Wahgineer

How do you build something that big without insane lag?

So wait: will this be on a news broadcast?

Any news tiberion?

Doc:Quick Marty, to the Delorean Mark IV! We must bring these people up to date with KSP Version 2.98! Marty: But Doc, wouldn't the space time continuum be destroyed? Doc: Why do you say that? Marty: they haven't been updated to 0.23 yet! Doc: don't you mean 0.17? Jeb: This is IMPOSSIBRU!!

Idea for first mission: stick a kerbal plushy of jeb into the nose cone/capsule and have him take a 'selfy' in space.

Like a nerfed warp drive. Ex: Exotic matter: requires massive energy/rare materials to be produced, making it 'expensive'. Massive energy requirement: would make an ion drive look like an LED in comparison. Picky situation: warp drives don't agree with being deep in a planets'/moons'/stars' gravity well. If you decide to go against this, the engine will either explode or not work. A hop, skip and a jump: can only go so far on an electric charge. No brakes: warp drive goes until it runs out of fuel/charge or reaches the end of specified jump distance. Ship doesn't except input while warping. More mass=MOAR BOOSTERS:If the ship has too much mass, you either need to upgrade the warp drive or add another one. IMHO, this makes the warp drive a much more balanced option for interstellar travel.

agreed. So KSK, what is next on the agenda for KIS and Rockomax?

Bronies/MLP If you're a 7 year old girl watching MLP, I'm perfectly fine with that. If you're a 17 year old guy who is obsessed with it, then prepare for me to get very politically incorrect and very blunt very fast (like I will now). I don't care about being intolerant or offensive: the fact that a 17 year old boy likes this show is just weird. It is also annoying how said 17 year old boy is willing to defend his bronie-ness to the death. By doing so, the only point he is proving is that of the non-bronies/haters (a.k.a: sane people): that he is a weird immature creep. Also, not everything needs to have ponies in it. Examples: Back to the future=awesome. Buck to the future=Nooo! *headdesk Dr. Who=cool. Dr.hooves=stupid KSP=insanely awesome. Pony SP= Instant annihilation by Jeb.

Yes! Death to MLP! We must put an end to this insane, immature madness! If I need to learn about love and tolerance, I'll read an old fairy tale or something. In any case: NUKE DE PONIES!

When I heard Sabre, I thought it would be something like an aerospike you tweaked yourself to except intake air and/or Oxidizer. If it was a dedicated part, then what would be the point of tweaking air intake? I think the game would be fine if a sabre was an intake on a rocket tank attached to an aerospike tweaked to accept intake air/oxidizer.

"pink skinned aliens of science fiction." Boy will they be surprised! Seriously, though, this needs to be published as a novel/saga! Imagining this as a movie is just as easy, too.

the point of having set tank sizes is to challenge you. If everything is procedural you can basically just go: "need a hlv? herpaderpA i'll just make a 7.5 meter tank and stick 8 mainsails on the bottom!". With set part sizes, you actually have to think about the size and structural stability of your rocket. For example, if I have to build a 7.5 meter wide rocket with 8 mainsails on the bottom, maybe I should split they payload up instead or try and make it smaller. If its something like wings and fairings, which are an absolute pain when you just use a set part, it is all right for them to be procedural. Procedural tanks, engines, etc, would make the game too easy. And also, your rant against realism basically mirrored mine: I said that ksp doesn't have n-body physics, that everything is 1/10th the size, and that our astronauts are little green men.

That is the real world, where there is n-body physics, planets 10-times as large as the ones in KSP, and tall, pink fleshed humans. This is a game where n-body physics is of no concern, planets are 1/10th the size, the dominant intelligent race is green humanoids called Kerbals, and rockets are constructed by clicking and dragging massive parts and attaching them to each other. To replace all of the parts in the game with procedural ones would eliminate the challenge: to do as well as you can with what you've got. While procedural wings and fairings are ok, procedural everything would make the game too easy. And if you don't like the fact that kerbals don't have realistic rocket construction standards, then don't play KSP.

My roblox username is the same as my ksp forum name. Haven't really touched it do to ksp/minecraft for some time. While the occasional good game is hard to find, I never really had a trolling/noob problem. I could fly planes OK, and was a tank with a bazooka. I did seem to make alliances unintentionally, since I always played by the rules. I was also a go to guy on how to do stuff, since I was the only one who read the instructions on how to play. I beat if I went back and really got into it, I probably could do really well.

1: those are mods a:interstellar adds new engines that use a specific fuel, not new LV-Ns 2:Krag is a mod 3: The LV-N is based off of the real life NERVA, which only ran on liquid fuel 4: adding a special fuel for the LV-Ns would be a waste of effort since nothing else would use it.

If they changed the nuke engines, then they're 100% likely to only use liquid fuel (why is that every one thinks that the nuke engines will get they're own special fuel if/when they change them?)

^agreed. Turns out I found this thread (and currently can only find this thread) by typing in 'Boat Parts'.

If it is mathematically possible, then it is technically plausible. Also: 1: its a game 2: you can nerf the drive so that it can, and I quote myself, keep you from turning a tiny 130 part ship into the TARDIS. 3: also, harve did make a warp drive that functioned like the Alcubierre drive and implied that something like it might appear in the game eventually. Also, he did describe a lot of the nerfs that would keep the warp drive from becoming OP.

I understand what you mean, but I'm talking in the stats tab on the engine part, not in flight. It would be nice to know how much fuel an engine uses at a certain throttle setting while I'm building the rocket, not flying it after the fact.

Funny how you guys condemn FTL as being unrealistic and want to use a (warning: sarcasm) TOTALLY realistic alternative. The thing is, Warp drives and stargates are nothing like each other: stargates are insta teleporters, where as FTL ships take time to get some where. EX: an ftl ship should take about 2 weeks to get to alpha centauri. Also, FTL drives can have nerfs placed on them to balance them out: high power consumption, exotic matter fuel, can only travel in jumps, no control while ship is warping, have to be most of the way out of Kerbols gravity well in order for the ship not to undergo massive unplanned annihilation, original speed is preserved when you exit warp, one drive can only push so much mass at a time, very expensive, etc. That seems a lot more balanced to me than an uber-handwavium-unobtanium stargate.

One thing I've always found annoying about the engine info tabs is that they give me all the information I need except how fast that particular engine consumes fuel. I'm not saying that we need something to show how long a stage will last on a tank of fuel; I'm suggesting something like 'LV-909 consumes X units of liquid fuel and Y units of Oxidizer per second at 100% thrust'. That way, I could say (on my own):"ok, the Skipper consumes X amount of fuel and Y amount of Oxidizer a second max, and the Jumbo 64 has X units of fuel and Y units of oxidizer, so this stage should last Z amount of seconds'. It would also be nice if it showed the consumption rate at 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% thrust.

^agreed I'm behind the OP on this one. The AoA, thrust and lift aren't the problem if it flies once it gets off the runway. The problem is (1): Lack of run up distance. Some don't seem to realize that the bigger the plane gets, the more runway it will need to get up to speed. The reason the plane flies once it leaves the runway is because the little boost it gets from falling of the edge helps it gain that tiny amount of lift it could have gotten itself if the runway was 500-1000 meters longer. (2): obstructions. Runway lights aren't meant to get in a planes way, no matter how big the plane is. Its as simple as that.

Try looking up NASA warp drive and alcubbiere drive: they are figuring out how to get it to work on paper. The main reason a warp drive would be nice in KSP is that it drastically cuts down the part count compared to a 'conventional' star ship and that it can have nerfs placed on it to keep you from turning a tiny 130 part ship into the TARDIS.

Their isn't any need for a 2.5m Orion drive. In fact, there is no point in launching it with rockets: it's designed to be launched from the ground as one piece. If you're trying to launch the full sized Orion drive with rockets, you're doing it completely wrong.

When (and if) I get my hands on blender and actually attempt to learn how to model, I might(heavy emphasis on might) try to make the Explorer shuttle. Have some ideas floating around in my head of a Shuttle II based system.