|
Troglyfe posted:The bay parts should be right next to the tail ramps.  Nope. I don't know what happened, but they're not there. Is there a place I can grab the parts file for just those parts?
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 19:38 |
|
|
Elukka posted:...Yes, yes it does. I posted about it a few months ago -> http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3550902&userid=187407&perpage=40&pagenumber=12#post425509023 His plugin removes a lot of the control methods 'because it's too easy' including thrust tweaks. If you want a 'new' experience with KSP, try the vertical tree. If you want challenge without masochism, try RPL 19 when it comes out (real soon). http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/60469-TechTree-0-23-Ackander-s-Vertical-Tech-Tree-Release-v1-15-45-c-Jan-11-2014 http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/58135-TechTree-0-22-Milestone18-Realistic-Progression-LITE-%28Get-on-TreeLoader%21%29
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Ratzap posted:I posted about it a few months ago -> http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3550902&userid=187407&perpage=40&pagenumber=12#post425509023 He also lists the joint reinforcements of 23.5 as a 'known issue' that makes the game too easy for his liking. Every time you look, he's got a fresh facet of horrible and a gaggle of slavering fanboys.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Edminster posted:He also lists the joint reinforcements of 23.5 as a 'known issue' that makes the game too easy for his liking. Every time you look, he's got a fresh facet of horrible and a gaggle of slavering fanboys. Quite, his fan club is pretty weird - trying to compete on how hard they made things for themselves and trying to find things about each other to call cheating. Very different to the behavior of the Interstellar fans drooling over how much praise they can heap. When the mod threads get boring you can study the different microcosms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
That kind of mindset reminds me of people who play racing simulators and say "such and such sim is so arcadey due to how easy it is!" when it's a near 1:1 representation of driving that particular car. Basically, the harder it is, the more realistic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Ratzap posted:Quite, his fan club is pretty weird - trying to compete on how hard they made things for themselves and trying to find things about each other to call cheating. Very different to the behavior of the Interstellar fans drooling over how much praise they can heap. When the mod threads get boring you can study the different microcosms. I wonder how much of his fan club he brought from Minecraft, vs. how much his "style" of modding appeals to a common mindset that was already attracted to Minecraft/KSP.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Wizard of Smart posted:
What the heck? You're missing a lot more than the bay parts by the looks of things. Are you sure you didn't somehow get a patch version of the pack instead of the full version? haveblue posted:How is that a blimp? Does it use mod parts that give it neutral buoyancy? Yeah. Those cylinders with the gray tile pattern and the pink logo are small airship balloons. quote:Flower Child stuff ↓ Thanks ↓ Troglyfe fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Apr 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
I think any sandbox game is always gonna attract the "YOU'RE PLAYING IT WRONG" crowd.Troglyfe posted:Is there a thread I can check out to read more on this guy, or has most of the interesting stuff already been said here in this thread? There is a load of modding drama info in the "modded minecraft" thread OP, it's batshit insane, so many special snowflakes like flowerchild and covert jaguar, not to mention all the poo poo over Tekkit V's Feed the Beast bullshit. Don't even get me started on Gregtech... But not to derail this lovely thread with Minecraft rubbish, the point is that the KSP community could really do without it and putting a solid modding policy in place would solve it. (Mojangs modding policy is "you can mod this but not really and if you do you own all the rights to the mod but you kinda don't either") AceClown fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Apr 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Troglyfe posted:What the heck? You're missing a lot more than the bay parts by the looks of things. Are you sure you didn't somehow get a patch version of the pack instead of the full version? I thought I had the full version, but I may have been wrong. Redownloading and reinstalling and I'll find out here soon. Edit: now the loading screen hangs up on b9_aerospace/parts/engine_medium_jet_pod and goes nowhere. I'm doing something wrong. Karma Comedian fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Apr 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
