Reinhart Mk.1
-
Posts
350 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Reinhart Mk.1
-
-
16 hours ago, FruitGoose said:
Try Paint.net
GREAT suggestion btw, this is very user friendly
-
15 hours ago, swjr-swis said:
Try the mod Kronal Vessel Viewer:
Of course, I'm already past this point though. I've downloaded it and have some files but this is more of a photo editing issue, I don't really know how to mesh the images onto another image. I was looking for someone more savvy in that area
-
Hi I have built something I am personally impressed by and I've seen a few players created these complex blueprints via photoshop but unfortunately i'm not able to get photoshop at this particular moment. I am, however, using GIMP and I know I can achieve this but I'm having problems with how to layer images onto a blueprint background. I realize this is probably the wrong section but I had no idea where else to post it. Any/all tips would be appreciated!!
-
31 minutes ago, FleshJeb said:
Allow me to disagree ;-)
looks nice! im also kind of a minimalist, i just like the configuration of the craft i posted it's straight forward enough. what's the range on that thing btw?
-
On 9/16/2020 at 6:46 AM, pandaman said:
This is one if the biggest barriers in KSP, for new players espicially, IMHO...
There is a serious lack of documentation and explanations for a lot of the stuff on there. The KSPedia is a great resource, but it really needs expanding a lot to cover things like advanced tweakables and game settings etc.
been playing for almost two years and just found out that you have to hold alt before you place a docking port in a cargo bay so it locks it in
-
17 hours ago, RyanRising said:
We know that there wasn’t much thought put into the original layout of the world* because it was literally just a horizontal flip of the example planet from that program.
*With all due respect to HarvesteR of course - there were more important things to focus on at the time.
now that im looking at this it does kinda check out lol
-
From my eve ordeal to you guys always responding to my novice questions and just helping me with any problem I come across, I really wanted to thank all of you. I probably would have just gave up in frustration without all the help. Of course the main goal is to have fun but a challenge is something I always look for. Okay that's the point of this thread and I think a lot of new comers can agree. Okay happy landings n all that
-
2 hours ago, Spricigo said:
If I needed to guess, I'd say that is because of how much it "sinks" into the ground before the physics engine kick it up for being bellow the ground. (but I'd laying if I said I actually know *Shrugs* ) It may even explain why it consistently dismantle @Reinhart Mk.1 craft while causing no harm for people using slightly different machines/configurations.
i use rigid attachment and given the weight of this thing even when on empty... i can actually totally see how that complicates things so this makes a lot of sense
2 hours ago, Spricigo said:Don't worry about copying a design that works, not even in the sense of downloading the craft someone shared and use it as it is. More experienced player are those that just found more ways things fail, you have plenty of time to find those by your own, meanwhile there is not wrong to use the exception (things that actually work)
tbh you can only be so creative with the stock parts so i dont worry about it too much, also i don't mind what people use because crafts like these take so much patience to fly let alone do the complex missions it has to do
I want to thank everyone who submitted an answer, there was some helpful stuff in here and it'll help me in the future! Ultimately I think it's deceptively heavy even though it seems fairly short so I can't afford to just flop her down on the runway. It actually made me like the game more knowing that I had to relearn how to land something, it's nice to change things up. Anyways thanks guys!
-
1 hour ago, linuxgurugamer said:
Are you flying with the keyboard or joystick? Joystick gives you much better control. Also, is it fully fueled or empty tanks?
keyboard mouse, tried it both ways. still explodes when near empty unless i land it perfectly
46 minutes ago, Entropian said:Autostrut everything.
I do this with every craft
47 minutes ago, Entropian said:Even fully fueled I would think that the plane would be able to land safely.
you would think, again, i thought that was what the mk.3 gear was for
-
i still dont understand it because ive seen people land craft that were WAY bigger than this and even on rough landings they dont explode, basically with this i have to land just right or i WILL explode. maybe im just more used to smaller craft but i'm still puzzled that even after i put two more sets of landing gear i still had to make a near perfect landing to keep everything intact
-
6 hours ago, FleshJeb said:
Those Matt Lowne style planes are very hard to get right, BTW.
trying very hard to make the concept as original as possible but at this point i dont even care if it looks like a copy, i just wanna be able to fly this thing properly lmaooo
-
i think i need a set of landing gear for takeoff and another for landing... may be too heavy to land with only one set of gear
-
7 minutes ago, bewing said:
The most likely culprit is the actual attachment point of your rear landing gear. It is always smarter to attach your landing gear to your fuselage directly. Then use the "move" tool to visually place the landing gear where it looks nice, cosmetically.
When you land, that whole spike of force is transmitted through the landing gear to its attachment point. If the attachment point is on a wing or engine or something flimsy, then that shock will often be enough to break stuff off your plane. If the attachment point is on a heavy nacelle, or your fuselage -- your plane is much more likely to land intact.
this might actually be the best answer because that seems like what the root of the problem was, im too tired to test it now but i VERY much appreciate it
-
everything about the landing seems like it should work, i've gotten it to as slow as 30 mps and it STILL breaks apart...
(edit, idk why i can't upload the image but here's the link)
-
1 hour ago, boolybooly said:
Either way you can now display the gatecrasher badge if you so wish, if that was the shiney medal you were looking for.
HMMMM, im torn. I know it's a very minor thing but at the same time im a "by the book" type of person so I will most likely go back and try a more efficient and qualifying approach
-
-
This has been one of my long term goals and I'm just proud I was able to make it happen
-
DO NOT under any circumstances visit Eve or Dres (especially out of boredom)
-
The vernor engine works one time but when i shut the rcs off it won't work again unless i quickload, the twitch just doesn't work at all for me
-
idk if this adds to the badge but might as well drop it here too
-
9 hours ago, Vanamonde said:
Video marked private.
its uploaded now
-
7 hours ago, Vanamonde said:
Video marked private.
Sorry! The commentary was kinda quiet so I redid it, video will be up soon!
-
Well this has been a personal goal I've been trying to accomplish for about a year and i finally got it! Managed to get a lot of science along the way too!
-
I would say try to reach every body solely in SSTOS, it's much more rewarding and i think they look prettier than rockets
What’s hard for you in KSP?
in KSP1 Discussion
Posted
i feel this so much, thankfully i haven't visited every body yet but when i do i think it'll be worse for me
as far as the thread goes: gravity assists, i seem to do everything right but sometimes it seems like they only work when they want to work