Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Magzimum

  1. I really hope for a Linux support for KSP 2. I guess what really matters is whether KSP 2 will be mostly entertainment, or the next leap in aerospace technology. I always remember this XKCD: And then I realize that this cartoon is several years old already. And then I start to wonder how many of SpaceX's and other space start-ups played KSP to really understand some basics of rocketry. I wouldn't be surprised if that number is high. If KSP 2 wants to have a similar effect on the world, Linux support is mandatory. Among technology developers, Linux scores a much higher market share.
  2. Improvements to the presentation I actually always play with KER installed, which gives a lot of metrics of your craft while looking at the craft. I only use the map view when fiddling with maneuver nodes. So, not really sharing your point of view (pun intended?). RCS and reaction wheel balancing I share the idea by @asap1 to put a slider onto that idea, allowing us to tweak it. Also, default should (IMHO) be the current setting, which I prefer. Real spacecraft carefully save their precious RCS fuel. They only turn if absolutely necessary, and a lot of thought goes into minimizing the maneuvers in space. Also, because it's the real stuff, they can make tiny corrections and hardly ever overshoot a maneuver. They use computers to carefully measure their rotations (i.e. the ISS rotates once per orbit, so that the same side always faces Earth), which we cannot ever hope to achieve with the manual input. In contrast, in gameplay, I will happily warp forward which freezes the spacecraft in a position (stopping any careful rotation). I also have thick sausage fingers so if I have to rotate the craft I either press the wrong button or press it too long. And if I want to do some space walks or docking maneuvers, I will rotate the (both) craft(s) to use the sunlight to see what I am doing. In summary, I am very wasteful with RCS fuel compared to the real deal. And that gets compensated by overpowered reaction wheels. Probes before manned I think that a slight adjustment in the abilities of the probes is all that is needed. The Stayputnik is really useless. Some SAS (stability assist) in the early game is simply necessary if you want to go anywhere. I don't know how early real spacecraft stabilized in flight (rotate along axis?), but we need a little help.
  3. Double Ringed Exploration Station (DRES)
  4. Sometimes I have to add unnecessary features to the ship to make the acronym fit. Sometimes it's a little meaningless, I admit. DOPE: Dres Orbital Probe Explorer MORE IS LESS: Minmus Orbital Relay Explorer and Integrated Ship with Lander with Embedded Surface System MOB BOSS: Minmus Orbital Base for Basic Observations of Stuff on the Surface Playing the Galileo planet pack a while back: GOAT: Grannus Orbital Antenna Tech GRASS: Gratian Relay And Surface Scanner TGIF: Tellumo Ground-level Investigation Flight
  5. I agree that flags serve a purpose. In addition to what @IvanSanchez said above, they are necessary for the mandatory Photograph-of-Kerbals-posing-next-to-the-Flag-in-front-of-the-Lander. I would not mind if they have a mass and take inventory space (please make the mass very low, e.g. 0.5 kg). But, please have the flag in the inventory by default. I already forget to check my staging, add parachutes, landing legs, etc. I don't want to go on a mission to plant a flag on XX and then realize I forgot the flag once I made a successful landing. Btw, also agree that devs probably have higher priority things to do.
  6. I'd like that. I'm one of those players who never uses part-clipping, but sometimes it would be very useful to do so. I wonder how easy it is to code? You could just add it to the settings, toggle on/off.
  7. I will wait for KSP 4. I remember from Civilization that #4 is the best.
  8. I know. But there are a couple of reasons why I go into Sandbox anyway: Mistakes are easy to make, and it wouldn't be the first time that I overwrite an important save. (I play KSP after a busy day, when I am already tired). I usually need (quick)saves while in cheat-mode, like when testing an Eve landing and return - you really want to save after landing successfully. At least in older versions of KSP, loading saves would become slower and slower as you get more save files. I try to not have an endless number of save files. I admit that it's just a matter of preference. You can totally do this in the career mode too, if you pay attention.
  9. That alone is reason to go there. It was also my #1 choice for this thread. Jool-rise on Laythe.
  10. No, there isn't any simulator. In career/science mode, you gotta save-cheat-reload. It would be a nice addition: A simulation center. In order to avoid overwriting important saves, I prefer to open a new sandbox game, design my craft and cheat a whole lot, then copy the craft into the career game folder. My Sandbox is then the "simulation".
  11. Isn't that just the French spelling for it? Don't the French play Kerbale Espace Programme?
  12. I very much support! This seems easy to implement and a big improvement for the player who lost his Kerbal in the 100+ seat space-station.
  13. Nice flags! They look a bit like mine. I always use this one (with some black top and bottom cut off). I made it myself in GIMP with a little cutting and pasting and some editing. Sol Omnibus Lucet means The Sun shines on everyone (and between the lines, you can read that the Sun makes no distinction).
  14. Note that you can fast-forward (time warp) a few days (e.g. 4-6 days) to get a complete new set of contract proposals. Typically, if you are waiting for a transfer window to another planet, you can do a lot of such time warps. I usually create multi-contract missions to the other planets. Only the special missions (e.g. Eve landing, Jool-5) are without contract. Those are difficult enough without having to do something special.
  15. I am pretty certain that it was the most basic rocket ever: Mk1 pod, Flea SRB, possibly with basic winglets. I think I started in career-mode. Mind you, I had watched KSP videos by jacksepticeye so I at least knew how to slap things together in the VAB.