How about we lovingly curse at Squad for a bit instead? drat you, KSP. I'm watching Ender's Game, and I just had to pause to beat my head into submission, because it decided to complain about the nice big roomy SSTO that Ender and the others were sent up in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Movie is bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Acquire Currency! posted:Movie is bad. Eh, it was the most interesting thing on the rack at the library, and I am cheap.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Ratzap posted:Quite, his fan club is pretty weird - trying to compete on how hard they made things for themselves and trying to find things about each other to call cheating. Very different to the behavior of the Interstellar fans drooling over how much praise they can heap. When the mod threads get boring you can study the different microcosms. It's odd, I like the game to be challenging which is why I play with FAR, station science, and interstellar, but that combination simply adds a bunch of difficult but cool stuff you can aim for if you want to, it doesn't just turn the game into a grind. I get why interstellar is fun even if it's pretty weirdly balanced. It seems strange to look for enjoyment in a game with most of the features taken out though. Or even if you are going to do that, it seems especially strange to tell everyone else including the developers that they're idiots for having features in the game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Wizard of Smart posted:Edit: now the loading screen hangs up on b9_aerospace/parts/engine_medium_jet_pod and goes nowhere. I'm doing something wrong. I've gotten that issue with other parts before and it seems super random and I don't know what causes it exactly. The only things I can think to try would be double checking the 23.5 B9 fix, and installing Active Texture Management, since that tinkers with the loading process.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's odd, I like the game to be challenging which is why I play with FAR, station science, and interstellar, but that combination simply adds a bunch of difficult but cool stuff you can aim for if you want to, it doesn't just turn the game into a grind. I get why interstellar is fun even if it's pretty weirdly balanced. The problem with a lot of hard mode mods, is that they just make things harder for the sake of being harder, and complexity for complexity's sake. Really what does requiring you to take 3 battery packs to low orbit achieve over one, possibly heavier pack other than raise part count? Nothing. Speaking more generally, a lot of "realism" mods in various games can also get a bit caught up in this thinking. It's apparently easy to mistake extra complexity for realism, and end up adding complexity to systems far beyond necessary to "achieve realism" on a scale appropriate to the game. If you've ever seen ARMA's ACE mod artillery system you'll have an idea of what I mean.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
I sent a moon lander to the moon, but used too much fuel trying to not crash into the surface. So I decided to launch a rescue mission, which managed to leave the moon but used too much fuel getting into Kerban orbit. So now I want to rescue the rescue mission by having a ship push them into orbit. I don't have the grabber part and it will take ages before I get there, so does anyone have any good ideas on how to slow down a ship in orbit that is out of fuel? It has plenty of energy left to reorient in case that helps (it might when two ships come into contact). I've already read up on how to rendevous with a ship that's in orbit, but manipulating its speed is where I'm having trouble.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
How much energy are we talking? 10 m/s? A hundred? A thousand? What shape is the stranded ship's orbit? What the guy below me said, basically. Unless you're in a really low, circular orbit, it's going to be ten times easier to push the ship's periapsis down around its apoapsis than to launch and grapple with a ship. Gau fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Apr 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
Eruonen posted:I sent a moon lander to the moon, but used too much fuel trying to not crash into the surface. Get out and push. Your eva pack refuels every time you enter a pod.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Gau posted:How much energy are we talking? 10 m/s? A hundred? A thousand? What shape is the stranded ship's orbit? Sorry, I'm new to all of this and forgot this is important data. It's around 700 m/s. It's fairly circular. Splode posted:Get out and push. Your eva pack refuels every time you enter a pod.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
Use girders/landing legs/upside down fins to make a crude claw big enough to fit around the rocket in question. Make sure you have plenty of torque or RCS on your pusher to keep everything oriented, you won't be perfectly lined up with center of mass so you'll have to compensate for rotation. Make sure your claw is deep enough to grasp the other ship thoroughly, they can be slippery!
