KatzOhki
-
Posts
249 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by KatzOhki
-
-
I'm happy to report that the 8th iteration of the Vikingshelm spaceplanes made it to space last night! So that's the good news. The bad news is that there was a strong left handed torque when firing the rocket thruster in space. This effect was strong enough to overcome automatic SAS correction and caused the waste of a lot of fuel. Could this be caused by the ladder that is on one side?
The changes were to use two jets and the lvt-30 and change some fuel tanks.
-
Pa1983, you make a lot of excellent points. Personally, I don't think a system where you can loose hard fits KSP very well because the game already has a difficult learning curve. I think the individual failures of missions is enough to frustrate the player and reward them with satisfaction when they finally complete it. I don't think having to restart the tech tree would add much gameplay value other than frustration. Also, I think the ability to totally lose the game implies that you can win the game, rather than being an open ended adventure where you can do what you want in late game.
Maybe a hardcore mode could be available to satisfy players who demand more challenge. Serious consequences for loss of life and equipment (budget?).
Space is hard.
-
I tried the newer tiny orange engines, but that didn't work for me. I did only have two though.
-
I think a budget system of "You can only spend so much until you do x" would be best. For example you are allowed to use 10,000 Kerbal Bucks or something to start. You can't go over that, but even if you mess up 100 times you will still have money to build your rockets. You increase this cap as you accomplish things. I feel this would be the best system. It restricts you but makes it so you can't end up dooming yourself for failing too many times.
Yeah this is a good idea too, sort of like a maximum mission budget.
-
The problem I see, in a gameplay sense, with giving out money upfront is that a player could accept a bunch of missions to generate free cash.
-
I have to admit, the LVT-30 was not an engine I had considered
-
I can imagine the flavor text now:
"Kerbin society is curious about Minmus. Some scientists think it is made of ice, some say salt, but the prevailing theory is mint ice cream. Travel to Minmus and study the composition if the surface. Reward: 1000000 bucks. Bonus: 1500000 bucks for sample return."
I imagine it to be something like that.
-
Hmmm I guess the economic system will have to be floating point lol
-
With 0.22 currently in the works, we have seen that there are two new units of measure:
Data and Science
As I understand it (feel free to correct me), Science is the points used to unlock things in the research facility. Data is the information that is collected from running experiments and is converted into Science when either recovering or transmitting the Data (transmitting nets you less Science).
Parts have always had a "cost" listed in the VAB/SPH, but nothing really happens from this. The new units have got everyone curious about how this cost works (again, probably) so here are my thoughts on how the exchange of money might occur in KSP:
Data and Science will probably stay the same (or similar) to what has been shown to be in the 0.22 update. Mission Control (a currently unused building) will probably "commision" certain objectives to go and do things, ie: "collect materials sample form Mun surface." Completing a mission successfully will net you a certain Money reward, which you can use to build more rockets. You will, of course, collect Science and Data as a consequence of missions like this as well. A secondary method for collecting the Money might also be that any Science points gathered also reward the player with Money.
Well, these are my ideas. What do you guys think?
I think it would be cool if they scaled the money up by maybe 1000 times so you can say your rockets cost in the millions (Kerbal Space Bucks?).
-
Seems like the overall suggestion is to go with two jet engines and to do some weight reduction. Thanks guys ill work on that.
Also, saw my thread got moved. Sorry about that
-
Hey Octagon, that looks pretty good. Can I ask what the SAS and ASAS modules are for? Also, what orbit did you get it to?
-
Hey guys, so I've got a SSTO design and it almost works. Actually I did get it into orbit once, but the problem is that I can just barely reach a maybe 75x75 orbit. I want to be able to reach a higher orbit so I can dock at some of my stations. I have a lower one at 100x100, but I have some that are as high as 300ish orbit.
As it is the design has four intakes (a couple are clipped over eachother). I didn't want to do it that way, but it's all I could do to get it to work. I'm not sure which last design worked, but it's probably somewhere around E, F or G. Here are some pics of the variations:
And here are the craft files:
https://sites.google.com/site/katzcospace/downloads
Any help is appreciated
-
Wow katateochi, I think you really nailed it! Pretty much perfect. Btw, I watched your vid, cool to see that Kerbals are Sennheiser fans too.
I gave it my own shot. It more or less worked, but with a few problems. Since I only had the 1 man lander can, the delta-V was way too high (predictably) so the aim had to be pretty perfect. With my landing location (-0.68,110.58), I had to get the craft between 5-10 degree East towards 90 degree heading. I forgot the moon is not a perfect sphere heheh. Here some pics:
Reentered the atmosphere going faster than 4km/s, landed about 26 km from KSC!
-
I've just had a go with a small test design, and whilst it works and got me back to Kerbin safely after a single press of the staging button to launch it, it showed me a couple of things.
Sitting at the mid point of the Mun surface, so that Kerbin is directly overhead needs a lot of DeltaV to get the periapsis down to a level where you get captured. Having a launch site east of that position requires a lot less DeltaV, but you will need to fine tune it, as it's possible to have too much. An attempt facing approximately 45 degrees retrograde had too much, and that used a FL-T200 tank and three of the small Rockomax engines - two radially mounted and one of the new in line ones. The peri came down to the surface at Kerbin, but kept going and came out the other side, way too high for a capture! For a second attempt from the same spot, I used a FL-T100 tank and just 2 of the radially mounted baby Rockomax engines, and it worked a treat. Both power designs were attached to a one man lander can fitted with two radially mounted parachutes, the skinny ladder, and three micro landing legs.
Thank you! Awesome information.
-
Nice illustration of the tidal lock, you should make it an animated gif. I wasn't planning on a pitch over, but having it landed in a position so that it launches directly into the correct angle. Remember, it's one-touch.
-
Seems like it should be safe to proceed with phase 1. Phase 2 is to develop a version that launches from an angled position. I feel like that would allow for more varied launch sites.
-
Hmmmmm... Let me clarify a bit. I want to launch from a landed position. Since mun is tidally locked I'm thinking I can select a position on the surface that will get me the return I want.
Edit: thank you rhomphia you ninja'd me
-
I was thinking of building a single stage all at once return from the mun ship. Sort of an emergency escape all the way back to Kerbin. My plan is that it has to work in a single button press and then land on Kerbin. My plan at the moment was to land a small SRB with a single man lander can attached with a parachute. What do you guys think? Cool idea? Even possible?
-
There are a handful of people who appreciate a tiny sized space program, including myself. At the moment I have been doing large ships that carry a lot of small probes and rovers.
-
As soon as one of the orange suits is killed, the space agency searches for a Kerbal who matches their personality and changes his name to match the name of the recently deceased astronaut.
I like this. Seems very communist. "There was no accident. No one died. See he's right here." ... "Yes I am definitely jebediah Kerman."
-
I would rather think of it as a big ice ball. Even if its not "realistic" it's more interesting that way.
-
Dunno, if you use mechjeb or not, but that souonds like you have your control pod in the wrong orientation.I had this problem for a while too...two words: roll bars.
It was a design flaw, my rovers were basically inline at the top of their lander and had to tilt over to unload them. Pretty stupid
-
So you want something for free, but is better than fraps? Camstudio is the first search result.
-
I've done hard pull ups to bleed off speed, not sure about figure 8s though. I don't think the physics are very good.
My thoughts on KSP money
in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
Posted
Pa1983, you said something that I interpreted as saying it would be possible to lose the game. By this I interpreted it to mean that you would have to start a new game (hence the unlocking tech tree all over again). I guess the tech tree could be global and not tied to any save game. Not sure I'd like that though.