Vlk

Bal-alul, a blog this post meg az add reputation mellett van report post. Reportoltam. Hát, én kicsit pozitívabb vagyok. Bár nem próbáltam még, csak az aerodinamikát, de az nagyon tetszik. Sokkal érdekesebbek így az ssto-k. Mondjuk hallottam hogy az 1.02ben mégjobban nerfelték, de azt még nem tudtam lehúzni, valami errort írt rá a böngészőm.

Agreed. To be honest i started to feel this a while ago, especially amongst FAR users. The creator of FAR is awesome, and he worked a lot for us, and i had a lot of fun with that system, so i have nothing against him. But when i see someone mentioning FAR, or comparing it to the new aerodynamics, i close the kerbal forums tab

Thank you! I was concerned about the amount of whining on the forums, but i must say, so far it looks great! I am not a flight expert, but sstos feel a lot more realistic now, i tried the Aeris 4A, modified only the action groups, and made it to orbit on the second try (not counting the takeoff attempts ) I really enjoyed that i could(+had to) gather momentum in dense atmosphere with the jet engines, and use that to get to a high altitude.

Hey, watching the 5 days left countdown video, i just realised that unrealistic explosions always bothered me. I'm talking about parts that don't have fuel, exploding with a big fireball. like the air intake here: It is totally unrealistic (which is not always a problem, i know... but i think now it is), it confuses me, and it is a little thing that makes the game feel unfinished Not a big thing, i agree, but it should be easy to fix, and something that would improve game experience, i think. I dont think it would be a problem if the damage would not be as visible, it is even more fun (the kerbal way ) if you loose a part without noticing it. The minimum is that parts that dont have fuel, should only explode with scatters, but not "fire". The sound effect should be different too, when there is only destruction, but no explosion. But there are possibilities for improvements: like, making the explosion size depend on how much fuel was in the tanks, or mixing the "damaged", and "exploded" soundeffects together, so destruction of low fuel parts would sound more "scratched", and with less "boom".

Normal map on terrain would not make any sense. Maybe only for small details, like when your kerbal stands on it, it would look like there are rocks ans footsteps, etc on it. Why create an illusion of bumpy terrain when you can actually make it bumpy? From this distance, the system they are using, is perfectly capable of presenting the actual look of that terrain. And anyways, if it would be normal map, how do you imagine getting closer to it? It would gradually fade out? Or change to higher resolution bumpmap, constanly confusing your eyes, where you thought there is a hill, there would be only small bumps?

thanks for the answers, its good to know there is nothing to worry about I may try it anyway next time, just to see if it works.

So, i want kerbal on my ssd so it loads faster, but i've heard that its not a good idea to change data frequently on the ssd. The solution would be to redirect the save game folder to the normal hdd. Is that possible?

v0.13.3 - played the demo, landed on the Mun and came back, following a nice tutorial from the web. We had to land on wings, because there were no landing legs then v0.17 - i think i bought the game when this version was released. I learned rendezvous from the ingame tutorial, but there was no docking i think. Or just no refueling.

It happened to me three times. Always the wings collided. One time i was orbiting above atmosphere, and i think the collision occurred when i went above the space center, and i collided to the launchpad (hmm... or was it a Launch Stability Enhancer?). The other two times it happened when i landed on the runway. Both was a perfect landing, the wings were nowhere near to anything, and since the wheels were already (or almost) touching the ground there was no big trouble losing them, but it was strange. I think the first wing-losing landing was before v0.25, there was no big aerodynamic stress or anything.

I dont really know the numbers, but this mission should be doable, if you go straight up, 200km or whatever, then fall back, and accelerate downwards when you enter the thick atmosphere. (Maybe you dont even have to accelerate). That way your speed will be high enough, and also because you arrive in a 0 degree angle, the atmosphere will not have enough time to slow you down.

I dont know, something broke for me in 0.25. I installed the latest FAR, but all my previous planes are unusable now above 15km, even after adjusting the CoL. And they fly much different in low altitude too. They are a lot slower, air drag feels huge. For me, when i first installed FAR, there was no problem at all, flying just became more fun. Ok, maybe it was harder to loose velocity when landing, but i just needed more space for that and it was good. But now...

I just want the electric engines to work but it seems like they generate much less thrust now, and strangely the propellers generate a lot of lift, so it is hard to put the center of lift behind the CoM.

Hello i am a 13 year old boy and my .... flew off from eating too much gluten. My only wish is that you release 0.25 please SQUAD dont disappoint me i have nothing to live for now

My new toy. Uses FAR and the electric propeller from the firespitter mod. Those propellers consume a lot less energy in high atmosphere because they provide a lot less thrust. If it goes east, i can survive the night on batteries, if it goes west, it can keep up with the sun. So it can stay in the air forever craft file - if anybody wants to try it out

Sepratrons have some issues for their original role. If they are in a bad angle, they can fall off before separating anything, their thrust damages other parts, even if it is a little damage, it always causes lag for me.