Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FL-T400

  1. The general opinion of the RO team is that starting on something this big this early into KSP 2's development will likely be a fool's errand. Best of luck and I'm certainly hoping you will be successful, but waiting for a stable modding API and starting with porting some of the more foundational mods like MM, FAR, or RSS might give you a better chance of success. RO was created by a large team over 10 years, so make sure you aren't biting off more than you can chew.
  2. I'm glad development hasn't completely stopped, but I can't say I wasn't hoping for a little more from the update. There are still a lot of big bugs out there, and these were all minor/niche. Still, I'm very glad development isn't over.
  3. I often use the mechjeb and KER readouts, but with dV and TWR easy to measure in the VAB and in flight already, and with Ap/Pe visable in flight when not in map mode, I don't think a large enough portion of the player base would really have a use for their other features. Visually displayed information takes up screen space. Pre-1.6 my position was that they should be integrated, but I think with dV and basic TWR info already available in stock, I don't really see the benefit for the average player. The mods are definitely still useful for a lot of people, but I don't think they're useful for enough people to be added to the base game.
  4. I mostly agree with you on the benefits. The general argument against autopilot is that flying your own spacecraft is a key part of the game, and autopilot ruins the fun of that/makes it too easy. Autopilots are generally unpopular, so I was mostly arguing against implementing mechjeb for the info readouts. . Yes, I personally have had an autopilot perform tricky bits of piloting for me and then learned from that to improve my own piloting, but while I like the idea of having an autopilot, there's a lot of opposition to autopilots. I think any integration into stock would have to be very careful, to the point that the only real similarity to mechjeb would be the basic concept of an autopilot. I haven't really played around with either infernal robotics or the stock equivalent enough to make an informed decision, so I'll just edit that part out.
  5. Mods I think should be stock: Kopernicus, module manager, custom barn kit, and other library mods - they provide support for a lot of other mods, and having them working the moment a new update goes live would be really nice. I imagine kopernicus would also work a lot better if it was built into the code instead of being a mod AECS motion suppressor - Minor visual improvement, engines no longer wiggle when they're off and flaps stop moving when you reach vacuum. Seems like a common-sense feature. Better burn time - I think most players would benefit, and the readouts are so unobtrusive that I don't think it would annoy any of the players that wouldn't benefit from it. Kerbal Alarm Clock - almost everyone seems to want this and I can see why Transfer window planner - again, almost everyone seems to want this, and I agree SCANsat - It has been very popular for a long time, and I believe it might even make the game a little more new player friendly, as you can figure out a height/gradient map of a planet or moon before attempting a landing Trajectories - shows approximately what your new orbit/landing area will be after you pass through the atmosphere. It's not super accurate because so much depends upon the angle of your spacecraft, but it still really helps. Mods I mostly think should be stock, but that I'm a little less sure of: Ferram Aerospace Research - A more realistic aero model would be nice, though I'm somewhat concerned the difficulty increase would be too much for some players. I haven't personally felt like it makes anything too hard, but that might just be my playstyle. It's definitely a complex mod. kOS - potential option for getting kids into coding, which almost everyone seems to be trying to do, and while it does allow autopilots, you do really have to work to get one. KRASH/KCT sim - being able to test things prior to launch would be very useful for people playing with reverting/quick-loading off, and being able to test craft starting from orbit/on the surface of another planet through something other than the cheat menu would be handy for more complex craft. As a downside, the focus on reliability and testing craft before you fly them may somewhat interfere with the cartooney style where explosions are commonplace. Kerbal Joint Re-enforcement - I prefer my rockets rigid, but auto-strut already solves *some* of issues with this, and I can see some issues with this decreasing the cartoonyness of KSP. I'm still fairly sure it should be implemented though Persistent Rotation - Very minor realism change, but really improves how "real" craft feel. Fast spinning craft are kracken-bait, though, and I know some people don't want realism increases. Semi-saturable reaction wheels - also a realism change. I can see issues with how much difficulty it would add, but RCS is mostly unnecessary for attitude control currently. Maybe make it slightly easier than the current mod configuration is. Back-end support for realism overhaul - I'm really unsure on this one, but even though most players would never use it, having most of the stuff for realism overhaul in place but not turned on could really improve stability and performance for the realism junkies Mods I don't think should be stock: Mechjeb, flight engineer, and precise node - The essential features of these are already part of KSP. Advanced players can definitely benefit from these, and a lot of veteran players are more familiar with their UI, but I don't think the average player would have much use for the features they provide that aren't already stock. Please let me know if you disagree with anything on this list or if you've thought of any reasons to consider adding vs not adding these mods that I haven't thought of.
