Jump to content

Boiler1

Members
  • Posts

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Boiler1

  1. I just want to say how much I like this mod. All of the lander/rovers I have been building lately incorporate parts from this mod. I cannot thank you enough for making it.
  2. Life support opens up a lot of questions. Do you implement it like TAC-LS and separate water, air, food? Do you implement it like USI-LS and only have one resource, supplies? Also, I think it is important to be able to turn it off for new players. I personally like that it is handled currently by mods. This way I get to choose how I want it handled in my game. The downside is if the developer gets tired of supporting their mod.
  3. This is an opinion thread. It just happens some opinions don't agree with yours.
  4. I don't see a need for clouds. They would just impede my view of my craft during ascent and decent.
  5. I want the firespitter mod for a different reason. I like the fuel switch function that allows fuel tanks to be switched between different fuels or even to structural parts with no fuel at all.
  6. I have been playing with several mods that have 2.5m and 3.75m NERV engines. The 2.5m is 4 times the mass, cost, and thrust at the 1.25m version. This works very well, the biggest advantage is that the 2.5m engine can be placed in an engine fairing a 2.5m stack. This makes for a much cleaner launch vehicle.
  7. I use to complain about part balance, years ago. Now I just edit the cfg files to set the parts stats where I want them. There are reasons why the parts are set the way they are. I like that if I don't agree with them that I can easily change them.
  8. One suggestion for Squad, is to make a Squad supported mod that contains old parts. This way they can remove parts, but give them back to people that really want them.
  9. I have been using Roverdude's mod "USI Survivability Pack" which includes airbags and floaties. The more I use them, the more I come to the conclusion that these parts should be included in a stock KSP install. Airbags have been used in several Mars landers. Floaties have been used in lots of craft that land in the water when they return to earth. These are parts that provide a different option to landing gear and an accessory to parachutes.
  10. Glaran, thanks for posting pictures of your missions. I second your comments. I find that driving the Karibou is more enjoyable than any other rover I have made. It is fast. It can take some air, and absorb it on landing. It truly fits the 2.5m form factor, and is easy to fit in cargo bays or fairings.
  11. RoverDude, I know you are working on an update to FTT and I would like to make a few suggestions to think about. Mounting points to use the retractable wheels from the Karibou. Have the UKS MkIII modules match in size with the Honeybadger modules. Don't care which changes. Dockable Kontainers integrated into the Starlifter. On large craft the docking ports do not provide a solid connection for heavy objects. It would be great if a fix for this could be integrated into the Starlifter. Just suggestions, these are your mods, but I can see from previous changes, you listen to the community. Thank you for listening!
  12. RoverDude, I was curious why the Karibou download is not listed under Umbra Space Industries? Also, thank you for the retractable wheels in this mod.
  13. RoverDude, I like having the different choices for color. Can you also consider white? Advantage is that lots of parts come in white and it makes it look more natural when mixing this mod with parts from other mods.
  14. Roverdude, I really like the flatbed sections. Would it be possible to make a section that ramped from the flatbed to ground level? Maybe side skirts that fold out into a ramp similar to how you made the cargo bay?
  15. I recently started using this mod and I really like the simple concept. I did notice that the 2.5m and 3.75m supply containers have the same connection strength as the 1.5m part. Is this by design?
  16. I am no expert on what a body can take and being this is just a video game. I am have no opinion as to what it should or should not be. My issue is with the variability of the crash tolerance with the different crew carrying modules. The Mk2 cockpit has a crash tolerance of 45m/s, while the Mk2 crew cabin only has a crash tolerance of 6m/s. Why would they be any different?
  17. When I totally blow my spaceplane landing I have installed parachutes to drop the craft at 10m/s. The problem is the Mk2 crew cabin cannot handle the 10m/s impact even in water landings. Why does the Mk2 crew cabin have such a low crash tolerance compared to all the rest of the Mk2 parts?
  18. Personally, I do not like career mode as it is right now. There I said it. I feel better now. Don't take offense from this. I love the game. I do like how science points are collected from sensors using electricity. This finally gives electrical power an important use. I do think you need more sensors though. I don't like the biome scheme. This is a game about space. You should be rewarded more for achieving orbit and orbiting the planet than taking small jumps to the 3 or 4 biomes that are within sight of the Launchpad. Speaking of the launchpad, it irritates me that a lot of science points can be collected sitting on the launch pad. I would also like to see the docking port and docking port jr. moved to a lower level of technology. I think docking, and other complex maneuvers should reward science points. In sandbox mode there are several milestones that people naturally try to achieve. Getting to orbit, orbiting the Mun, landing on the Mun, orbiting Duna, landing on Duna, ect.... In career mode these milestones should be rewarded more than where you land when you return to Kerbin.
  19. If you don't want to do the math add a small extra engine or two and then toggle them on/off with a 0-9 number key.
×
×
  • Create New...