PDCWolf

Los requerimientos de dV son menores si te referis a eso, ahora hacen falta como 3500~ m/s de dV para llegar al espacio. En cuanto al resto:

En las ultimas actualizaciones se agregaron cosas como un modelo aerodinámico correcto y calientamiento atmosférico por reentrada (o simplemente ir muy rápido). Para poder enviar cohetes al espacio ahora hay que hacer un "gravity turn" hecho y derecho, y para reentrar hace falta una trayectoria correcta o escudos térmicos.

"How do you deal with interplanetary aerocaptures" I don't. I use gravity assists or burns. The biggest problems are moon-less bodies or very small bodies, which obviously require bigger efforts. I sent an Ion based satellite to the Sarnus (OPM) system and visited all moons with about 2000 m/s dV or less, contrary to the 17km/s dV that the calculator gave me for my braking burn alone.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/107328-Far-is-hard Just a reminder that this was written somewhere between 0.25 and 0.90

They are, as developers, facing the consequences of procrastination and a very bad development cycle. They now have to face (post-release) all the problems they were postponing, all those placeholders they left in the game for later. And the players are facing the consequences they -probably- deserve for not calling squad out on their mistakes on time and being hopeful they would fix stuff in time just because they threw money at them. Welcome to the world. Hey, at least they are fixing it now, too bad you spent all those years designing stuff in a placeholder when you knew it actually was a placeholder, or was it you didn't pay attention to the multiple times they said so? protip: they are now trying to "hotfix" everything they left undone (aero, reentry heat, sounds, the messy UI, etc).

"Using mechjeb feels like it's using a cheat and restrains you to building crafts instead of using your skills to pilot your own ships. So does anyone have this feeling and is the autopilot better than your own piloting skills" Please don't do this.

Very good mod, I'm giving you some rep and 5 stars, we do need more mods like these. I suck at coding more than anyone, but one of the resource mods (OKS was it?) has this kind of resource consumption for active/proto vessels. Specifically there was a small logistic module that simulated a supply run from A to B automatically (it pretty much teleported) and used the resources in it to do so, I'd look there.

Hey now, I'm not the one trying to make stuff works like it does on earth (gravity, atmosphere, etc), I'm just saying that that's what squad is trying to do, so expect it to work as it does.

For people that base difficulty around one-pass interplanetary aerocaptures: You are complaining that something proposed multiple times but shrugged off due to difficulty is not possible in the game. Basing difficulty around something that should be near impossible is something rather dumb to do. Reentry heat is useless at its actual -non existant- difficulty, even when bumped to 120%. It's your fault, you want to slow down from 11km/s to 2km/s in a single pass with a 100 ton ship.

So, you are suggesting getting the behavior back to something you yourself imply is unintuitive and unrealistic just for gameplay convenience?. I'm against. Those configurations are working "as expected", and that's better for new players, like a dart going nose first which is expected, but you suggest a dart being able to fly tail first "for gameplay convenience". Those landers have a lot of design issues too, and you don't even need a lander for Kerbin either but I guess you want to keep some funds for recovery, in which case that's a challenge you should face: "I want to bring a lot of rocket back, it's aerodynamic properties are bad and make for a dangerous reentry and landing process" "I know, better change the drag system to accomodate for my mistakes instead of facing a challenge".

Please let's not criticize wobble, remember it's there to be fun and Kerbal. Now, as a matter of fact, wobble is fixable (so are many other issues), fully, but it has been said by squad many times that they want to keep it for the supposed challenge, fun and kerbalness it gives. Just download Kerbal Joint Reinforcement and, to help your many mod issues, just pretend it's one of those "stock fixes" (it actually is).

I always play stock only in fresh installs until my BS meter reaches a high level, then I install mods mostly to add variety to the game and stuff that I think the game needs. Most of the time I also do my own fixes (like with the -outdated- mod in my signature). TL;DR The normal game feels empty and too simple/easy to me, even with the gimping limitations it has.

•Radiators •3.75m station parts (like the hitchhiker but that doesn't look like the inside of a passenger plane) •3.75m spaceship based cockpit (think a more IXS based, centered, front facing cockpit. Like what the cupola is now.) •MK3 drone part •1.25m Cupola, without the control panel in the middle of the view •Smaller and less OP airbrakes •5-way rcs •Tweakables for existing tanks to hold whatever I want them to hold •Propellers, turboprops, turbofans •Pontoons for hydro-whatevers •Smaller and bigger electricity related parts •Struts you can place while on EVA •More landing leg variations (aerodynamic ones too) •More engines, less homogenized, more specialized •1.875m parts •More probe shapes and sizes •Cylindrical cargo bays (for rockets instead of planes) •More nosecone variation (or a procedural one based on the fairing technology) •0.625m solid boosters and plane related parts •Something to extend the amount of fuel a SRB has (talked about long ago) •More antennas even if they are just visual •3.75m docking ports •Cargo ramps •MORE ADAPTERS BETWEEN DIFFERENT SIZES •Etc All doable, most already done too. None of them seem to go outside the scope of the game except for the non-jet-related plane parts. INB4 HURR DURR PART CLUTTER/RAM, give us a working x64 version for that

Remember that by using filters you are pretty much killing your airflow (there's a big hit on cfm when using them) so they are not the optimal solution. They also let some dust in sooner or later so they are not the definite solution either. My gaming rig has filters on all intakes and I still have to clean it every month or so.

