Jump to content

Raptor9

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,599

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Raptor9

  1. Raptor9
    I bought KSP early enough to qualify for the free-ness, but I'm still going to purchase it to support further game development and support. I bought a copy of KSP for someone last week, so I'll probably buy the DLC for them too if they can't get it themselves. Still have no clue if I'm going to build a Saturn V or a "Soviet green" R-7 rocket yet; they're going to be the first parts I mess with. I guess I'll see what parts my mouse-hand instinctively clicks on first and go from there.
  2. Raptor9
    Congrats on TOTM. Well deserved.
  3. Raptor9
    Is it about time for someone to throw out the "2 Weeks" stereotypical game dev ETA?
  4. Raptor9
    There are some new parts coming in the core game, but regarding the DLC parts, they're not forcing you to purchase anything. You can still use the mods.
  5. Raptor9
    To me the red portion looks like an underlay with a rocket, and the blue portion is sort of an image that has a cutout to expose the red portion. Like the blue patch is laid on top of the red patch, but missing that small bottom part, exposing the rocket engine and booster where the Kerbal body should be.
  6. Raptor9
    As soon as the first alpha spaceplane parts came out (which were horrible compared to what we have now, plus the pre-v0.90 soup-o-sphere), the first thing I tried to do was build an SSTO. And I sucked, I gave up, tried again months later when I got the bug, and gave up again. When Porkjet's spaceplane parts got added in v0.25, they were too nice not to try again, soupy atmosphere be darned. I still couldn't pull it off, so I decided to start at the basics with simple designs like the X-1, X-2, X-3, just trying swept wings, delta wings, different engine combos, and so on and so forth, to learn different design and airfoil layouts. Not exactly true to real-life airfoil physics, sure; but at least seeing how they worked in KSP. Making SSTO spaceplanes is still my weakest skill, and the only "really good" ones are the SR-21 'Phoenix' models. It's intentional. Mainly for when a bunch of craft are in one place, like an interplanetary expedition or an orbiting space station. I have a decent gaming computer, but it's 5 years old and I'm due for an upgrade.
  7. Raptor9
    Nothing in this statement is true, I was simply providing counterpoints to your argument. If you felt I was being hostile, that is unfortunate; I was not. I was simply disagreeing with you and debating your views with my own. I don't understand why a debate has to devolve into a personal attack.
  8. Raptor9
    It was never separate from the stock game. The Asteroid Redirect Mission update included new features and new parts to the game, like every other update that proceeded it, and every update that came after that wasn't limited to bugfixes. Just like the v0.24 "First Contract" update included the new Mission Control building functions, new parts, and contracts; and v0.25 "Economic Boom" update added the admin building, expanded career system, and new spaceplane parts. By that same definition, the official release of the product as v1.0 was also a DLC. The point is, as @AVaughan & @Mako mentioned a few posts above, new content that is available for purchase after the game has been sold as "officially released" to fund continued development is one thing. Any content that is added to a half-finished game while that game is still in development, but available to players that purchased into early access, is not the same. If you start telling people on the forums (that weren't around for the early days of KSP) that @SQUAD previously gave away DLC's for free, but are now charging for this one, is disingenuous at best, and at worst is misinformation that creates baseless resentment towards Squad.
  9. Raptor9
    That was another update (v0.23.5) to the core game while it was still in Alpha stages of development, long before it was even fully-released in v1.0. You're comparing apples and oranges.