  16. Good point. I did try something similar already. I used an engine plate instead of a fairing, but still added the nosecone. I guess it's nearly the same effect. I removed it for two main reasons: I cannot run it with only 2 engines because I hate puny long ascents where the SSTO barely makes it into orbit. Given the rest of the geometry of the ship, the next step up is 4 engines. That meant I have 4 liquid fuel tanks because I need to radially attach the engines, which is a lot for a ship this size on Laythe. Despite the high drag, it still achieved 1450 m/s in Kerbin's atmosphere on a test with 4 engines and a draggy back, which is fine for any SSTO. And since I am gonna decouple the wings and rapiers before the tanks run out completely, I don't really care if it wastes a little fuel because of the drag. Aesthetics: I like to have a big stack of landers for the 5 moons of Jool, all coupled to each other with large docking ports. When it comes to rockets in KSP, I don't really go for optimization. Our space program brings too many Kerbals with too much living space, on a rocket that has too much dV and an unnecessarily high TWR.
  17. Building and testing the various stages of the Jool-5! This is the Laythe stage. The command pod and science stuff are supposed to visit all 5 moons, and once back at mothership it will connect to the next stage is waiting (probably the bottom section of the Tylo lander). The back of the plane also must have a flat (high drag) end with a docking port because it will be stacked on top of that same Tylo lander. I wish I can say that I deliberately made this look a bit like an X-wing, rather than having to admit that I just slapped on more wings randomly because I want it to take off at less than 100 m/s ground speed. Also, testing in career mode is annoying if all your pilots are on Minmus.
  18. Let's put this into a simple checklist: Build the "payload". What needs to get to Jool? (If you want to keep it simple, make it a probe with a strong antenna, like the Communotron 88-88). A good probe has a few basics: electricity generation and batteries, a reaction wheel, a probe core and an antenna. Start adding rockets to the payload, in multiple stages. You need lots of "dV". If you are inexperienced, go nuts. 10000 dV should definitely get you there (first part of that is used to get into Kerbin orbit). And if your payload is not too big, then the rocket will not be insane either. Get into Kerbin Orbit. Ideally a circular orbit (Ap and Pe roughly the same), around 100 km altitude. Wait until Kerbin and Jool are in roughly this position (left picture): Source: https://ksp.olex.biz/ Note that because Jool is so big, this does not need to be very precise. Then put a maneuver node at the place where it says "ship" in the right picture, and give it lots of prograde acceleration (check in the map view when your Ap gets near the orbit of Jool). Wiggle the maneuver node around a bit and play with the amount of dV until you start seeing the pointers of the "closest approach" (and highlight it so you see just how close, and what happens if you play with the maneuver node - does it get even closer?). After a bunch of trying, you get a Jool Periapsis. Bingo. Then execute the first maneuver node. Once you approach that Jool Periapsis, you burn retrograde to slow down and be captured by Jool. Of course, this can be massively improved and optimized - you can improve that ship with just enough dV, you can use multiple maneuver nodes, you can choose the best moment to launch, etc. But optimization is a lot more fun once you can celebrate a first success. So, keep it simple the first time. Jool is a big target, so it is actually pretty hard to miss.
  19. This thread became a brainstorm of what we want from 1.11. Let me join in. I hope they will just fill in some gaps in the basic stock parts: Larger landing legs (no objections if they accidentally look like the Falcon 9 legs, but other designs also fine). Wider range of decoupler sizes (smaller and larger) Better RCS for large ships, either (or both): 3.75m reaction wheels (because Kerbals launch huge ships, and I cannot support 1000 parts to put RCS thrusters everywhere) Larger Vernor engines, or an easy way to couple other engines (e.g. Terriers) to RCS controls KER made stock (should have been done years ago)
  20. If I made a silly mistake (e.g. fire 200 m/s in retrograde instead of prograde, or press the space bar a little too enthusiastically) then I will use an old save game and try again. If I realize that there is a (major) design flaw in the rocket design then I will revert back and either fix is or start over with a new design. I will only attempt rescue missions if I accomplished something big enough and get stuck near the end (e.g. Duna or Dres landing and return to LKO, and now I forgot the parachutes). Then I will launch a quick fix.
  21. When your mothership isn't supposed to survive re-entry, but you have too many Kerbals on board and have to try it anyway: Notice the heatshield below the Mk2 lander can. I sent a big ship to Moho - lander and mothership (i.e. Apollo style). Landed. Got back. Mothership was not rated for re-entry, but somehow a 6th Kerbal had snuck into the ship so I had to give it a go or organize a rescue mission (boring!). Those wolfhounds should only survive a 6 m/s impact, but somehow did not break as it hit the ground at about 15 m/s. Oh well. Not gonna reload and retry. All hail the Kraken who saved the ship.
  22. When your boosters are so big you use Fleas as sepatrons. Six Kerbals are on their way to Moho (I hope), with room for 11 (but it's criminal to fill the ship to capacity - Kerbals need a little room to move around!). The ship uses only chemical engines (no nukes or ion)... so it's a little big. Next stop: Minmus for some refueling. The Minmus Valdez (i.e. the tanker) is already in orbit.
  23. An Elcano is a land-based round-trip of a planet or moon - a circumnavigation. Because you stay on the surface, there is no time-warping (perhaps 2x or 3x physics engine if you are brave or foolish, but certainly no 5x, 10x or 50x warp). So, it's lots of hours of driving or sailing.
  • Create New...