Lunar Lander

[air805ronin]

This was just a thought I had this morning at work, where I can't play KSP.

All the time I spent playing Lunar Lander on the Atari and later Commodore 64 should have shown a predisposition to wanted to play something like KSP. Does anyone else have fond memories of that game?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Lander_(video_game)

Edited September 17, 2012 by air805ronin

[sal_vager]

Lunar Lander, by Atari

[air805ronin]

Sal, you shouldn't have shown me that. Still...thanks mate!

I may not block this on the firewall just yet. The benefit of being the dude administering the firewall.

[Vanamonde]

I have angry memories of never having landed the stupid thing even once.

[AncientAstronaut]

Touched it down on my first try. That's actually a really fun game!

[Czman007]

Is this supposed to be super hard? I have only landed once after 30 minutes of playing.

[air805ronin]

It has never been easy, thats for sure.

[AncientAstronaut]

Why was I able to land this? Everyone is talking about how hard it is. Wtf. To me it's just an easy version of a KSP landing.

So here's how to land, guys... Start to fly over your targeted landing site. Kill all of your velocity -- look at the -->/<-- indicators. Get that to 0 when you are exactly above your landing site. Now slowly throttle your engine up and down to kill velocity and come in for a nice smooth, soft landing, just like a helicopter. It's just like KSP, guys.

[air805ronin]

That was actually going to be my point....landing on the Mun is very similar to this game.

This is largely because, despite being a 3 dimensional game, we are generally moving along only two axis while doing most maneuvers.

Also, like most arcade games of its time Lunar Lander isn't too difficult to start but then gets much harder by making landing zones smaller and reducing your fuel levels. It gets so much harder you also have to follow perfect decent paths to make it.

[Carthaginian]

This is largely because, despite being a 3 dimensional game, we are generally moving along only two axis while doing most maneuvers.

Not true... the third dimension is there and acting upon your craft in KSP- even if you aren't aware if it or intending to maneuver along that axis. That is why so darn many Mun missions end with a post saying "Made it to Mun, but..." and the pics inside the post show a lander lying on its side! I know that I have tried 4 Mun landers myself:

1.) Tall, 1-kerbal pod: landed safely on 7th attempt

2.) Tall, 3- kerbal pod: engine bug killed attempt

3.) Short, 3-kerbal pod: proved unable to land safely

4.) Tall, 3-kerbal pod: landed safely on 15th attempt, prone to break apart due to staging equipment.

The thing that killed all of these craft (except #2) was tipping over to the side, but not always in the direction of travel. Sometimes, my craft would unintentionally pitch/yaw at the last minute OR the terrain would cause the tip. None of these forces act on Moon Lander.

All that said... This game brings back a LOT of fun childhood memories.

Remember having this one somewhere in my collection; need to find out where.

[air805ronin]

Really? I won't lie...I had a little difficulty at first landing on the mun but now I tend to touch down safely every time. I don't use RCS at all, but an engine descent. My first lander was 1 man pod, 1 fuel tank, 1 engine, and 3 legs and it landed every time and I always made it back. My currently lander has 3 other legs in addition to the main and dual fuel tanks and I have enough fuel to land on minmus, transfer to the mun, land, and get back to a parachute landing on kerbin.

My landings always stick to 2 dimensions. Killing my speed horizontally, then killing it vertically.