• Kerbal Space Program Jebruary Edition
    10,003 replies, posted
I just made a plane with the what I think is the maximum wingspan and managed to spin the floppy fucking wings in such a way that a wing fragment flew 3 km after I crashed into the water. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/E6UiR.png[/IMG]
The last time I played this was a few versions before they started selling it, im planning on buying this, so can anyone give me a (summarized) list of whats been added since the last free version?
So Winston challenged me to make something that can do midair rocket launches, so I did. [img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/38139871/KSPv15/SpaceplanesIveAdEm/FlyingPadBeFlyin.jpg[/img] [img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/38139871/KSPv15/SpaceplanesIveAdEm/PhysicsEngineBeHatin.jpg[/img] Though the wing ejection may look really dangerous, it goes off with a hitch. But hell this is KSP, safety is irrelevant.
I always am in Awe of how awesome that capsule is when i see it. amazing work Kyle :D
[IMG]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/13537916/kerbal.png[/IMG] I got a perfect orbit around the sun with standard parts, am I special?
That's not perfect.
How do I tell if it's perfect?
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;36035645]How do I tell if it's perfect?[/QUOTE] If the apoapsis and periapsis are nearly or exactly the same.
Getting really low fps with all settings on low, why? GPU: Radeon HD 5770 CPU: 2.5 GHz quad core somethin-another Ram: 4 gigs Whyyy
[video=youtube;hpfZnClxvgQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpfZnClxvgQ&feature=g-u-u[/video]
Damn I didn't know about a few things in that vid, especially that trim seems nice. [editline]21st May 2012[/editline] I gues it'll help inacio with his weird ass plane :v: [editline]21st May 2012[/editline] also why are so much people using those high altitude engines in low altitude?
I made this cool little spaceplane that allows me to eject a rocket so that I can reach orbit with out wasting too much fuel(Kind of). Here it is(Also look who is piloting): [IMG]http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad3/kyle7566/Goodoltimes.png[/IMG]
Actually, on second thought, you know what would be just perfect for KSP? A difficulty level that turns on and assists. As in you could play in "simple" mode, or "intermediate" which incorporates friction and Lagrangiarian points and stuff like that, and "complex" where you have to compensate for everything from relativistic physics to atmospheric pressure. And perhaps custom, where you can turn on and off what you want. It would kind of be like Forza, which you can play as a hard simulator or an enjoyable racing game... Except in space.
Is there any way to stop spontaneous death by overheat without manually editing the config for every part my craft uses? It sucks. I hate it. I want it dead. Overheating engines is not a problem - the problem comes when an explosion from any part, including decouplers, wings and entirely non volatile parts, transfers an ungodly amount of heat to any surrounding parts as if it were a fuel tank and this causes a chain reaction that makes your entire ship dissapear in a single frame. If it's made of any more than 30 parts this will lag like shit, and is far more frustrating than fun to sit through. Exploding due to overheat should be exclusive to engines and fuel tanks.
[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17610513/ZScreen/2012-05/Screenshot-2012-05-21_18.38.37.png[/img] woah what
[IMG]http://piclair.com/data/wowvu.jpg[/IMG]
Roving around on Minmus is really weird, you can literally see the planet rotate as you travel on its surface.
[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2668640/screenshot214.png[/img]
[QUOTE=LarparNar;36040213][img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2668640/screenshot214.png[/img][/QUOTE] [IMG]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/75010084/RIP.jpg[/IMG]
can't even get near the moon closest shot was a few hundred thousand miles out but all my shuttles seem to be manned missiles with a burning hate for the sea.
[QUOTE=_Maverick_;36040464]can't even get near the moon closest shot was a few hundred thousand miles out but all my shuttles seem to be manned missiles with a burning hate for the sea.[/QUOTE] You need to get in an equatorial orbit that is pretty circular. Then timewarp until the Mun rises over the horizon. Start burning until your apoapsis extends out to the Mun's orbit. Tada! Trans-Munar Injection!
[QUOTE=Nutt007;36040509]You need to get in an equatorial orbit that is pretty circular. Then timewarp until the Mun rises over the horizon. Start burning until your apoapsis extends out to the Mun's orbit. Tada! Trans-Munar Injection![/QUOTE] great so it'll be a missile that hits the moon instead, hey it's a step up.
[QUOTE=_Maverick_;36040543]great so it'll be a missile that hits the moon instead, hey it's a step up.[/QUOTE] If you time it right, you should end up on the far side in an escape orbit from the Mun. Burn retrograde then to stay in orbit. Howto: Get in an 80km circular orbit around Kerbin, burn when the Mun rises above the horizon, burn until apoapsis is about 12 000 km. Patched conics help. Then retrograde when you get into Mun orbit.
Has anyone figured out the random parts falling off on the launch pad thinh yet?
[QUOTE=echo78;36040988]Has anyone figured out the random parts falling off on the launch pad thing yet?[/QUOTE] Use higher quality ducktape?
[QUOTE=mac338;36038643]Actually, on second thought, you know what would be just perfect for KSP? A difficulty level that turns on and assists. As in you could play in "simple" mode, or "intermediate" which incorporates friction and Lagrangiarian points and stuff like that, and "complex" where you have to compensate for everything from relativistic physics to atmospheric pressure. And perhaps custom, where you can turn on and off what you want. It would kind of be like Forza, which you can play as a hard simulator or an enjoyable racing game... Except in space.[/QUOTE] Lagrangian point are impossible without n-body physics, which just gets plain messy and hard to do after the first 2 bodies, also we don't yet have an accurate implementation of it either that will run on the average PC.
hazza. I have perhaps convinced C7 of a method to make Normals look alittle better quickly ^^
[QUOTE=Chubbs;36042696]Lagrangian point are impossible without n-body physics, which just gets plain messy and hard to do after the first 2 bodies, also we don't yet have an accurate implementation of it either that will run on the average PC.[/QUOTE] Incorporate relativistic physics and you automatically get n-body physics as a result. However it would probably kill most machines now.
Damned aerospace updated [url]http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=10138.0[/url] [video=youtube;xNpdGJKY2_w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNpdGJKY2_w[/video]
[QUOTE=scratch (nl);36043095]Damned aerospace updated [url]http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=10138.0[/url] [video=youtube;xNpdGJKY2_w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNpdGJKY2_w[/video][/QUOTE] snagged it earlier today, didn't really know a good way of using the new thing though, useful video, didn't think of putting 2 of them together
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.