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
Eruonen posted:Hahaha wow. I doubt it'll work well considering its speed but it's worth a shot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Eruonen posted:Sorry, I'm new to all of this and forgot this is important data. It's around 700 m/s. It's fairly circular. Did you do your Mun escape burn on the far side? It's better to escape from the near side, it will put your periapsis a lot closer to Kerbin.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Eruonen posted:Sorry, I'm new to all of this and forgot this is important data. It's around 700 m/s. It's fairly circular. Wait, your orbit is 700 m/s or you need 700 m/s to deorbit? The first indicates an insanely high orbit (which is actually good for you), the second means you're not doing your maneuver at the most efficient point to change your periapsis (which is apoapsis). 1. Face the ship retro at or near apoapsis. 2. EVA, turn on KMU (R), 3. Hold down W until you run down to about 0.5 EVA fuel. 4. Get back in the ship and check out your map. You'll probably be close to re-entering, if not already there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Proc fairings and 23.5 have made my rockets 64.9% more rockety
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
maniacdevnull posted:Proc fairings and 23.5 have made my rockets 64.9% more rockety  Procedural fairings kick rear end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Sneaky Kettle posted:
Sure, if you're a sissy. Man up and use static KW fairings 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Just don't strut between the fairings and the bottom half of the rocket for 'stability' Luckily it was just an unmanned probe that got stuck inside.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Sneaky Kettle posted:
Ciaphas posted:Sure, if you're a sissy. Man up and use static KW fairings  The top fairing is part of the (pending, haven't unlocked it yet) Launch Escape system. Everything north of the decoupler comes off clear of the rocket with the top half of the fairing which is there for aerodynamics. The bottom fairing is to keep the CSM section hidden away until the atmosphere wouldn't hurt it anymore. Falken fucked around with this message at 07:35 on Apr 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
I don’t use launch escape for escaping launches; I use it like an enormous version of the separaton for Kerbodyne rocket parts. It’s what Jeb would have wanted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
Well new clouds make eve a bit more.. intimidating?   Yeah, try picking a landing zone through that, by the time you can really see the ground you're committed. No that I'm complaining, the more character each planet has the better. edit: It makes me want to go in and play with the ground textures though, they should be a whole lot darker with those cool purple clouds up there: 
Spaceman Future! fucked around with this message at 08:17 on Apr 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
Is .24 still coming out relatively soon? Trying to decide if I want to go ahead and redownload all of my mods for .235 or just wait it out until .24.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 09:33
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Well new clouds make eve a bit more.. intimidating? Yeah, I was super afraid of landing on Eve. That's supposed to be the easy part of the whole mission. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 10:45
|
|
|
So I'm slowly progressing, and after learning how to land without blowing up my ship, I have been able to rescue Jeb and Bob, who were left stranded at Mün and to unlock more useful components. Right now I can do "Apollo style" missions to both Kerbin moons. I have a refueling station in orbit. I use a small landing pod docked to a "CSM" to travel, and I land my favourite kerbal after EVAing him to the landing pod. My question is now how do I transfer the "science" my kerbals get on the surface so I can bring it back to Kerbal. Last mission I ran I made two landings with two different kerbals, collected a surface sample and brought the guys back to the CSM. Then inserted the CSM back to Kerbal, ditched the lander and splashed softly in the ocean... just to find ALL my science was gone. How do I transfer the science from the lander to the CSM?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 13:20
|
|
|
EVA, then right click the science tool and select "retrieve science" or something along those lines. Do this on pods to retrieve things like crew reports and surface samples. The data is automatically stored in the next pod you enter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:EVA, then right click the science tool and select "retrieve science" or something along those lines. Do this on pods to retrieve things like crew reports and surface samples. The data is automatically stored in the next pod you enter. Does that mean you can use a science tool, EVA to it, retrieve the data, drop it in the pod and then reset and use the science tool again?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
Fil5000 posted:Does that mean you can use a science tool, EVA to it, retrieve the data, drop it in the pod and then reset and use the science tool again? Yes, but only if the second use is in a different biome or situation in the same biome (high vs low, flying vs landed, etc). You can't store two copies of the exact same scientific data. Also, the mystery goo and materials bay experiments cannot be reused like this unless the ship also contains a science lab with crew. The other parts can be reset and reused indefinitely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:EVA, then right click the science tool and select "retrieve science" or something along those lines. Do this on pods to retrieve things like crew reports and surface samples. The data is automatically stored in the next pod you enter. Thanks! I'll try this in my next mission.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
Does anybody know what the rules are for when you can and cannot return a mission to the launchpad/VAB? I had an unfortunate incident last night where my test flight of a Mun truck contraption ran out of fuel on approach. I was just goofing around, but the take-backsies option was grayed out and I was left to watch my kerbonauts smash into the unforgiving ground.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
Obama 2012 posted:Does anybody know what the rules are for when you can and cannot return a mission to the launchpad/VAB? I had an unfortunate incident last night where my test flight of a Mun truck contraption ran out of fuel on approach. I was just goofing around, but the take-backsies option was grayed out and I was left to watch my kerbonauts smash into the unforgiving ground. Not sure. You could quicksave and/or copy your persistence file for a security. e: or add a probe, remove Kerbals. It is a test flight, right? Corky Romanovsky fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Apr 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 19:38 |
|
|
Obama 2012 posted:Does anybody know what the rules are for when you can and cannot return a mission to the launchpad/VAB? I had an unfortunate incident last night where my test flight of a Mun truck contraption ran out of fuel on approach. I was just goofing around, but the take-backsies option was grayed out and I was left to watch my kerbonauts smash into the unforgiving ground. You saved and closed the current game. I'd stop relying on the "take-backsies" option on missions. Embrace failure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 15:02
|
|