Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dragorans

  1. I disagree, the game has less content than KSP1, there are no robotic parts, for example. The game currently only has better graphics, which I don't consider content
  2. forgot to delete that text strip, it wasn't supposed to be there, srry
  3. yeah like people are thinking ea is supposed to be a complete game.
  4. In my opinion, KSP2 was indeed overly optimistic with the hardware requirements. But remember: This is the first public version of the game - if a game is released in early access, people should lower their expectations to avoid what happened in the last few days. KSP2 Early Access was very overhyped, but the true launch will hopefully be not. People expect early access like it's the full game... but it's not even close. Early Access exists to find bugs and give feedback to the devs, the whole community having access to the game is not really the goal right now. Maybe in the next updates the game will have the minimum requirements lowered to the minimum. By the way, KSP2 for now has less content than KSP1 (remember there are no robotic parts) and it actually fries your PC so I don't recommend buying until at least the third update (Interstellar Travel) based on the roadmap. Summary: If you expected Early Access to be an amazing, fully-featured game, you are wrong. kthxbye
  5. The rocket I was building was getting really big, so I pulled it up... And the biggest lag spike I've ever seen in any game happened, and the whole build disappeared. The lag eventually eased up a bit to the point where I was able to hit the "New Craft" button, but that's where I made a huge mistake. I saved the changes (2 new fuel tanks) and the craft keeped bugged. It is still possible to load it, but when this is done the screen goes black, with only the HUD visible, and the music is completely distorted and with a lot of lag. The ship's dimensions are listed as "NaNm". Is this new? Later I will post a video and a screenshot Edit: The save is normal, and absolutely nothing happened to it
  6. Probably. It also leads me to theorize that we will have pure oxygen tanks. But that's just for the "maybe".
  7. So they will solve the problem of Wolfhound making Poodle useless... The last line calmed me down a lot lol. I really want to see kerbais diving into kerosene pools. Deep Space engine example: nerv
  8. I meant that I didn't know the video existed before you showed it to me. But I watched almost the entire video after that. Thx!
  9. That would be absolutely amazing. Imagine finding something like Olympus Mons on Duna, of finding the Mohole could make you gain more science. An amazing thing would be to add camera parts, being always available in manned modules and being a part in probes. It would be cool if you could figure out how a planet looks exactly just after taking a picture of it with these cameras, with the planet appearing "blurred" in the Tracking Station before that. This would be insanely better for exoplanets for obvious reasons.
  10. No, helium doesn't even react with anything. It only serves to maintain the pressure in the tanks. Hmm, I didn't watch that video. Probably because I don't watch everyday astronaut. But it's always good to have more knowledge
  11. The different fuels have already been confirmed. We already know very well that Liquid Hydrogen will be present in the game from the beginning, since the Nerv engine will need it. The Nerv-US engine I mentioned works because it uses hydrogen. We already know that methalox will be in the game, since the Swivel engine mentions it on its description. About the tanks, we will have hydrogen tanks just because nuclear engines use it, and we will have nuclear engines! I dare say we will have oxygen only tanks as well, as engines like NERV-US will use them. Also we will have to separate "Hydrolox" from "Liquid Hydrogen" like SimpleRockets 2, because that would eliminate the problem of having to balance the fuel/oxidizer ratio. Oxygen only tanks would be easy to add. Just a new engine and maybe some new tanks because size matters. And there are examples of sequential burning engines. The Russian double-chamber RD-701 it worked in a similar way, burning all fuels on takeoff and using only hydrogen when in space. The RD-701 was further developed into the single-chamber RD-704. But both never flew
  12. 1- I had forgotten about that fact. Rubidium is not good then. 2- I'm talking about in-game implementation. Kerbais can stand right next to a rocket taking off and be 100% fine . Kerbals can withstand collisions at 20 m/s and just get up and continue the mission. One problem I've noticed is that people think like human engineers, but kerbals are not humans. It would be a lot of fun to use such an engine. And I was planning to put pretty much everything you wrote about Hydrogen and Fluorine combustion and how it releases not so cool stuff. But like I said before, kerbals either die or they continue their mission as if nothing had happened. Think, why does the game let you put a kerbal in a chair for 90 years in space without any radiation protection or life support, and the kerbal doesn't show the slightest signs of health damage? Because its fun to do this. We are not talking about humans. We're talking green, clumsy alien beings who want to go to the stars, it doesn't matter if a nuclear bomb goes boom behind them, they just go.
  13. Tripropellant engines are theoretically the most efficient chemical rockets in existence. Rocketdyne made an engine in the 1960s that used gaseous hydrogen, liquid fluorine and liquid lithium that resulted in incredible 542 Isp. But they are not free of problems, obviously. Heating lithium to become liquid is not exactly easy, and storing and injecting solid grains into a combustion chamber would be extremely problematic (if not impossible due to backfiring). There are two types of tripropellant engines: Sequential burning A sequential firing rocket would be something like a half-stage, only difference is that nothing is thrown away - you change the fuel mid-flight. Let's call an engine by the name KS-325. KS-325 is RP-1 and LH2 compatible engine and LOX as an oxidizer. It is possible to switch between LH2 and RP-1 mid-flight. At launch, RP-1 will be the fuel used, as its higher density only offers advantages for first stages. When RP-1 ends, it will burn hydrogen, being better for upper stages. All this while using the exact same engine. This offers obvious advantages for an SSTO. if the KS-325 has an extendable nozzle, this would probably be one of the best engines for an SSTO with chemical engines. However, it still has disadvantages... The rocket would have to be insanely tall to store all the Hydrogen, RP-1 and the insane amount of LOX it would need. The only new part that would need to be added would be the engine, since hydrogen tanks are already confirmed (Nerv and NERV-US will use them) and RP-1/LOX will obviously be added. This is the most likely one that would be added to the game, considering there are multiple engines that already have mode switches (e.g Panther jet engine). and NERV-US operates in a very similar way, only needed changes will the fuels, performance and model of a NERV-US Simultaneous burning Basically it's injecting a third fuel into the combustion chamber. The hydrogen-fluor-lithium engine mentioned at the beginning is this type of engine. This type of motor can theoretically achieve very high efficiencies, but as theory is not reality, injecting room temperature solids or high temperature liquids is not exactly viable. And making an engine that injects two "normal" fuels would have no advantage compared to sequential injection engines. There are several other problems that will certainly not be simulated in KSP, such as how to maintain the necessary high temperature. One suggestion of mine would be to use rubidium instead of lithium, which has a much lower melting point, only 39°C. It would be much more realistic, but I don't know if it would be highly efficient - after all, this combination has never been tested. The biggest problem with adding these engine to KSP would be having to create new parts. Things that difficult development should be avoided unless it's really worth it. That's why I suggest that only the engine that burns sequentially be added, since only one new engine would need to be added, and the "programming" of this engine has already been done even in KSP1, with the RAPIER, so overall it would only need to be added a new model, and a change in resource used. So that's it, I'll probably write another thread about my ideas on the science & spaceflight topic, where I can write the scientific part (my favorite) more deeply. so yeah, see you guys later. Any criticism of this idea is welcome, I want to know my problems
  14. Wirmo: A planet with a thick atmosphere composed mostly of water vapor, with signs that an ocean existed on the planet, but has recently evaporated due to an increase in the greenhouse effect. This planet would be a short distance from the habitable zone, but not far enough to prevent it from becoming a Venus with water atmosphere. The surface of the planet has several extremely high points, remnants of previous continents. Maybe it has some fossil fuels, but nothing to guarantee...
  15. Console mod support, like Skyrim. Impossible but it would be amazing
  16. There are a lot of people who say it won't be released, and the trailer say it will be. I'm confused about this, and would like clarification. I'm an previous gen console player and I really want to play KSP2 and I don't have the money to buy a PS5 or PC
  • Create New...