Corona688

I've made a VTOL SSTO by accident. I upgraded the engines and fuel and it just kind of ... kept going. It's passively stable during re-entry for crying out loud, it hardly needs the reaction wheel any more. How did I do that!? It just happened! I don't know!! 4TL Furywing "E" on KerbalX

Built my favorite VTOL yet. It's a well balanced airplane that just happens to have four vectored engines plus landing legs on its butt.

You probably don't use Explorer, then. That's one of those infamous IE settings everyone forgets about, then when things depending on "default" (i.e. stupid) Windows behavior start screwing up, it has to get unearthed from the mausoleum.

Because the HECS2 is the only one which makes everything else look bad by comparison. If it didn't cost twice as much as everything else it'd be hilariously OP. I did that pages ago. The 2.5m core has triple the reaction wheel strength, twice the battery capacity, and 25% more internal runtime than the 1.25m core. The worst I can say about it, it's a bit heavy for its size. Whatever you want. Which is best really depends on how big your ship is, what features you need, and how you plan on getting it to orbit. You could use the Rovemate for all I care. Just don't think "best for you" is always the same as "best for everyone" and we're golden.

It was the proxy settings!? Internet Explorer strikes again! Curious though, that should have made any web browsing you do incredibly slow too.

I suspect they did that because negative altitudes on the mun would really freak out and confuse people trying to land. You always hit something by 0m on Kerbin.

A console is not a PC. Any programs for them undergo strict scrutiny by Microsoft, Panasonic, Nintendo or whatever. Add a blanket "...plus whatever random bits and pieces people upload" to that and they'll say "Okay, no. No running random bits of code from people we don't know or trust." To get mods allowed on console, they'd have to be dumbed down considerably. I don't think anyone would be happy about that.

But didn't say what parts you compared. I'm beginning to question your choices there. You might have forgot the integrated science containers. Let's try a fairer comparison: 1.25m core, 1.25m battery, 1.25m reaction wheel. 0.25T, 0.8m tall, 1K battery, 15.5 torque, 4330 cost. HECS2, science container, 1.25m fairing: 0.825T, 3.5m tall, 1K battery, 10 torque, 8800 cost. 2.5m core, 2.5m reaction wheel, 2x Z-400. 0.74T, 1m tall, 800 battery, 31.5 torque, 6600 funds. HECS2, science container, 2.5m fairing. 0.616T, 2m tall, 1K battery, 10 torque, 9100 funds. The HECS2 plus science container is taller, weaker, twice as costly, and three times heavier than a 1.25m core stack! It's not even any less parts. It fares a little better against 2.5m, where it's actually a little lighter and one less part, but still taller, weaker, and more expensive. "But I don't want a science container", you say? Then all you need is a HECS2 and a 2.5m bay at 0.5 tons, 1.3m tall, 8000 funds. Weighs a third less than the 2.5m core stack and takes half the number of parts, nice! Still weaker, taller, and more expensive. It still loses almost completely against a 1.25m stack, though. Weaker, taller, heavier, more expensive. But it's one fewer part, so there's that.

I see now you're hiking its price by including the pointlessly expensive Z-4K. You don't "need" that. Not a fair comparison. A radial battery would be fine. If you have a command pod, even less need.

That's an interesting case actually: DOOM was technically difficult when they made it. A few years later came the hardware 3d explosion and everyone had the tools to easily imitate it.

Not sure how you think it's relevant. Orbiter is clearly a different game, this is uncanny-alley. They might just be making an excellent ripoff, or might not.

Sure there's no proof. I'm not saying "open fire", just "take a closer look".

It's a wildly popular free game engine that really wasn't designed with realistic spaceflight in mind. The first Kraken came from Unity limitations. The early joint problems? Unity limitations. The early landing leg problems? Unity limitations. Early sound problems? Unity. Control limits? Unity. Harvester spent years working around them. So I guess it depends how polished this game is. If it's well polished from the get go, I suspect they're either reskinning KSP for video mockups of an engine they're trying to build, or nicking something. If there's wacky hijinks, maybe they're scratch building. I do agree that at this point there's nowhere near enough to file anything. Just need to find out more.

Shooter games are pretty much boilerplate these days, and Minecraft is simple in implementation if original in idea. Likewise nobody's calling Space Engineers a copyright violation, even though it's a build-your-own spaceflight game. It's the cross of build-your-own, plus fairly realistic realtime spaceflight, which is unique. This new game also uses Unity, is the thing. It wasn't made with this in mind, it took years of tuning for Squad to make it cooperate. Either they found a much easier way to do it, they stole it, or they're snowing us. Maybe they are building their own engine but mocking it up in KSP in the meanwhile. The resemblance is seriously uncanny alley.

They were kerbal for the same reason early KSP designs are, doing what you can on the limits of what you have. The instant they get bigger engines the complexity goes away.

KSP is a lot harder to imitate than Minecraft. A game with KSP's unique features appearing out of nowhere, running on the same backend, is very suspicious.

Tourism pays well. Just built an eight-passenger craft for this. Rescue contracts also, instead of sending a ship for every one you can gather them at a space station then bring them home in bulk. The 200-kerbal things I don't get, but each to their own.

Reminder, the HECS2 costs 7500! That's two entire kickbacks and change. It is uniquely super-powerful and possesses every feature in the game, but boy oh boy you pay for it. At 0.2 tons, it's not that light either. The only other small core with radial-out is the OKTO2, which has no reaction wheels. If radial-out is important (which it sometimes is), the RC-001S is a nice solution. In short, it's not useful to your ships maybe but I'd love to have it. Sadly I can't afford the tech cost yet. It has triple the torque and double the battery capacity of the 1.25m version.

It finds you [edit] Sure, go ahead and make me look insane by sneak-editing why don't you

If you punch holes in a heat shield, it stops being a heat shield. Ask NASA about that.

The probe cores have a lot of useful functions which aren't adequately explained, "radial out" is one of them. On surface mode it always points directly away from the planet.

The thread for texture replacer might be a better place to ask. Or "gameplay questions, modded installs".

Harder how? The old style aerodynamics made it so much harder to leave the soup-o-sphere.

I've overwhelmed ISRU's with too many radiators before, but this is really arguing about nothing since the game won't let you attach to ISRU's guts. That reasoning is my guess about why.

You didn't attach anything to your ISRU's exposed, spinning, red-hot guts, just glitched them there. Blowing up the ISRU will expose them hovering on elfin magic. The big ISRU's guts are supposed to be hot. Attaching cold things to it will stop it from working. Squad didn't implement this restriction in subatomic detail, just barred you from building there at all. https://kerbalx.com/Corona688/8LMH-Ergrates It's got lots of room for improvement. You can get away without RCS or improved reaction wheel, surprisingly, but it's not exactly comfortable to fly. I'm just afraid to touch it lest I mess up its balance again.