Jump to content

James M

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    465

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by James M

  1. James M
    My solution would probably be something along the lines of asparagus staging large LF/OX engines around the fuel tank in the center so once you're down to the last two engines, you'll complete your orbit, set up rendezvous, and get as close to docking as possible before detaching them, leaving the central tank full on fuel.
  2. James M
    Are you turning the rocket around then thrusting back ward or are you getting all the way into orbit? I'm assuming suborbital here, so I dunno try this.. Take note of your surface velocity on the launch pad (rotational speed of surface of kerbin), launch, then once at booster turn-around point, pause the game and add your current surface velocity while in space to kerbins' surface velocity and retroboost to that total velocity? I dunno if that would work as I haven't done it myself, but I am curious to know if it'd work
  3. James M
    This tells me you're ascending, meaning you have traction at least in the rear. The sheer weight of the vehicle and the mass of the planet are keeping you glued down, so your problem here is one of two things. Either 1) You're lacking on horsepower. Or 2) Your heavy back end is dragging on the slope adding excess friction as you try to accelerate up. Generally the fixes would go along the lines of increasing the rear suspension a bit or adding more powered wheels depending on the actual problem. Obviously you can't edit the vehicle so... Try raising the rear suspension or reducing friction of back half of wheels or both lol? If it's digging in too much, it might start accelerating better after the change. If not, whelp I tried.
  4. James M
    I think the metal balls are like massive floodlights. (Nope, also spherical on the other side.) Not saying you're wrong, but why have "Tanks" of metallic hydrogen in a line off the side of your base? When I think of metallic hydrogen fuel storage, I think of radioactive rods or something like that. Something you can just put in your ship nice and easy when you need more fuel. Sphere's don't seem like the most ergonomic choice of fuel shape unless you're intending to spread pressures. Makes me wonder if they're trying to conveyor whatever it is inward to your rocket when refueling? Can those lines of things become full/expanded? Can you add more of those lines for stockpiling purposes? Idk, just some random thoughts
  5. James M
    I still struggle tbh to wrap my head around all the maths but I think in that situation you'd be correct in saying you'd save one maneuver but as such only technically saving fuel once. With a higher periapsis insertion, you'd actually be doing three things. Insertion, transfer orbit (To get your actual orbit where you need it), then to final circulation. With a low insertion however you'd still (basically) save fuel twice because of the oberth effect. I say this because both burns (Insertion and circulation) would be performed at periapsis, where kinetic energy of the craft is at at it's highest. Sorry if that seemed confusing. Got a lot on my mind right now >.>
  6. James M
    The lower your periapsis when you arrive at your destination, the less fuel you'll need to circularize as your kinetic energy is at it's highest due to the planets' gravity increasing your ships velocity. https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalAcademy/comments/1jhne0/clearing_up_misconceptions_about_the_oberth_effect/ This post really delves into WHY that works and if you just take that little bit of extra time really reading and doing the calculations, it makes way more sense and I gotta say. It's really cool!
  7. James M
    Lol never mind just realized OP did what I was going to suggest
  8. James M
    Shuttles are a tremendous design challenge. Remember to have your Com a little further forward than halfway on your craft before you ever put in your fuel or payload. Then you have to fill it up with fuel and monopropellant and make sure it's still generally in the center, and again once you've thrown in the payload. Then after that, it doesn't hurt to do some tests by taking out the payload and like 95% of the fuel and seeing if you can glide the thing safely to the ground and land from supersonic speeds. If all of this works out, then try launching it as intended and see how it goes. As far as flying it on reentry? I found a cool video on youtube that describes how the real shuttle computer and commanders used to do it. It's really interesting stuff.
  9. James M
    What's needed are larger landing legs. Period. Whether they are customizable in any way literally makes no difference if they don't exist in the first place. The stock fuel tanks, engines, and boosters have all increased in diameter and mass over the years, so logically the parts to support them should have as well.
  10. James M
    Couldn't have said better myself.
  11. James M
    It's pointless to compare. Either what TTI did was right or it was wrong. There is no "Well this person over there did worse way back in [whenever], so let's all go sing hakuna matata."
  12. James M
