Jump to content

Corw

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    423

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Corw

    Do You Consider MechJeb Cheating?

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    On 26.12.2015. at 0:54 PM, Whovian41110 said:

    Most real rockets are flown entirely by internal guidance computers.  I am a new player of KSP and the only way I can get things in an even partially similar orbit is with MechJeb.  Would that be considered cheating?  

    Hey, can I take another shot at this? :D

     

    If this was a real life thing, the closest you would ever get to a real rocket is a paid guided tour, so you can leave out the real life arguments out of this topic.

    Yes, you are a new player, so we are were once upon a time. I bet not even a Harvester made the orbit from the first try. Don't sell yourself short. So many people before you made it without MechJeb, many of them, including yours truly, made it before the MachJeb even existed. Yes, you can insert "through snow, bare footed, uphill, both ways" joke here, but it clearly represents the fact that game can be played and learned without MechJeb, so we can take that argument out of the topic too.

    So now, I'm going to make my point why I think you should try it without MechJeb.

    For me, this is the best game I have ever played. Seriously. Despite its flaws and rough bits, it is truly the best game I have ever played. Large part of it is because it can be hard, but it can be done, we have proved that point already. It takes some effort, but because it takes effort the feeling of accomplishment when you actually pull trough, the rush you get when you actually do it is worth the effort. The thrill of making to orbit, the feelings I had looking back at Kerbin spinning slowly beneath me, Kerbin going smaller while I was going to the Mun, ... So many moments in this game that made me feel so much. And I did it with help of others, with their advices, with their tutorials, but in the end it was me who did it, every step of the way. Through all explosions and spins and all others obstacles it was me pushing trough, learning something through it all, getting better every time. And when I finally made it, it was all me, on top of the world, feeling the pride, the joy, the excitement.

    That is why I'm so much against new players using MechJeb. It is not cheating, but you are depriving yourselves of the best bits of the best game I've ever played...

    Do You Consider MechJeb Cheating?

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    6 hours ago, r4pt0r said:

    The NASA uses mechjeb argument is bad because this is a game not reallife. we dont have to rhythmically tap a key to breathe. As a game it should be different from real life.

    This. And yaaay, its one of these threads again. I don't have issues with MechJeb whatsoever. What I do have issues with is people telling new players that are learning to get to orbit/dock/go interplanetary to just use MechJeb. It completely defeats the point of the game. It would be like advising someone to use an aimbot in FPS, even if that particular FPS is singleplayer :P

    Once you've figured out what you are doing, power to you, automate whatever you like, but doing it by hand the first place makes you the better builder and mission planner to start with, because you have first hand experience what is required to make it work.

    demo or full

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    Well, I've played it when it was free only and bought it when it started with first paid version, but technically, that could have been called a demo. I also agree it is a shame that so few games have demo version these days.

    Advantages of monopropellant as primary fuel?

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Corw

    9 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

    It's rare, but it does come into play occasionally. If you have a very low DV and thrust requirement and wish to keep your lander cheap and simple, monoprop/ RCS can be a good choice.

    Best,

    -Slashy

     

    In my space program, it is actually very common. Bulk of my crafts are smallest/simplest/reliable probe designs and that mostly ends up as monoprop final stage. Few examples, satellite and Minmus biome research probe:

     

    http://imgur.com/a/cSQC2

     

    EDIT: Who in his right mind thought this reply sistem was a good idea? This is pure unworkable bullkraken.

    Haven't played in a couple years : is hard-docking possible yet?

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    12 hours ago, SomeGuy123 said:

    I would prefer a "target movement mirror" mode.  You approach a target.  You choose "target mirror".  Once you are close enough, your spacecraft control thrusters make tiny millisecond burns so you stay exactly at the same orientation in position relative to the other spacecraft, auto-correcting for phasing from orbital mechanics. 

    This would drain your RCS fuel but in real life the dV corrections would be so tiny you could do this for months.  

    You then can go into a docking mode where you can specific position changes.  The integral of acceleration is velocity, and the integral of velocity is positon.  So this would be a control scheme permitting you to control 2 integrations up.  You have a GUI that ways "you are 5 meters back, 2 meters up, 10 meters left" essentially, and you can say "move 10 meters right".  A tiny puff of gas, and you begin moving to the right, automatically at the end of the maneuver you come to a stop exactly 10 meters over.  

    Same thing for angular differences.

    I suspect, though I don't know this for certain, that the computer-assisted docking the Soyuz modules use does exactly this.  

    You wouldn't need cheat magnets because one you align all 3 rotation axes and 2 of the translation axes, the only difference between your 2 docking ports is distance on a single axis.  Your spacecraft is continuing to burn a tiny trick of RCS to keep you here.  You then just do "5 meters forward" or whatever and boom, docked.

    Your "mirror movement" already exists. It is called properly orientated docking target. If you turn your target vessel so that target docking port is perpendicular to orbit direction, you and your target will rotate in same way, so all you have to manage is your position left/right up/down. I have been using that for over 2 years. Here is a vid at relevant time

     

    https://youtu.be/nlG-N35u1KQ?t=8m36s

    What do you feel is missing from the STOCK game as far as parts goes ?

    in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion

    Posted

    6 hours ago, mattinoz said:

    Unless you can translate that into a Parts list I don't think it's going to traction.

    Yeah, I think that is the core of the problem. We have more than enough parts to make a good experience out of the game, but stock tech tree and goals keep falling short.

    I've had great expectations of Better than starting manned and SETI, but again both of them get their own weaknesses (BTSM ruins it for me with dubious design decisions like disabling actual useful tools (part offset) for fear of cheating and battery mass obsession), SETI gets a bloated tech tree...).

    I see all those parts we already have and in game context I realize I never ever really need them for anything. So I keep waiting for things I find important to show up in patch notes. No sign of them so far.

    Welcome to the new forums!

    in 2015

    Posted

    So when I click the page number is scrolls to top and then puts on the "loading" message?

    When I hit replay it scrolls all the way to the bottom of the page?

    Post editor has way too much meat between lines.

    I don't like this. :|

    Single stage rocket SSTO?

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted

    That horizontal takeoff rocket-powered plane has 1.37 TWR on the pad, and 3675m/s of fuel. Might as well launch it vertically, won't make any difference.

    That is correct. It would probably be more efficient to launch vertical. It wasn't deliberate design. Which was the point of the whole thread, actually...

    Single Stage To Orbit does not automatically mean Spaceplane.

    I know it doesn't, but in practice mostly it is. Especially for me :)

    Except you know, gravity losses and no benefit from those wings. But yeah the thread is pretty pointless.

    Seen worse threads over the years. And their duplicates. Well, I was just taken by surprise how can something just work like that out of the box without any thought or design in mind. It felt completely wrong so I was wondering if it was some kind of problem on my side or even a bug...

    Single stage rocket SSTO?

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted

    This is KSP, a game, what did you expect?

    E: I mean, seriously, you've been able to make SSTOs with ridiculous ease since at least 0.20 when I started playing.

    It wasn't easy for me, I struggled a long time till I got it right the first time. And their flight profile can be tricky. Besides, they were never really my thing, I make one or two at each patch, nothing with payload. I prefer multi stage rockets, hence my shock with this rocket only/horizontal takeoff design.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I just told you. Take a Mk1 command pod, put the Rockomax Orange tank on it, put a mainsail on it. SSTO without even trying. It's real easy to 'accidentally' build a really powerful rocket when you are in sandbox and don't have to worry about cost, but the vector is insanely expensive given it's ability. I costs over 3 times the cost of the Mammoth when accounting for specs.

    OK, consider me schooled. Marked thread as answered.

×
×
  • Create New...