Jump to content

GoldForest

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,585

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by GoldForest

  1. GoldForest
    What KSP Version are you on, and what is your log saying?
  2. GoldForest
    I'm not sorry.
  3. GoldForest
    What version of the game are you running? Does your log file have any errors in it?
  4. GoldForest
    Why did the Russians use double fairings on the N1 anyway? I mean, they encaused BLOK G and D inside a fairing, then encased it again in the outer fairing. It's just taking up weight in my opinion. They could have done the Atlas V Centaur fairing technique. Just transfer the weight of the LOK to the fairings with some mount.
  5. GoldForest
    Well, they ran 27 engines yes, but in reality they flew three separate rockets to do so. The 9 engines were known to work well together, and having them on 3 separate rockets helped matters.
  6. GoldForest
    Hey, it's hard getting 30 engines to work together. I just hope SpaceX can get 31 engines to work together on their Super Heavy.
  7. GoldForest
    Yeah... thanks, but nah. I'm good. Honestly could could give us the part and put it in a separate folder calling it, "Use at your own risk." I guess I'll just manually place the NK-33's on the current plate and just have the manually placed engines running from inside the cluster.
  8. GoldForest
    Yeah... I have no coding skills whatsoever...
  9. GoldForest
    True, hmmm... Well, I'm running 30 Nk-33's and the game is holding fine. Of course, I do have the audio reduced. 7% master volume, 5% for everything else. Kind of sounds like the videos of the N1 I've seen. Game isn't lagging either. Well, the only other options I can think of to deal with the supposed audio issue is to either: 1) Reduce the audio on the Nk-33 from the start so it isn't ear r*pingly bad 2) Create a plugin that reduces the audio levels based on the number of engines you have on a craft. Third possible option, leave some empty spots in the Libra engine cluster for us to fill in with Nk-33's manually. 2 on each side. That would give us 9 engines in total. The cluster + 8 engines.
  10. GoldForest
    Hmmm. Give us two versions of the NK-15. A regular version and a "Silent" version. No sound.
  11. GoldForest
    TCA works on thrust, not gimbal. And how is it not feasible? People build 50 engine crafts all the time. Hmmm. What about giving the part multiple thrust transform modules? Four groups of them, for each side of the part?
  12. GoldForest
    Awesome. Also, could we get the Libra Size 7.5 Rocket Engine Cluster without the engines so we can manually place all the engines? I use TCA, and I would like to make a hovering stage 1 of the N1, hard to do when all the engines are locked to one throttle.
  13. GoldForest
    @Beale The Github download for the Spacecraft isn't updated to version 0.23. It's still on 0.22.2. Doesn't look like 0.23 is even on Github.
  14. GoldForest
    Well, very wip image obviously. It would look more like a blue and yellow jool today I would figure.
  15. GoldForest
    Well... that is a problem. @Beale
  16. GoldForest
    The BLOK-D is separated into 2 parts iirc. The fuel tank and the engine. There's nothing wrong with your install.
  17. GoldForest
    Well, GP2 and GP3, as far as i know, are the only 2 planets that are supposed to be in KSP 1, along with their moons. KSP 2 could just ad those 2, and their moons, and be done with it.
  18. GoldForest
    I did not know this. Thanks.
  19. GoldForest
    GP2 is still totally possible in KSP 1. In fact, I feel as if they are getting the system ready to introduce GP2. All these graphics updates to the planets. It might just be that, a graphics update, or it could be that they are bringing all the planets into their new art style that they decided GP2 would have. We'll have to wait and see.
  20. GoldForest
    As @Nate Simpson has said, there will be no new planets in the Kerbol system. The Kerbol system is unchanged except for a few face lifts here and there. The only new planet I can see being added is Gas Planet 2, or GP2. Which is/was planned to be... well, the second gas planet. Eeloo would have moved from being the outer planet to being the inner most moon of GP2.
  21. GoldForest
    @CobaltWolf The E-1 engine looks a little bare when used with the Titan and it's a little big for the Saturn IB engine mount. Any chance we could get a Titan style engine mount and a four point mount for the Saturn IB? Not sure How many the Saturn IB was supposed to have, can't really find any information other than, "They decided to go with the H-1 instead." Four seems to work out good. Giving the Saturn IB with no payload a TWR at liftoff of 2.07. Maybe a multi-node engine mount like the LDC 1st stage engine mount?
  22. GoldForest
    There were several designs submitted as seen in the links I provided. There is no "original plan" per say.
  23. GoldForest
    I don't see why having the parts being oriented like their irl parts is so important. Like I said before, you should leave it to the player to correctly orient the parts. Leave them as they appeared in the pre-reorientation update. And this is KSP. There is no 'right' way to orient the rocket parts. If I want them oriented the irl way, let me do that on my own. Don't just force it on me. What if I wanted it oriented the way they were before the update? Now you've created more work for me. What if I wanted them oriented upside down? Or side ways? Don't base the parts off irl for their orientation. Let the player decide. You forcing this update is pointless. You didn't want to click one button, so now you're forcing me to press one button. That might not have been your intention, but that's how the update made me feel. I get this is your mod and you can do whatever you want with it. My ranting won't change that. But I feel as if this update was unnecessary and not need. This is a major change that messes with people's builds and their perspective. And how many people honestly build historical orientated builds? I feel most of the time they just slap the parts together and as long as they work, they don't care about part orientation. Sorry for the rant. I don't like it when something I like is changed and it messes with how I do things. I'm a creature of habit. Also, from what I can gather, the Atlas parts are still not irl oriented. Irl Atlas was oriented 45 degrees when with Mercury on top. At least, that's how I see it in all the pictures I'm looking at.
  24. GoldForest
    Honestly I feel the old orientation is better. And how does the rocket think its one way when the pod or probe tells the nav ball what orientation it is in? I've never had that problem you're mentioning. The navball has always told me the correct orientation, the orientation of the pod and not the rocket.
  25. GoldForest
    So you did change the belly. I honestly prefer the old orientation like I said. Now all the parts feel unnatural. And how were the parts wrong?
×
×
  • Create New...