  10. Raptor9
    Hi @Marcin_maruda, welcome to the forums. Regarding which order to use the vehicles, it may depend on what you consider realistic progress. Unfortunately, my designs don't take into account the tech tree progression of science and career modes, so if you do use my craft, you will have to suffer through some early career grind. In the Categorized Bulk Download section of the OP, I've linked various KerbalX hangers based on Design Reference Architectures, or DRA's. Most DRA's are analogous to real-life mission architectures that have been performed in real-life or proposed in concept form. For example, the Mun DRA 1.0 includes craft that are analogues to the Apollo moon missions in the 60's and 70's, whereas the Mun DRA 2.0 craft are analogous to the proposed lunar components of the cancelled Constellation program. Duna DRA 1.0 was based on a proposed Mars mission study from 1968, Duna DRA 2.0 was based on the Mars component of the Constellation program, etc. Hopefully these should give you some clues as to what real-life timelines these mission architectures were meant to emulate. Further, in each craft download spoiler drop-down slot, right below the KerbalX link, the Real-life Influence of said design is listed; which can also allow you to reference when that design was used or proposed. _______________________________________ I want to take this opportunity to point out to anybody looking to use my designs after the 1.4 update, that any and all of my craft are subject to either moderate revision or complete redesign. Besides the fact that we will be getting new parts, a lot of existing parts like fuel tanks and such are getting a stats re-balance, which may render some craft obsolete.
  11. Raptor9
    I'm not going to argue semantics with you. My point wasn't to debate the value of the game. Just that when someone says "expensive", they may be referring to their ability to afford it, regardless of what anybody else considers the definition of that word.
  12. Raptor9
    But a homeless bum may not be able to afford KSP, whereas Elon Musk obviously could. My point is, it doesn't matter how "relatively priced" a product is within it's market, if the price itself is still out-of-budget for some people.
  13. Raptor9
    We should always remember that depending on a person's income or what financial commitments they have in life (like families), "expensive" is a really subjective term. However, you could look at it this way: at full price of $40, you could compare it to the price of two DVD's. And I guarantee you will get way more entertainment over time than watching two movies, even if you were to re-watch them with director's commentary, deleted scenes, extra content, etc. And if you get everything on Blu-ray, the ratio is even more in KSP's favor.
  14. Raptor9
    It might not be a simple question at all. Perhaps they haven't decided that yet. Personally, if I was planning to invest in more development time (which takes money) of porting a PC DLC to a console, there are a couple of things I would want to check off my list to ensure it's worth my while from a business perspective. 1) Ensure the KSP console version's bugfixes are prioritized and resolved. Why would console players buy a DLC for a game that has significant gameplay-hindering bugs? (Disclaimer: I don't have the console version, but from reading the forums I can ascertain that there are a number of console players that are having a "buggy" KSP experience, not to mention that Squad is working on at least one patch; who knows if there will need to be more in the future?) 2) See what kind of money the DLC makes on the PC side. What if it tanks? (though I doubt it ) If the DLC doesn't prove to be a worthwhile investment for PC's, I wouldn't expect them to put forth more money for a failed investment. Squad is still an "Indie developer". This is all speculation on my part, but I'm just pointing out that game developers generally don't announce major decisions to the public until they're already committed to a course of action, and the course of action is far enough along that it seems unlikely to change. So maybe they will release it on DLC, but I'm sure there are a few requirements that have to be met before they decide one way or another.
  15. Raptor9
    @Thorn_Ike Further, the C7 130 'Shrike' is listed as a utility/survey aircraft. It was part of a series of straight-winged, un-glamorous aircraft designed to support science and utility missions around Kerbin, not dogfight or carry weapons. Granted, the airframe layout is obviously an analogue to the real-life A-10, but that is where the likeness stops. The only "object" it was meant to drop was perhaps small, parachute-equipped science probes onto mountainsides or other terrain that would be difficult to land a plane on. @ExplorerKlatt, the A-10 is actually quite maneuverable when lightly loaded, but yeah, it doesn't have enough thrust to keep it's [much lower] speed up during maneuvers. Not to mention any substantial loadout of weapons and ammo would impair it's maneuverability (like any aircraft). EDIT: One thing I forgot to mention, KSP parts are not designed for war, or for modeling complex redundant systems for handling combat damage. This is what makes the real-life A-10 so durable, whereas an A-10 analogue in KSP composed of stock parts might as well be manufactured with corrugated cardboard.
  16. Raptor9
    @Gilbershaft, your welcome and glad your finding inspiration from them. I will admit, there are times when I feel burned out from the constant designing, testing, tweaking, re-testing cycle; but then I'll watch some Twitch streamers playing KSP and see some of their creations and how much fun they're having. This in turn inspires me to dive right back into the VAB/SPH and start hammering away at my own engineering problems. Since KSP is a game that is fueled by creation and limited only by imagination, having that inspiration feedback loop is the best resource to keep the community going.
  17. Raptor9
    The very definition of concise...lol
  18. Raptor9
    Not particularly. Each mining site has three IV-1B ISRU rigs and three HLV-5B fuel transports assigned to them. When the fuel transports are filled, I fly one up to the orbital depot and back down, and repeat with the other two. Then I restart the ISRU rigs to start filling them again. The three mining rig/transport setup is just to limit part count within physics range. There's no one place to download them all, unless someone has taken the time to screen capture them all. They'll all be changing after the 1.4 update anyway.
  19. Raptor9
    It could take the place of the long-lost Magic Boulder.
  20. Raptor9
    @alexilahio, I really have no idea what's causing the issues. All you need to do is launch and keep hitting spacebar at the appropriate times. I do recommend reducing the throttle to keep the G meter no higher than 2 G's. You can see the 'Titan 3P' launch at the start of Part 2 of my CisMunar Propellant Economy tutorial vid (link in my signature). It's launched like any other rocket. In the video you'll see me manually eject the fairing at 50km altitude, but you don't have to, nor does that affect the staging. Are you sure you're launching without MechJeb? It sounds like you're still using it.
  21. Raptor9
    @alexilahio, I just did a test launch and everything performed as intended. I don't use MechJeb, so I can't help you on that front. Nor can I rule out that mod affecting any behavior since I'm unfamiliar with the inner mechanics of it. Unless you messed with the staging, you shouldn't have to activate any engines manually. You may just be misunderstanding how the staging was set up. Staging 1: Launches rocket Staging 2: Jettisons boosters after they're spent Staging 3: Separates core liquid fuel booster from upper stage Staging 4: Activates upper stage engines Staging 5: Jettisons fairing Staging 6: Separates probe from upper stage Staging 7: Activates probe engine If it's doing anything besides this, you may have inadvertently changed something in the staging, so I would re-download the craft file. If you're still having issues, try it in a vanilla install of KSP to rule out any mods affecting craft behavior.
  22. Raptor9
    I'm afraid that wouldn't be a very efficient use of time, for a number of reasons. First, the majority of these rockets spend most of their time in the atmosphere. The delta-V is constantly shifting from atmospheric Isp calculations to vacuum Isp calculations as you climb through the thinner atmospheric layers to space. Even if I could calculate this down to an accurate value, any given player would undoubtedly use a different ascent trajectory, pretty much making my calculation irrelevant. Second, a rocket's dV calculation is dependent on how much payload mass is being sent to orbit. For this reason I've posted Payload Ratings. So a rocket with a 15 ton payload rating to low Kerbin orbit means that I've launched a test payload mass of 15 tons to a 200x200 km orbit (the apparent altitude delineation between LKO and MKO). This gives a much more useful indication on whether a given rocket configuration is adequate for a given payload mass. Third (and this is just a temporary situation), the 1.4 update is going to rebalance some performance stats anyway.
  23. Raptor9
    I've had that song stuck in my head ALL DAY at work! Curse you @Cupcake...! "I wanna girl with a short skirt and a looooooonnnngggggg jacket..."
  24. Raptor9
    Is @septemberWaves part of a larger re-branding? Speaking of names, suggestions might be dependent on whether you want to adhere to a specific naming convention. As an example, my EV (Exploration Vehicle) series follows boat/ship types as reminiscent of old sailing ships centuries ago. I just realized I'm going to have to possibly reshuffle some of my craft to make room for the Gemini-inspired two-Kerbal command pod.
  25. Raptor9
    ...she's not denying it...
×
×
  • Create New...