but I was wondering what your perspective is. That glitch is an old rival of mine, and I have learned to live with it. I will be posting one of my 300m, >100 kiloton space battleships at some point here. Made with B9 HX and no Tweakscale.
Cool challenge, and it's right up my ally! I love it!
Oh and no it doesn't fit in any building. The booster just barely fits inside the SPH.
-
@daniel l. This is a cool challenge and something I would be interested in. However I have one question. Could you please include a galaxy file so that people with any computer can compete? You and I both know that not everyone can run the TBG generation program, so for those who can't, would you please include a file? It would also standardize the challenge.
Thanks, and TBG is awesome!
-
Ok so this looks like a cool challenge but I do have one question. What about the KSP glitch that breaks the runway/pad if your craft is heavy enough, no matter how far off the ground you are. It was confirmed to be a glitch but apparently isn't high priority on the fix list. So basically because of your rule that the KSC must remain undamaged, doesn't that mean that there is an arbitrary limit on how big a craft you can submit? I'm a little confused here.
Other than that one small thing, this looks like a great challenge!
-
12 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:
@Mycroft I wondered why you stopped posting screenshots of OPT spaceplanes.
I just started a science game and I intend to grow a fleet of OPT vehicles.
All my OPT pretties are actually in 1.1.2 and sadly I wasn't able to port the save over so I lost focus on that. Hopefully I can get back into it once the Jool mission is done but for now I'll be going back to 1.1.2 for the foreseeable future. I'm actually designing a new OPT spaceplane designed to manufacture several science rovers and orbital probes with an internal workshop. It's fun. When it's done it too will leave for Jool. Any ideas of KIS KAS stuff I can send besides a small plane or probe or rover? Who knows, I might take it. Glad to finally be getting back to this great mod!
-
Finally got back to my big old 1.1.2 career save where I had a huge fleet of OPT big SSTOs. I had forgotten just how much I love this mod! OPT plus KIS KAS is an awesome combo. Cause the big engines in this mod can actually haul the heavyweight of large amounts of KIS KAS items. It is still my favorite part pack, although I'm using B9 HX a bit more at the moment in my CMAU saves.
-
1 minute ago, JadeOfMaar said:
@Mycroft I'm still against the idea of bundling a part in a planet mod. However I would accept that it's not 'directly' bundled. I'm okay with it being in an Optionals folder within the package. Also, we're not going to be forcing players to use TBG's warp drive. In the end the player will either never notice it, do decide to use it, or find/make an alternative for whatever reason. So no worries. @daniel l. knows his stuff.
Yes it was my impression that @daniel l. was going to bundle it in with the main mod. I am glad to hear he is not planning to do so. I have nothing against the part, just the iea of bundling it, as I stated above. Thanks for the clarification!
-
1 minute ago, daniel l. said:
It will be a big problem for TBG without a custom warp drive. No standard warp mod is EVEN equipped for the distances of TBG. None of them. They are all too slow and run out of fuel too fast. In order for the player to get anywhere. They will need a custom warp part.
In that case, with all due respect, I would urge a separate, complimentary mod that you can install with TBG. I dont want to need to be dependent on a parts mod for TBG. There is a reason for the very little amount of crossover between planet and parts packs. They don't combine well. Please trust me on this. Honestly the best solution at this point IMHO is the one I suggested above, that of a separate mod that maybe comes as part of the download but is a separate gamedata subfolder. I want to be able to have the ability to install TBG without adding any extra parts. Believe you me, I completely get why you want to do this. I am well aware that almost all warp mods are not ideal for the sheer scale of this mod. But I am also aware that it is good to be as independent as possible, and I am aware that the distinction between part and planet packs is there for a reason. I do not think this is a wise course of action.
-
Just now, daniel l. said:
The wormholes were being developed by @User.txt But he appears to have... Gone away. That is why i'm resorting to warp mods. Because in other words. It's really not possible to cross ten light years of KSP space using sublight engines.
All the same, I would really prefer to be able to choose my own warp drive mods. I believe that you should highly recommend them, but I really dont want to have to have a particular warp drive mod. And if that mod ever dies, that will be a large problem for TBG. Its sad if the wormholes wont be in. I will poke around to see if anyone can help with that. But the solution is not dependency on a parts mod.
Sorry.
. I kinda didn't have a better place for the missiles I mounted on the outside and I wanted an "armed to the teeth" look so they went out there.
Work-in-Progress [WIP] Design Thread
in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange
Posted
Been working on a new space battleship...
Shes a bit ugly, and I'm trying to work on it, hopefully to submit it to @HatBat's series. What do you guys think?