With a friend we own a repair shop (we do pcs, smartphones, peripherals, tablets, laptops, etc) and believe me, most DO get dust inside of them. We haven't gotten any waterproof device yet, not even splashproof so I can't tell you about those, but dust gets everywhere.

I investigated a bit, it seems my idea is not new but hasn't been successfully put to test either. It seems the bane is passive heat buildup, which can't be bleed off and it requires additional cooling setup to actually cool the case (and in consequence the air inside it). Submersion (on non conductive liquid obviously) on the other hand has been proved multiple times and is actually used on many applications. Finally, the cheapest solution is obviously air, you can just filter the fans externally and create a case with positive air pressure, meaning every crack and hole in the case that is not related to a fan (which are filtered) blows air outwards, so no external air gets in.

You can create an airtight case and place the water-cooling radiator outside of the airtight part. Most high end cases come with holes for the hoses (is that the right word?) to pass through. If you are really afraid of leaks, you can always use non-conducting liquid as coolant (although that's expensive), if leaks happen, the only thing you have to worry about is your stuff not getting cooled and the mess in your desk, but it'll give you wayyyy more than enough time to shut down your pc and disconnect it to clean and repair/replace.

Is it possible? yes Has it been done? Yes, both in RO and in my stock patch (the one in my signature) for a more stock friendly version Should it be done in stock? definitely. the OP reaction wheels need to disappear.

Try making the cubic octogonal strut physics aware and it turns into useless trash. It's too small and weak to hold anything and since the joint is still strong, it just flexes wayyy too much and makes it bounce all over the place until obviously something explodes.

Please guys, stop saying that fallacy that physicsless parts boost performance. They don't. They need to be loaded differently and on crash and timewarp they come in and out of the simulation causing hiccups or slowdowns.

If you watch a soccer match from a single team's perspective, that's fanaticism and wanting your team to win for no reason other than it is the one you like. That's the same as going "squad is right with whatever they do" or "it has to be full blown realistic". Does the game need bigger planets? -They would help to better transmit the message of scale and vastness of space and the worlds themselves. -They won't break the laws of physics as we know them. -They'd better reflect the real world and what people actually expects. -They will obviously increase the from-launch-to-orbit time. -They'd reduce performance, although not drastically, most people seem to be able to play with RSS and the rest of their mod soups pretty well. And that's a hack, not made with the game's code itself -The rest of the downsides they come with, are gameplay downsides that can be easily solved with just scaling the parts up a bit. My opinion? The game needs bigger planets. Does the game needs realistic fuel mixtures? -They would meaningfully increase engine variance, something that the game lacks a lot. -They would also increase the learning curve although not by much if the mechanics are correctly explained to new players. -We would probably see a bigger part variance too, or at least tweakables as they were originally planed (something like modular fuel tanks) They don't exist in the game probably for simplicity's sake. They would certainly add a challenge to new players but they come with benefits too (more engines to choose from). In my opinion realistic fuels are not needed in the game, and they should remain a mod, or at least a difficulty setting. Things like reentry heat, life support, aerodynamics and such SHOULD be a no brainer, unless the game doesn't really want to depict the perils and complexity of space travels and wants to be another arcadey space game which is definitely not what gave it its fame.

I'd probably walk away. Lessening the damage also lessens (with a good lawyer lol) the punishment on whoever is the real culprit. Same goes for that terrorist stuff. If I help them, I killed someone, If I don't, terrorist killed 4 people.

It all boils down to number of possible combinations with the string length and the amount of chars to test on each position (think 27 lowercase letters + 27 uppercase letters + 10 numbers + special chars for the comma). Obviously when choosing their password, most people assume it has to be a single word and they try to keep it as short as possible (so that's easy to remember for them). Top combinations are names, name+date, name+some id or telephone, telephone, id and those are the first options always tried by bruteforcers. I don't know what does the test base the cracking speeds on, but my pc can test words at about 51k words per second, my notebook only manages 1.3k.

No. They cause larger hiccups on vessel load and crashing than their physics aware counterparts. They also lag more under timewarp. NOTE: it would be a good idea and has been suggested a million times already. Physicsless property could be a toggle for things like permanent bases and such as to not lag when they get bigger and bigger (and the stupid landing leg/entire thing wobble becomes more apparent).

ISPs down for the new atmo, then homogenize them again. The rest of parts will probably see price balance, which will obviously still be broken unless they put another modder in for it.