Kerbal Space Program, or: "How many rockets can I slap onto this thing?"
8,384 replies, posted
When are they going to add more parts to the default game? They need some of these mods to be officially integrated.
I don't like to install mods, but which ones do you guys think would really make the game a lot more fun? I see people building these huge ass rockets with like 45 boosters on at a time, and yet when I have more than 9 boosters, my rocket falls as soon as I try to launch it. It's not fun :(
[QUOTE=PyroCraz3d;31784350]I don't like to install mods, but which ones do you guys think would really make the game a lot more fun? I see people building these huge ass rockets with like 45 boosters on at a time, and yet when I have more than 9 boosters, my rocket falls as soon as I try to launch it. It's not fun :([/QUOTE]
Wobbly rockets and NovaSilsko's are good.
Struts made this game so amazing.
[img]http://sinus.cz/~milan/barbora.jpg[/img]
Finally we can duct-tape our ships together!
how does one use fairings
Place the side panels on a one meter object mirrored 4 times, apply fairings to the top of them mirrored 4 times.
[QUOTE=Winstonn;31787960]Place the side panels on a one meter object mirrored 4 times, apply fairings to the top of them mirrored 4 times.[/QUOTE]
You can strut your panels (internally) to the rocket if you feel that they're too wobbly.
Switch to 2 symmetry, install your panels, connect your struts, drag them away again (the panels), switch to 4 symmetry and install them once more, your struts will be wired again, only internally.
This can cause bugs if you strut them directly together however, sometimes the game will bug out and switch to 3 symmetry if you try to modify them after you install them, and you'll have to do it all over again.
[editline]17th August 2011[/editline]
I wish there was some kind of radial strut to band them together on the outside instead.
[QUOTE=voodooattack;31790189]
[editline]17th August 2011[/editline]
I wish there was some kind of radial strut to band them together on the outside instead.[/QUOTE]
New in .10: Very large rubber bands.
[QUOTE=jeimizu;31790323]New in .10: Very large rubber bands.[/QUOTE]
Hmm now, why didn't I think of that earlier!? It would be perfect for this situation!
Too bad the game doesn't support scripting yet, I'd script my own part in C# to do that and generate its mesh on the fly.
Hell, if I could script the game I would script the fairings themselves to dynamically mesh-in together on the sides to produce some sort of mechanical connectivity.
Vertically they'd merge the stacks into single objects altogether.
[QUOTE=LarparNar;31784683]sweet jesus[/QUOTE]
I think you may have just redefined catastrophic failure :v:
[editline]17th August 2011[/editline]
Kerbal Space Program V2: Catastrophic Failure Imminent
[QUOTE=ewitwins;31790551]I think you may have just redefined catastrophic failure :v:
[editline]17th August 2011[/editline]
Kerbal Space Program V2: Catastrophic Failure Imminent[/QUOTE]
It wasn't a failure, I was trying to make fancy shapes.
Due to unpopular demand, I my computer on while the edited solid booster was in flight. The results:
[img]http://i55.tinypic.com/2ewh3t1.png[/img]
And for some reason, It says traveled an extra 2,000M while going in other directions.
So what the fuck happened.
For everyone struggling to achive orbit, [url=http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/index.php?title=Orbit_data_tables]there are some data tables.[/url]
If you check your altitude and look at speeds next to it, being under first speed means falling back to planet at some point, being between the speed values means orbit (unless you go too vertically), and being over second value means leaving the planet completely.
Where can i get plane parts?
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;31793118]Due to unpopular demand, I my computer on while the edited solid booster was in flight. The results:
[img]http://i55.tinypic.com/2ewh3t1.png[/img]
And for some reason, It says traveled an extra 2,000M while going in other directions.
So what the fuck happened.[/QUOTE]
88 miles per hour happened. You see, the flux capacitor just makes the speed equired to time travel lower. You reached the speed needed without a flux capacitor. They're probably in future space and they crashed into the enterprise or something.
[Img]http://gyazo.com/396db0bfaa1884c59947377d3ee0b10f.png[/Img]
[Img]http://gyazo.com/3ed7eeed4db1e2cf7ee81775242204ea.png[/Img]
So very very close...
[QUOTE=ruarai;31799204]How do you use the payload fairings in wobbly rockets? They are so confusing.[/QUOTE]
The straight peices attach to the side of whatever they cover and come off like radial decouplers. The cone parts are stacked ontop of those. Also use 4x symmetry.
I wish the popular part makers would change the scale of their real world rocket parts, specifically the Saturn V pack and the one with the N1 rocket.
