DonLorenzo Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 But the pod doesn\'t cost anything, it\'s not even on the list in the excel file.1 Parachute = 4226 SRB = 27001 Decoupler = 975ZOxygen = 900Total = 4997Yes it is, it\'s the \'Command Module\' item and costs 1600. Kerbals need premium leather seats you know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zutha Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 That\'s a Command Module not Pod.... I included it Originally as the command pod, but decided it is referring to the command module (1 with RCS fuel in it) and not the pod itself as it would simply be called Command Pod otherwise.I made the assumption because it was a bit through the list and the fact it wasn\'t compulsory (automatically marked like the ZOxygen module).Guess we need some clarification on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
togfox Posted April 12, 2012 Author Share Posted April 12, 2012 Sorry for the confusion - my fault. The command module is the command pod. I guess I\'m using \'old school\' terminology and I should be using the game terminology.The Command module/pod is tech 1, costs $1600 and weighs 1 mass. It\'s a mandatory item until you unlock the condemned module (level 5) which means a craft can be piloted by remote control (assuming there is a signal).If you\'ve not factored in your command module/pod then please resubmit your craft (no penalty) before the advertised deadline. I\'ll re-release the excel spreadsheet to make this clearer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zutha Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Argh! grumble grumble... suppose i\'ll have to play KSP again when i get home... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
togfox Posted April 12, 2012 Author Share Posted April 12, 2012 I\'ve attached spreadsheet v1.1 to the OP.I corrected the tech levels so it starts at basic. The command module/pod is clarified and the cart price is now BLUE to signify I\'ve priced it differently than what is seen in-game (for balance reasons). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamini Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Yep. consider the \'burn off decoupling\' technology stolen. I\'ve thus far failed to integrate it with my rocket designs with much success thoughHonestly, I don\'t mind. It\'s more fun coming up with a new trick for reducing mass than it is being all secretive about a silly forum game.Fyi, it doesn\'t really work with liquid tanks. Just solid boosters. (Liquid tanks tend to damage everything around them when they blow up.)It\'s such fun to see what everyone comes up with. I tried the burn-off technique but couldn\'t get it right because I only started burning when one SRB would burn out. That\'d take far too long to burn it off. I see good things in the future of this campaign If a booster isn\'t already overheating, it takes roughly 20% of your booster burn length to force it to explode. You lose more fuel if you try and destroy an old module with exhaust as well as more velocity from gravity and air resistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonLorenzo Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Yeah exactly what I found. Liquid stacks are really difficult to overheat in that manner, which I found out some time ago due to the staging bug which would make the wrong engines fire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pit_muc Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 It\'s such fun to see what everyone comes up with. (......) I see good things in the future of this campaign So do I. But that\'s also a reason why I would prefer it if nobody posted solutions before the deadline is over. That way everybody has to think and try for themselves. If a working design is posted, people might use that instead of developing that brilliant idea nobody had before.Don\'t get me wrong, by all means publish all or some selected submissions, but do so after everybody had their go. Maybe togfox could even award some prize for the most ingenious/crazy/kerbal design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomad Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I was able to have my rocket have the ability to salvage the burned out booster, decoupler, and command pod. The only thing that exploded was the zoxygen which for some reason exploded =P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamini Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I was able to have my rocket have the ability to salvage the burned out booster, decoupler, and command pod. The only thing that exploded was the zoxygen which for some reason exploded =PAll Zoxygen modules are very fragile. I\'ve found that very little force is needed to blow them up from any angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zutha Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Resubmitted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tosh Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 5) craft components that are returned to the ground safely can have a % of that parts worth returned to you in dollars.What % exactly? I gotta choose which flight to submit -- 10K one with all parts returned safely, or 16.5K one with most parts lost... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamini Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 What % exactly? I gotta choose which flight to submit -- 10K one with all parts returned safely, or 16.5K one with most parts lost...It may differ depending on parts.I could see landing struts and winglets being worth full point value, while struts and boosters may be worth almost nothing. Zoxygen modules and LFT equipment, due to their fragility and complexity, might be worth something close to 60%... etc, etc...Also, for the next turn I\'m going to have enough to take both tech levels 1 and 2 and still have enough cash to make a craft that hits 35km altitude (assuming minimum payouts and no returns on my salvaged command pod and booster.) So I will be taking both tech levels on the turnover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
togfox Posted April 12, 2012 Author Share Posted April 12, 2012 I\'m seriuosly thinking of removing the salvage fee. I would love to incorporate this into the campaign but its going to be an administration nightmare as I have no tools to help automate this.Would people be comfortable if it were removed entirely or simplied so I don\'t go nuts? I\'d be happy with 5) any component that has a parachute attached to it is assumed to land safely and 75% of that part can be re-used. A $1000 part with a parachute will return $750 to the corporation.Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomad Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I would like it to be simplified as i did design my rocket to at least have some sort of salvage rate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonLorenzo Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I would remove it completely. At least for now. It\'s hard enough to make things expensive. If you do go through with this some points to consider:-Does the parachute get \'used up\', or do you get 75% back of that as well-How do you handle decouplers? I suggest make them unsalvageable-What about stuff (like spent boosters) that return to the ground with the pod, but don\'t explode-Most LFE craft will be able to powerland intactOverall I\'d suggest a lower salvage percentage. Something like 33%. In that case sticking a chute on 1 booster isn\'t worth it, but sticking one on a LFE stack might be.I wouldn\'t bother with it, not in this version at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamini Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Personally I feel that anything that lands safely alongside your pod should be salvageable for 75% of the original value. Nothing else, parachute or no, can be recovered. Naturally any parachutes used would also count.The possibility to salvage adds more strategic depth to the game and encourages players to try different setups to maximize rewards and minimize costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RulerOfNothing Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 My inclination is towards a simple system. togfox, I also think that since this is v1 of this forum game that you should do whatever seems right to you - you can always fix it later on in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zutha Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I like the idea of salvaging parts.ALl parts that aren\'t fuel containers return 75%.All other parts that hold fuel etc at 40% (fuel tanks, srb\'s)Parachutes, decouplers etc 0% Will definitely make it more strategic.BUT for the first round, i\'d say only salvages pod as people have already submitted designs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonLorenzo Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Salvaging the pod makes little sense. It returning or not is hardly ever optional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomad Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Apparently my rocket is not up to par, and having the 5,100 dollar budget is causing me to derp out as to how i could pull this off.I can\'t brain, its too late at night, better go to bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjwt Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Email has been Submitted, Challenge 2 accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiper Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Whiper Aerospace corp. Joined this race!It is great i will look on the next table and how you will deal with the return of parts. I have send you some suggestion in the xls table how you maybe handle it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjwt Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 I\'m seriuosly thinking of removing the salvage fee. I would love to incorporate this into the campaign but its going to be an administration nightmare as I have no tools to help automate this.Would people be comfortable if it were removed entirely or simplied so I don\'t go nuts? I\'d be happy with 5) any component that has a parachute attached to it is assumed to land safely and 75% of that part can be re-used. A $1000 part with a parachute will return $750 to the corporation.Thoughts?I would limit salvage at between $100 and $200 per module, I think this would be *way* too easy otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomad Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Am i out since i still can\'t figure out what combination will give me enough thrust to reach the minimum?Still trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts