Kerbal Space Program, or: "How many rockets can I slap onto this thing?" - Games

It's hard to control goddamn.

There really should be an alternate editor zoom button. I have a MX Revolution and my middle mouse input is hijacked for the scroll mode switch.

okay what my maths must be wrong because apparently orbiting is impossible unless you go insanely fast. 20km/s +

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/GhU06.png[/IMG] Big fuel tank with the small rocket lasts 4 minutes before it runs out of fuel :v:

[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;31039512]20 second challenge, bring it: [thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/33893957/Screenshots/KSP/4.png[/thumb] [thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/33893957/Screenshots/KSP/5.png[/thumb][/QUOTE] [thumb]http://gyazo.com/70d3cb9ace83dc333f5f407a44968f83.png[/thumb] [thumb]http://gyazo.com/65dd8722676faecb127ddb833916eaa0.png[/thumb] Just thought i'd take a crack at it.

[QUOTE=Wavenarra;31039686]okay what my maths must be wrong because apparently orbiting is impossible unless you go insanely fast. 20km/s +[/QUOTE] Kearth is much smaller, so that probably throws things off.

This would be so much better with crossbeams to secure components together + either side-facing rockets or angled fins for stabilizing rotation

[QUOTE=Wavenarra;31039538]Hmn, okay. For a stable orbit with a period of 225 seconds you would need to be 200km above the surface and travelling at 22000m/s. That's assuming that Kearth has the same gravity as Earth and hence the same mass. Of course, there is a very high chance I have done something wrong.[/QUOTE] Did you account for the fact gravity would be less at that height? Or something to that effect. [QUOTE=jeimizu;31039751]Kearth is much smaller, so that probably throws things off.[/QUOTE] Or that.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;31039758]This would be so much better with crossbeams to secure components together + either side-facing rockets or angled fins for stabilizing rotation[/QUOTE] I'm sure someone could model a coupler that allowed side facing rockets. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/kHjJf.png[/IMG] Something like this. But made in a real modeling program instead of Sketchup :v:

[QUOTE=teh pirate;31039758]This would be so much better with crossbeams to secure components together + either side-facing rockets or angled fins for stabilizing rotation[/QUOTE] Harvester said he'd look into it. But with that pretty much all my insane creations would work as spaceships, as opposed to killing machines. [editline]11th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=jeimizu;31039793]I'm sure someone could model a coupler that allowed side facing rockets.[/QUOTE] I have used some redundant radial decouplers as "stoppers" to stop some things bending. It works, but it's high dubious.

[QUOTE=totalnoob1;31039527]Yeh, I thought so. I've got a laptop though so no middle mouse button. Any ideas?[/QUOTE] Shift+Mouse Wheel also zooms in and out in the VAB. Cheers

I've achieved rapid rotation by stacking command modules and holding q or e, but the module stack gets floppy and all the unsecured components fly out radially and rip apart

[QUOTE=Kickasskyle;31039759]Did you account for the fact gravity would be less at that height? Or something to that effect. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=jeimizu;31039751]Kearth is much smaller, so that probably throws things off.[/QUOTE] I checked the equations by using the radius of the Earth as a base and checking the ISS's orbital data against the stuff I worked out about the ISS. The reason is exactly because Kearth is much smaller, yet we assume it has the same mass and gravity of Earth. I assume that Kearth and Earths gravity is NOT actually similar, otherwise craft simply would not be able to orbit it. Seeing as it's possible travelling only roughly 2km/s to 5km/s, something's gone wrong.

[QUOTE=HarvesteR;31039858]Shift+Mouse Wheel also zooms in and out in the VAB. Cheers[/QUOTE] How goes the websitey stuff?

[QUOTE=Wavenarra;31039883]I checked the equations by using the radius of the Earth as a base and checking the ISS's orbital data against the stuff I worked out about the ISS. The reason is exactly because Kearth is much smaller, yet we assume it has the same mass and gravity of Earth. I assume that Kearth and Earths gravity is NOT actually similar, otherwise craft simply would not be able to orbit it. Seeing as it's possible travelling only roughly 2km/s to 5km/s, something's gone wrong.[/QUOTE] I think you're putting too much thought into it.

[QUOTE=shatteredwindow;31039974]I think you're putting too much thought into it.[/QUOTE] > It's orbital mechanics you derp. I'm probably wrong anyway, never was good at maths. :V Forums are still down, so is the wiki.

[QUOTE=Kickasskyle;31039741][thumb]http://gyazo.com/70d3cb9ace83dc333f5f407a44968f83.png[/thumb] [thumb]http://gyazo.com/65dd8722676faecb127ddb833916eaa0.png[/thumb] Just thought i'd take a crack at it.[/QUOTE] After many revisions, I think I've gotten the best I'll be able to. [img]http://gyazo.com/28b35eb7ed235fa0a7f5c7cb7f143924.png[/img] Ship: [img]http://gyazo.com/08fd0a5f8674adba3c59f7ebe6b2e2a7.png[/img] I'm not giving up, though

You should put up a donation page. Fp'ers are especially generous when it comes to burgeoning indie developers.

I think I read on SA that if you went 2,200 M/s to the side you would orbit Kearth, no idea if its based on a certain altitude though.

[QUOTE=SteelReal;31040076]You should put up a donation page. Fp'ers are especially generous when it comes to burgeoning indie developers.[/QUOTE] Well, he said he'd start selling the game later on, and I'd give my monies then because, well, gamez and updates for life and I don't have much money. :(

[QUOTE=Wavenarra;31040000]> It's orbital mechanics you derp. I'm probably wrong anyway, never was good at maths. :V Forums are still down, so is the wiki.[/QUOTE] It's a video game you derp. Does the game even have realistic physics?

[QUOTE=Themage;31040107]I think I read on SA that if you went 2,200 M/s to the side you would orbit Kearth, no idea if its based on a certain altitude though.[/QUOTE] That's only 2km/sec. Hnnngg confusing. [QUOTE=shatteredwindow;31040116]It's a video game you derp. Does the game even have realistic physics?[/QUOTE] That's actually a good point, I assumed it was based on newtonian physics like Orbiter is. It might just be based on random bullshit. :V

Fuck me.. I somehow managed 42.3g... Sorry i didn't get a screen, but you gotta believe me on this.. strange thing was: IT NEVER MOVED :pwn:

I don't like these 3rd party parts. They don't feel right. The vanilla stuff is where it's at. Well, actually, the only part of the community stuff that I like is the big orange fuel tank.

WHY WHY WONT YOU WOOORK

[QUOTE=AltFanatic;31040138]WHY WHY WONT YOU WOOORK[/QUOTE] not enuff magix

[QUOTE=Kickasskyle;31039886]How goes the websitey stuff?[/QUOTE] Well, the websitey stuff is improving, slowly but surely. We got the main page up again, but the Forums and Wiki are offline. We still have to migrate the databases over to the new host. The dev blog is online, though. But in this short lapse of time that the site's been up again, we've moved over 46GB. :rock: Cheers

Were you guys expecting this much game buzz from the internet?

I went and flipped the tri-coupler around so you can go back and forth between tri and single rockets. [img]http://i.imgur.com/77Zun.jpg[/img] Because the way the ship builder is, only one node will attach so under heavy stress, it could bend. Hasn't given me much issue though. [url]http://filesmelt.com/dl/stackTriCouplerReverse.rar[/url] Throw that in 'Parts'.

[QUOTE=HarvesteR;31040166]Well, the websitey stuff is improving, slowly but surely. We got the main page up again, but the Forums and Wiki are offline. We still have to migrate the databases over to the new host. The dev blog is online, though. But in this short lapse of time that the site's been up again, we've moved over 46GB. :rock: Cheers[/QUOTE] There's also a lot of activity going on through the mirrors... You should see if you can contact the filesmelt owner (I think he's a FPer) and get statistics for the various mirrors.