  6. I'd also recommend against RO/RSS/RP-1 for beginners. My first run at it took about 5 hours from when I first started trying to install RO to when I was able to fulfill the "First Launch" contract, because of how long it took to install, how many tutorials I had to read and how many times I had to fix something on my spacecraft. I was already fairly experienced with stock KSP at that point too. If you want a bit more realism without a massive increase in difficulty or complexity, I'd recommend: Ferram Aerospace Research Continued - it updates the aerodynamic model to be a lot more realistic. Its info readouts can be hard to understand, but I've still been able to play with it despite still not understanding them. Persistent rotation - Makes it so ships will keep rotating in time warp Semi-Saturatable Reaction Wheels - makes reaction wheels less magic, so you'll need to include RCS. Might be a bit too difficult, but you can always uninstall. An uncrewed-before-crewed tech tree replacement. There are a bunch of them, so just pick one you like. For replication of real life rockets, I'd go for the procedural parts mod and B9 procedural wings. You can't do perfect replication, but they're fairly easy to use and give much better options than stock. Finally, I'd recommend using CKAN to install your mods, as it insures you will have the necessary dependencies, and it lets you very conveniently install and update mods. All of the mods I've recommended except for the tech-tree replacement are also part of RO, so they should also help you a bit in preparing for that.
  7. surprised no one made this yet. ag1-shut off center F1 ag2-shut off center J2 ag0-toggle fuel cells https://drive.google.com/file/d/1O0vVogSiRnIfNr0_xBygtrZ1Px4XHlbC/view?usp=sharing
  8. I agree, replace with individual sounds for decoupler(make it louder), fairing, engine start, and parachute release
  9. got some OS crashes with KSP, like this one: or this one: Could this be caused by KSP, or is it time for me to celebrate the forethought of extended warranty?
  10. KSP crashed when I clicked the launch button in the VAB. system specs: v.10.13.3 processor: 2.7 GHz Intel Core i5 memory:8 GB 1867 MHz DDR3 another, similar, crash from a week or so ago: ksp.log: launch options: -heapsize 2097152 -force-opengl thanks, Milo
  11. KSP crashed when I clicked the launch button in the VAB. system specs: v.10.13.3 processor: 2.7 GHz Intel Core i5 memory:8 GB 1867 MHz DDR3 another, similar, crash from a week or so ago: ksp.log: launch options: -heapsize 2097152 -force-opengl thanks, Milo
  12. This is a system crash report, occurred while de/re fullscreening the window during flight in an attempt to fix a weird glitch where the window was stretched to fit my monitor rather than actually full screen. -force-opengl argument was used, ksp launched from steam. similar crashes occurred with mechjeb installed, but no mods used during the crash that gave this report
  13. This is amazing, remind me never to flip coins in space
  14. a mission report I am starting: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CLf7CQ_cZou-V0j0xSm8Bjjj0fmveXmbvYzWCwXaltk/edit# or https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B-wvS1NNDby5MUxJdzY0SE9zR3c
  15. good to see someone has a nice weather satellite, you can finally answer the immortal question: how does enemy weapons development affect local weather patterns?
  16. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B-wvS1NNDby5R3BBak9mRzc5OG8?usp=sharing
  17. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-wvS1NNDby5SUx6VG5IZ2xaSjg/view?usp=sharing
  18. I've scaled my atmosphere to 2.2 times and have launched sounding rockets to test it. My trajectories mod readout shows that above hundred 50 something kilometers it is vacuum but based on the engine ISP and on the gauge under the altimeter the atmosphere ends at 70 km, stock values. World rescale, however, works fine for me.
  19. for some reason your atmosphere scaling isn't working for me, trajectories gives me the altitude it should be set to, but the atmosphere gauge under the nav ball and engine isp numbers match stock values. What am i doing wrong?
  20. The Koverment is very impressed with your minar landing, and they have decided they will consider re-directing funds towards your space program in the near future(though they have unrealistic expectations). They would like to see space for themselves. your mission: launch 20 tourists into space and have them all get together on an orbiting vessel, if they pass out from g-force you will not receive your bonus (but if they pass out from alcohol consumption, no worries(if they didn't just drink all your fuel)) Hartfield must be on board for a meet-and-greet advance: rep:20 completion: funds[an amount that fits the storyline]
  21. Poor Vlad, have you tried getting Triti on some powerful drugs and then convincing her to sign paperwork promising to go on the next launch?
  22. I have a question, I have gotten to the point where stock ksp poses little challenge for me and I was wondering if I should jump straight into 64k or if there is some intermediary planet scale?
  • Create New...