For example, the diameter of the real life Apollo Command Module is about 3.9 meters. That's wider than even the largest pieces provided in the Saturn V parts pack. The in-game CM is only 1 meter in diameter, and while it looks to-scale when it's sitting on top of the entire stack, when you look at the real numbers, you realize the stack itself is a lot smaller than it should be. I'm not going to commit myself to doing any real math this early in the morning, but I believe the in-game Saturn V is only about a quarter scale.
It's not the kind of thing that really hurts my gameplay experience or anything, I mean it's the same game either way, I just think that with more accurate part sizes, you can make more accurate ships. Like you could probably even make a lunar lander module and get it to fit in the decoupler under the command module, like how it's supposed to, whereas right now, nothing can fit in there because it's too small for even the small lunar lander module that's already been released.
To give you a good idea of just how small things are in the game, if someone were to make an accurate V2 rocket, which has a diameter of well over 1.5 meters, you could replace the warhead on the top with the in-game command module, and it would probably be too small and look awkward on top of the V2. Were someone to make an accurate Mercury/Redstone, which has a diameter of nearly 2 meters, you'd have to make a double-size spacecraft to correctly simulate Mercury. Mercury is on the small end of all piloted spacecraft, and Apollo is on the larger end. However, the in-game CM, which seems to be modeled after the Apollo, is only half the size of the smallest piloted American spacecraft.
[QUOTE=J Paul;31802541]I wish the popular part makers would change the scale of their real world rocket parts, specifically the Saturn V pack and the one with the N1 rocket.
For example, the diameter of the real life Apollo Command Module is about 3.9 meters. That's wider than even the largest pieces provided in the Saturn V parts pack. The in-game CM is only 1 meter in diameter, and while it looks to-scale when it's sitting on top of the entire stack, when you look at the real numbers, you realize the stack itself is a lot smaller than it should be. I'm not going to commit myself to doing any real math this early in the morning, but I believe the in-game Saturn V is only about a quarter scale.
It's not the kind of thing that really hurts my gameplay experience or anything, I mean it's the same game either way, I just think that with more accurate part sizes, you can make more accurate ships. Like you could probably even make a lunar lander module and get it to fit in the decoupler under the command module, like how it's supposed to, whereas right now, nothing can fit in there because it's too small for even the small lunar lander module that's already been released.
To give you a good idea of just how small things are in the game, if someone were to make an accurate V2 rocket, which has a diameter of well over 1.5 meters, you could replace the warhead on the top with the in-game command module, and it would probably be too small and look awkward on top of the V2. Were someone to make an accurate Mercury/Redstone, which has a diameter of nearly 2 meters, you'd have to make a double-size spacecraft to correctly simulate Mercury. Mercury is on the small end of all piloted spacecraft, and Apollo is on the larger end. However, the in-game CM, which seems to be modeled after the Apollo, is only half the size of the smallest piloted American spacecraft.[/QUOTE]
I think most of this is that the Kerbals are much, much smaller than humans. I don't think even one human could fit in a one meter diameter capsule after room is taken out of it for life support, walls, and other important stuff (since Mercury was two meters for one human), let alone three humans at once.
I agree that the scale should really be worked out for the custom parts, though.
Kerbal is an 11th of the size of earth. Making a rocket to scale with earth standards would be like making a flying Burj Dubai.
I think I made orbit.
[QUOTE=Squeegy Mackoy;31805190]Kerbal is an 11th of the size of earth. Making a rocket to scale with earth standards would be like making a flying Burj Dubai.[/QUOTE]
Of course it doesn't make sense when you're talking about native kerbal technology, but I believe I referred specifically to the custom parts that are of real world design, yet alter their scale to accommodate kerbal size.
Besides, isn't the point of this game to try and assemble a flying Burj Dubai? That's the idea I get when I look at people's screenshots.
[QUOTE=Squeegy Mackoy;31805190]Kerbal is an 11th of the size of earth. Making a rocket to scale with earth standards would be like making a flying Burj Dubai.[/QUOTE]
Kerbal should be made bigger!
[QUOTE=J Paul;31805620]Of course it doesn't make sense when you're talking about native kerbal technology, but I believe I referred specifically to the custom parts that are of real world design, yet alter their scale to accommodate kerbal size.
[/QUOTE]
Isn't that what's already been done? You have a saturn V, but smaller.
Has anyone managed to get a stable parabolic trajectory, with minimal WASD use?
What would be nice is if the SAS modules worked like the command module's basic one and simply kept the craft stable in the direction it's pointing at.
Every time I open this thread I have to load the game up and build a rocket for 30mins, then shut it off when it fails worse than the current news of BF3.
[QUOTE=Rombishead;31828097]Every time I open this thread I have to load the game up and build a rocket for 30mins, then shut it off when it fails worse than the current news of BF3.[/QUOTE]Well, if you want help getting it to orbit, just ask here, and we'll help you.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/aKtwD.png[/IMG]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