    @Nate Simpson A little late for a direct response here, but I would like to bring something to your attention. We as the KSP community fear for the games' future and for your (As a team) treatment within Take Two Interactive as we have all experienced firsthand the corporate greed displayed by corporations like Take Two. I'm by no means saying they're the worst offender, but they are still under that umbrella that I think we all associate them with. As such, when you, Nate Simpson, creative director of KSP2 come out and make these promises that the game will be exactly what we've always wanted, I want to sooo badly believe every word of it. But the unfortunate truth here is that, now that you officially work for Take Two, for all we know they could've just told you to say these things to simmer us down. To make matters worse (And here's the part that scares me the most), if things go really south, you've now given Take Two the opportunity to say "Nate promised those things to you under his own volition. He however was not speaking on behalf of us." Essentially I'm afraid they'll not only take advantage of this to justify their wrong-doings (If such things occur) but also in the process, use you as their scapegoat. Realistically, until it's Cooke himself or Take-Two Interactive making these statements and promises, they mean nothing. That's not to downplay your credibility as a Superfan of Kerbal Space Program. We all believe that to be true. It's just that until this information comes straight from the horse's mouth if you will, we can't really sit back and relax.
  13. James M
    In the preview it was in the bottom left hand corner. People thought this would be kind of awkward as it has always been in the bottom middle and because it makes more sense for it to be there as we're generally looking at the center of the screen anyway.
  14. James M
    "When the project was pulled and the Linkedin messages went out." Unless I'm misinterpreting what I'm reading, that implies both happened simultaneously.
  15. James M
    Didn't T2 cancel the project through linkedin and then offered to hire them back? I don't believe linkedin's purpose was to be used as a way for publishing studios to contact developers and tell them their contract is canceled and they're being defunded. That's what meetings were made for. (And December 6 was before the COVID thing so yes, meetings still existed then.)
  16. James M
    You're only breaking the promise if you buy the game after it has been verified that T2 broke any or all of the conditions written on the petition. You're not breaking any promises if you buy the game after it was developed in a just and reasonable manner toward both the customers and the developers themselves. Also if you're signing the petition, and you are actually serious about being a part of the solution, I urge you to wait for a little while after the game's eventual release, to find out more information about T2's treatment of the situation/game. If news comes out a week later that the devs were treated like crap but were afraid to say anything, and you already bought the game, it's too late to go back at that point.
  17. James M
    When I get the time, (Which I don't have honestly right now.) I'll go through each individual point if you'd like and spell out the unethical means of how a corporation like Take Two might use unethical means to turn KSP2 from the game Star Theory and us as the KSP community imagined it to be into just another cash cow video game. Furthermore, I don't care if you sign it or not, but if you're apt to point out each and every flaw in the petition proposed and each person's comments on the subject, then either 1. You care or 2. You're intentionally being toxic. I only proposed you just go write your own giving you the benefit of the doubt that option 1 might've been applicable there. Maybe not?
  18. James M
    Why do you even care so much to argue? Great, you called me out on a singular instance where what I signed for wasn't exactly what was written. When you vote for a president, are they always exactly what you want? Probably not. But it's important, so you vote for them anyway. The petition isn't some holy document with zero flaws whatsoever. It was written by a regular individual in the community with valid concerns on the subject. If you know better and you ACTUALLY care at all, then go write you own "Better" petition, and I'll sign that one. Except you don't. And you won't.
  19. James M
    You're an absolute madman!
  20. James M
    And I answered it yesterday. If T2 tries to milk KSP2 for monetary gain through unreasonable means, then yes. Of course. Exclusive Preorder bonuses for things that SHOULD'VE been in the game to begin with is wrong. You don't take something away and then charge people to have it back. That's wrong. Charging money for non-cosmetics of any kind is also wrong. I don't want to see them charging me $5 to get 50,000 kerbucks so I can keep playing the game. You get my point. So quit asking stupid questions. If they charge money for a hat to put on my Kermans' head, great! No problems. There is however an undrawn but clearly evident line here that we're trying to keep the multi-billion dollar mega corporation that is Take-Two from stepping over. Either you can support that or you can't. Does that answer your question?
  21. James M
    Yes I've read the thing and yes I agree with most if not all of what the OP was trying to achieve.
  22. James M
    Lol So these Not - Star Theory developers are now "contracted"? Like in a sense of they aren't being paid hourly? If that is what you mean, is that normal?
  23. James M
    I'll keep that in mind in the future. Thank you.
  24. James M
    Ahem. Educate me? I guess I'm not seeing what you are here. Did what? (i'm not trying to be rude or anything. I would just rather be more knowledgeable than less. Even if it costs my pride.)
  25. James M
    So does ethics only apply to how an employer treats it's employees and not to how it treats it's customers?
×
×
  • Create New...