Return to “Games”

Post

Re: Kerbal Space Program

#826
Cornflakes_91 wrote:valentina seems to have a very good time flying that plane :lol:
Yes. I love Valentina. They made a wonderful work with these female kerbals. :D
Landge wrote:PSA: 1.02 patch has been release. Parachutes are no longer indestructible during reentry. :o

I'm having to relearn everything all over again. :cry:
I lost some parachutes myself. I play in Hard, but with Quickloading and Reversing activated, so not a big deal. 8-)
Olterin wrote:Bob's watching his instruments - they read 30km altitude ... 25km ... 20 ... the shaking is getting really noticeable.
I set Camera Wobble to 2.0 and it's awesome how everything moves, particularly with planes and with those fantastic sound effects. Love it. :ghost:
Image
"Playing" is not simply a pastime, it is the primordial basis of imagination and creation. - Hideo Kojima
Post

Re: Kerbal Space Program

#829
Squad did a bit of adjusting to most of the upperstage rocket engines too. LV-909 among them, has a whopping 15 kN max thrust at sea level. They did increase the max vacuum thrust to 60 kN though. For realism, they nerfed vacuum efficient rocket engines to the point of making them next to worthless on planets with atmospheres. I found out when I cratered my moon lander, returning to Kerbin on her maiden voyage. I needed those LV-909s to assist the parachutes when landing. :o

Looking into the files I notice the ASL = 85 for the 909. What caught my eye was that 85 ASL showed up in several other engines. It may just be a coincidence. But there are inconsistencies with the other engines that are similar in use. :problem:

The Ant inline LV-1 vs the Ant radial LV-1R. The inline ASL is 85 but the radial ASL is 260. Quite a difference for very similar engines wouldn't you say?

Now lets compare the Rockomax 48-7S inline vs the 28-77 radial. The inline is ASL is 270. Thrust got nerfed to 18 though. The radial ASL is 250. Thrust 16. So why do the Ants get an atmos nerf (not that they were of any use) but the rockomax duo does not (other than a thrust nerf)? :?

Where else does 85 ASL show up? In the Poodle engine too. Which brings me to the only other engine that sucks at sea level. The LV-N nuke. ASL of 185! What there is a 1 in front of an 85! This is purely conjecture on my part but could it be that it is possible someone forgot to put a 1 in front of the other 85 values as well?
Why are they so similar? Would it be that easy? Change the 85 into a 185 gives a much needed boost at landing without the ability to take off again. Sqaud claims those engines were overpowered to begin with and needed to reflect reality. :roll:

The exception to the rule is the Aerospike. It's thrust got hit with the nerf bat too at 180 kN. It matches the RAPIER with liitle variance between atmo and space.

Let me get this straight. There is a tiny solar system with very tiny planets. On one of those planets live Kerbals. This planet is only 600 km in diameter yet has gravity and atmospheric pressure equal to Earth's. Kerbin's water is a super-dense medium that is nearly impenetrable. And Squad want's to make rockets realistic.
Image
"Exploration and discovery is not an option we choose—it is a desire written in the human heart. We are that part of creation which seeks to understand all creation."
My KSP Videos
Post

Re: Kerbal Space Program

#830
Landge wrote:So why do the Ants get an atmos nerf (not that they were of any use) but the rockomax duo does not (other than a thrust nerf)? :?
Rockomax striked me always as the brand for in- and transatmospheric engines, it makes sense from that direction
Landge wrote: Where else does 85 ASL show up? In the Poodle engine too. Which brings me to the only other engine that sucks at sea level. The LV-N nuke. ASL of 185! What there is a 1 in front of an 85! This is purely conjecture on my part but could it be that it is possible someone forgot to put a 1 in front of the other 85 values as well?
Why are they so similar? Would it be that easy?
I'd say its more likely that the nerva is the error, not the other way around ;)
Landge wrote: Change the 85 into a 185 gives a much needed boost at landing without the ability to take off again. Sqaud claims those engines were overpowered to begin with and needed to reflect reality. :roll:
"Boo hoo i need to redo my balancing because of a balance change" :roll:

Landge wrote:And Squad want's to make rockets realistic.
Because thats the point of the game

because of some parts being bent (gravity constant) doesnt mean that the rest of the game has to be bent out of form completely that it makes sense.

And if they wanted to make rockets realistic i'd never get to the mun with the stuff thats available, not to speak about somewhere else
Post

Re: Kerbal Space Program

#831
Landge, I didn't understand what you said, I barely recognized some names there. I confess to be a complete ignorant regarding the details of this game. :mrgreen:

I have played for a long time an I can't go to orbit any more. I never went to the Mun -except for the Mun turorial- and I even can't do the docking and asteroids tutorials. I'm a mess. :lol:
Landge wrote:Let me get this straight. There is a tiny solar system with very tiny planets. On one of those planets live Kerbals. This planet is only 600 km in diameter yet has gravity and atmospheric pressure equal to Earth's. Kerbin's water is a super-dense medium that is nearly impenetrable. And Squad want's to make rockets realistic.
I don't see the problem with that. I like the idea of a smaller planet/solar system and a like the idea of realism as well. Not everything has to be 100% realistic though.
Image
"Playing" is not simply a pastime, it is the primordial basis of imagination and creation. - Hideo Kojima
Post

Re: Kerbal Space Program

#833
Etsu wrote:Landge, I didn't understand what you said, I barely recognized some names there. I confess to be a complete ignorant regarding the details of this game. :mrgreen:

I have played for a long time an I can't go to orbit any more. I never went to the Mun -except for the Mun turorial- and I even can't do the docking and asteroids tutorials. I'm a mess. :lol:
Landge wrote:Let me get this straight. There is a tiny solar system with very tiny planets. On one of those planets live Kerbals. This planet is only 600 km in diameter yet has gravity and atmospheric pressure equal to Earth's. Kerbin's water is a super-dense medium that is nearly impenetrable. And Squad want's to make rockets realistic.
I don't see the problem with that. I like the idea of a smaller planet/solar system and a like the idea of realism as well. Not everything has to be 100% realistic though.
Long story short: The point I was trying to make was that the changes were made to some engines while overlooking others. They were inconsistent in their changes IMO.
"Exploration and discovery is not an option we choose—it is a desire written in the human heart. We are that part of creation which seeks to understand all creation."
My KSP Videos
Post

Re: Kerbal Space Program

#834
Landge wrote:Long story short: The point I was trying to make was that the changes were made to some engines while overlooking others. They were inconsistent in their changes IMO.
Oh. I understood that part. I think you made your point very clear. :mrgreen: I have been reading all the critics on the official forums as well. What I was trying to say is that I can't participate in that kind of discussion because no matter how much time I spend in this game I still need to go to the tech tree to see what part some contract is talking about, and I mean almost any part, including the first engines or parachutes, and have no idea about how to use maneuvering nodes or what ISP, Thrust or Delta V really means. (I know what some of that stuff means. I just don't have any clue about how to use that information to make rockets. I prefer to follow other people designs or just try and see what works.)

I'm not sure if some day I will be able to go to the Mun. :lol:
Image
"Playing" is not simply a pastime, it is the primordial basis of imagination and creation. - Hideo Kojima
Post

Re: Kerbal Space Program

#835
Etsu wrote:
Landge wrote:Long story short: The point I was trying to make was that the changes were made to some engines while overlooking others. They were inconsistent in their changes IMO.
Oh. I understood that part. I think you made your point very clear. :mrgreen: I have been reading all the critics on the official forums as well. What I was trying to say is that I can't participate in that kind of discussion because no matter how much time I spend in this game I still need to go to the tech tree to see what part some contract is talking about, and I mean almost any part, including the first engines or parachutes, and have no idea about how to use maneuvering nodes or what ISP, Thrust or Delta V really means. (I know what some of that stuff means. I just don't have any clue about how to use that information to make rockets. I prefer to follow other people designs or just try and see what works.)

I'm not sure if some day I will be able to go to the Mun. :lol:
Oh right my bad :oops: You are soooo right about those contracts! This is me ... :lol: Image
"Exploration and discovery is not an option we choose—it is a desire written in the human heart. We are that part of creation which seeks to understand all creation."
My KSP Videos
Post

Re: Kerbal Space Program

#836
Landge wrote:Oh right my bad :oops: You are soooo right about those contracts! This is me ... :lol: Image
Good advice for the developers: Pictures on the contracts!

***

There are some bugs in the game. One made me buy the same part again (it could be that I load a previous save, but I doubt it), and there is another when I can't revert a flight. Jebediah and Valentina were both killed for that bug because I had to stop the game exe on flight and now the game tell me that they were "killed in action". So I had to load an old save and lost a lot of science and at least one unlocked node. :(
Image
"Playing" is not simply a pastime, it is the primordial basis of imagination and creation. - Hideo Kojima
Post

Re: Kerbal Space Program

#837
The same thing happened to me when I made my first attempt landing a base on Mun with Jeb, Bill, and Bob. I forgot the blasted landing light. I always put one on before. It's RIGHT THERE (points at check list) in the "DO NOT FORGET THIS" list along with other parts like batteries, ladders, and solar panel stuff :lol:
I broke the landing legs and Bob, or is it Bill the engineer? didn't have the skill level 3 to repair them.

In the mean time I forgot I switched views to another flight I had Valentina in and lost my ability to revert to launch! @&$%!!!! :o

My last hard save was days ago. Lost several tech tiers (and real tears too) :cry:
"Exploration and discovery is not an option we choose—it is a desire written in the human heart. We are that part of creation which seeks to understand all creation."
My KSP Videos
Post

Re: Kerbal Space Program

#838
Valentina died after ejecting herself from the cockpit of a FAR airplane when the craft suffered structural damage due to high pressures in Sandbox mode. I think I'm going to stop using FAR from now on. :mrgreen:

Image
Image
"Playing" is not simply a pastime, it is the primordial basis of imagination and creation. - Hideo Kojima
Post

Re: Kerbal Space Program

#840
Cornflakes_91 wrote:No, you only need the mod which gives kerbals parachutes on ejection :P
Jaja. Interesting. I will look for that.

But my spacecraft can't survive a turn since FAR. I think it was more "fan" (that magic word that people love some much) before, I don't know. Anyway, complex airplanes kill my framerate it seems. I need a better graphic card.
Image
"Playing" is not simply a pastime, it is the primordial basis of imagination and creation. - Hideo Kojima

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron