General Kerbal Discussion



  • @blakeyrat Going Off-Topic here.Feel free to ignore. I always wanted to play KSB so I downloaded a demo and I had no clue what to do except i just put a bunch of parts together. Steam has an offer on it . I badly wanna try this but how long is the learning curve? How long before I can actually build things and launch rockets like you're doing ? I'm super curious . The learning curve looks so steep judging from your screenshots.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @stillwater said in Blakeyrat's Kerbal Campaign, why not:

    @blakeyrat Going Off-Topic here.Feel free to ignore. I always wanted to play KSB so I downloaded a demo and I had no clue what to do except i just put a bunch of parts together. Steam has an offer on it . I badly wanna try this but how long is the learning curve? How long before I can actually build things and launch rockets like you're doing ? I'm super curious . The learning curve looks so steep judging from your screenshots.

    If you do sandbox you'll have stuff explodingflying gloriously in no time. You can get the hang of the simulator part pretty easily there. The campaign mode is a bit tougher, but if you take a "losing is fun" attitude, you'll enjoy it. Definitely worth the price

    EDIT: And when you do finally manage to put a kerbal on the Mun and bring em back, you feel amazing.



  • @stillwater said in Blakeyrat's Kerbal Campaign, why not:

    @blakeyrat Going Off-Topic here.Feel free to ignore. I always wanted to play KSB so I downloaded a demo and I had no clue what to do except i just put a bunch of parts together. Steam has an offer on it . I badly wanna try this but how long is the learning curve? How long before I can actually build things and launch rockets like you're doing ? I'm super curious . The learning curve looks so steep judging from your screenshots.

    See my posts above. I've only played a few hours, but I've built something now that almost gets into orbit.



  • GREAT SUCCESS
    0_1461316261224_upload-41c3d27b-7a41-476d-b861-d98edb35c4be
    Apologies for all the threadjacking @blakeyrat - and thanks for the help, i'll fuck off now



  • @swayde he's stranded in orbit now isn't he?



  • @blakeyrat , Forum bug #234424? From the 5th picture on, the link to each picture is about:blank... (Post Mission Four).



  • @CHUDbert, also it seems to depend on the jellypotatoing. I went back and I was able to click on the last ones, but the first ones were all about:blank. So it appears that 4 images max per post that you can click on.



  • My biggest criticism of 1.1 so far is that the landing gear changes have broken at least a few of my craft that are already in transit. On the other hand, I'm excited about these new 10m expandable heatshields. So perhaps Squad giveth and Squad taketh away?

    Images of ongoing projects forthcoming when I get home. I'm on the fence about whether I want to start a new career save or keep going with the 1.0 career save I have with all tech unlocked and 25M money. Landing on Mün for the thousandth time to grind tech ain't looking too interesting.



  • Hmm, I should download the update and start a new campaign. I've gotten as far as getting a rocket in orbit around the "Mars" planet (I don't recall the names) and stranding the Kerbal there :P



  • @JazzyJosh said in General Kerbal Discussion:

    @swayde he's stranded in orbit now isn't he?

    @JazzyJosh not at all. I did a retrograde burn, entered the atmosphere, and promptly exploded.
    But yes, he'd been there perpetually if I didn't try to land. (i was at 110k, atmosphere ends at 65k)



  • this game is a great exercise on thinking about the consequences of human caused climate change


  • mod

    @fbmac said in General Kerbal Discussion:

    this game is a great exercise on thinking about the consequences of human caused climate change

    :wtf:



  • @abarker escaping to space may be our only option



  • @fbmac said in General Kerbal Discussion:

    @abarker escaping to space may be our only option

    Not until we can either develop high Isp, high TWR, safe proplusion, or significantly reduce operating costs of the methods we have now.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @fbmac yeah, I've heard some crazy environmentalists say that we have to cull the population because Mother Gaia can't support more than 100 million people or some shit. I suppose promising people a life among the stars and then strapping them into one of the average KSP player's rockets would work wonders towards that goal.



  • @fbmac Yeah.

    Let's just burn many more magnitudes than we already have just to leave the planet.

    One final "Fuck You" to Earth.

    Schedule the departure on Earth day.



  • @blek said in General Kerbal Discussion:

    yeah, I've heard some crazy environmentalists say that we have to cull the population because

    They never volunteer themselves.

    "Hey, we have to kill off a bunch of people or global warming is going to kill off a bunch of people"


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    I just started playing this myself (thanks, you guys). Managed to get into orbit once, and back. Attempts after that one have been... less than successful.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Erufael Protip: You can never have too many structural supports. Or boosters. Or parachutes.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @sloosecannon Some if this I have discovered. hehe. My problem seems to be having enough reaction mass to get where I want to go, yet not having it be too heavy.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Erufael Also, Ejection Seats increase the survival rate for Kerbals by at least 10.2910^idfsa%...



  • @xaade said in General Kerbal Discussion:

    They never volunteer themselves.

    I don't think there will be volunteers for that.

    The environment itself is gonna elect some people.

    If I was a rich guy I would be turning my home in some sort of biosphere, after moving to a place with high altitude.



  • @fbmac Which is why....

    "We have to kill off all the 3rd world poor, before the environment kills off all the 3rd world poor"

    Sure, they're not gassing people, but by forcing regulations that raises the cost of electricity by 50%, it pretty much means starving people.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @xaade Wow, that's... uh... pretty tinfoil-y right there.

    But we're off topic, let's talk about blowing up gloriously launching little green men into space!



  • @sloosecannon said in General Kerbal Discussion:

    Wow, that's... uh... pretty tinfoil-y right there

    Somewhat.

    However, there are a number of people that pretty much said that we need people to die.

    The regulation thing is really just satire that I threw in there.

    @sloosecannon said in General Kerbal Discussion:

    But we're off topic

    Yes, please.... back to that.



  • 0_1461456653766_20160423170736_1.jpg

    0_1461456524983_20160423170814_1.jpg

    Built my "mothership" for Duna landings. 6 atomic engines on pylons. Less fuel that it looks, because atomics don't need oxygenator so all those tanks are half-empty, dum. (The only tanks in the game that carry only fuel are designed for huge aircraft.) I also added radiators, because why not. I have no clue if they're necessary or not. And a nice cupola for my Kerbal to relax in so he doesn't have to spend his whole trip in the tiny lander capsule. (It also has an octo so it can fly on computer control, of course.)


  • area_pol

    @blakeyrat Does the game contain any weapons so that one could make a capital ship space battle?



  • @Adynathos I don't do mods. Probably there's a dozen mods for that.


  • sockdevs

    @Adynathos said in General Kerbal Discussion:

    @blakeyrat Does the game contain any weapons so that one could make a capital ship space battle?

    you want BD armory for that. and yes it lets you blow things up wit alacrity..... though it is KSP.... you want weapons just make kinetic impactors with nosecones stuffed with fuel.

    no mods needed for that.



  • One big challenge with post-1.0 spaceplanes is that it's difficult, if not impossible, to produce a craft that performs well under all conditions. Jet-powered craft are great for fuel-efficient low-altitude cruising, but can't get to higher altitudes by themselves, much less into orbit. SSTOs can get into orbit, but the low Isp of their engines makes them horrible for long-distance atmospheric travel, and they expend most of their fuel just getting into orbit. To solve the latter problem for my Laythe missions, I decided to build a long-distance ISRU refueling jet with integrated fuel cart.

    0_1461463822101_screenshot140.jpg

    Here's the ISRU module and fuel cart:

    0_1461463897857_screenshot141.jpg

    And a convenient ramp to get the cart in and out to refuel other stranded craft.

    0_1461463946481_screenshot142.jpg

    Now, obviously, this craft can't get itself into orbit, so how are we getting it to Laythe? Easily!

    0_1461464020826_screenshot97.jpg

    The landing gear changes broke this craft, unfortunately, so I'm going to have to alter and recertify another one that won't fall apart on takeoff or landing.



  • Now, there is at least one thing I like about the landing gear changes, and that's that they make VTOL designs easier:

    0_1461464274037_screenshot143.png



  • @blakeyrat I spent like an hour revising this long distance booster instead of building a lander for it. Especially after I remembered there's a 1-meter fuel-only airplane fuselage that'd be perfect for it.

    0_1461466712539_20160423195733_1.jpg

    The two "ejectable" fuel modules at the back are standardized now. The theory is I pump fuel forward as I burn, and when all the back-most tanks are empty I can shed them and reduce the craft weight.

    (The orange tanks are just the remainder of the orbital boost. Not part of the craft. I never throw away fuel until I 100% have to, dammit.)

    Depressingly, I just noticed that this entire ship has less fuel than a single Kerbodyne 14400 tank does. Stupid having to unlock stuff...



  • @blakeyrat said in General Kerbal Discussion:

    (The orange tanks are just the remainder of the orbital boost. Not part of the craft. I never throw away fuel until I 100% have to, dammit.)

    The high thrust in that stage will also come in handy for starting a transfer burn. 20 minute nuclear burns with multiple passes around Kerbin are annoying.



  • @Groaner said in General Kerbal Discussion:

    The high thrust in that stage will also come in handy for starting a transfer burn.

    Yeah, the like 7 seconds' worth, haha.

    Here's the fully-assembled ship, ready to go to Duna:

    0_1461471719832_20160423212116_1.jpg

    I put in a "utility" tank of fuel inbetween the mothership and the lander, in case you're wondering what that is. There's couplers on each side, so I can empty it first, then discard it. I just have to be careful to keep the O2 in it before ditching it, because I might need it for the lander engines.

    You can't attach ladders radially to heatshields, that's a bitch and a half. To make a ship with a heatshield, can land on Duna, and also the crew can get back in when done exploring is annoying, you have to stack something which allows radial attachments under the heatshield whether you want it or not.



  • So apparently, liquid-fuel only SSTOs are still possible, and possibly better than LF+Ox ones in terms of range:

    0_1461471506933_screenshot144.png

    That's enough left for a Jool transfer. This craft is pretty barebones, though, and adding chutes/RCS/power may push up the mass beyond viability. I'm curious whether or not this can be scaled up.



  • @blakeyrat

    0_1461479716543_20160423233214_1.jpg

    Hey that dumb stupid lander worked, and on the first try too.

    Gonna be SOOOO much science. I didn't bring a Science, Jr. But I have a ton of other experiments and the EVA report.



  • @swayde Was implying you ran out of fuel :)



  • @Groaner Wait, what? How do you do a Jool transfer without Ox?

    Did you use LF engines to get nearly-to-orbit and then have traditional engines for moving around once you're up there?


  • sockdevs

    @AyGeePlus said in General Kerbal Discussion:

    How do you do a Jool transfer without Ox?

    stock nuclear engines no longer burn oxidizer as well as fule as they did in earlier versions. they are LF only now, being more in line with "standard" nuclear engines today.



  • @Groaner

    0_1461604512884_1461464090163-screenshot97.jpg

    Circles from top to bottom:

    1. Does the space shuttle cockpit's window open? Or what am I seeing there?

    2. I thought the point of the 1.0 patch stuff was to break putting non-aerodynamic elements on the front of a craft. No nosecone? And yet it works ok?

    3. What part is this? A mod I assume...

    EDIT: for the record, I'd disqualify that ship because it clips. Your refinery is clipping through the shuttle bay doors slightly.


  • sockdevs

    @blakeyrat said in General Kerbal Discussion:

    What part is this? A mod I assume...

    my guess would be a canard that's been fiddled with the rotation and offset controls in the VAB to produce winglets.

    @blakeyrat said in General Kerbal Discussion:

    I thought the point of the 1.0 patch stuff was to break putting non-aerodynamic elements on the front of a craft. No nosecone? And yet it works ok?

    oh. so that's why my booster stages have so much trouble on launch..... i forgot they added that.



  • @AyGeePlus said in General Kerbal Discussion:

    @Groaner Wait, what? How do you do a Jool transfer without Ox?

    Atomic engines haven't used oxygenator since shortly before patch 1.0. And they still have the best in-space efficiency in the game (other than xenon.) Despite that, it's still impossible to fill a rocket-style fuselage with only liquid fuel and no oxygenator. (You can remove the oxygenator, but you can't replace it with liquid fuel.) Huge obvious oversight.



  • @accalia said in General Kerbal Discussion:

    my guess would be a canard that's been fiddled with the rotation and offset controls in the VAB to produce winglets.

    Sigh. If you don't know, don't answer.

    No, it appears to be an all-in-one liquid booster, like the stock "Twin Boar", but with a different design. No bulge at the bottom or external fuel piping like the Twin Boar, and that weird angular indent in the side.


  • sockdevs

    @blakeyrat said in General Kerbal Discussion:

    Despite that, it's still impossible to fill a rocket-style fuselage with only liquid fuel and no oxygenator.

    i do find it odd that they have the part for a 1.25m pure liquid fuel tank, and the M1, M2 and M3 fusalages for pure LF, but no 2.5 or 3.75m pure liquid tanks.

    there are of course mods that fix that, but those are mods and so not the solution you wanted


  • sockdevs

    @blakeyrat said in General Kerbal Discussion:

    Sigh. If you don't know, don't answer.

    you said you assumed a mod, so i assumed that you had not considered the rotation and offset controls available in the VAB.

    sorry for trying to help i am sure.

    i'll just go back to listening to taylor swift on google play music.



  • @accalia I just build long-range craft out of airplane fuselages. :) I mean it doesn't hurt anything, they work just as well, it just looks goofy and dumb. (The reason I didn't in the above long-range ship is because I hadn't unlocked the large fuselage yet. As of yesterday lunch, I had, so I have a totally new long-range ship to go to Jool.)



  • @accalia said in General Kerbal Discussion:

    you said you assumed a mod, so i assumed that you had not considered the rotation and offset controls available in the VAB.

    Jesus Christ, you are so condescending. I've been playing the game for like 3 years, I know you can fucking rotate parts.

    That's moot, since I was circling the BACKGROUND part, not the winglet. Which, I was going to apologize to you because after looking at the image again I figured out the confusion, but then you posted that and nevermind.


  • sockdevs

    @blakeyrat said in General Kerbal Discussion:

    Jesus Christ, you are so condescending.

    -_-

    right.

    i'm out.



  • @accalia Good, I never wanted you "in" in the first place. I was asking Groaner.



  • @blakeyrat said in General Kerbal Discussion:

    I was going to apologize to you

    WAIT -- STOP THE PRESSES -- THIS JUST IN --

    but then you posted that and nevermind.

    -- oh. Carry on, then.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.