EPTNeedless to say that so far, only having gotten a few missions to orbit the moon, space planes aren't yet a gleam in my engineers' eyes.
Kerbal Space Program - Page 41
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Mordanis
United States893 Posts
Needless to say that so far, only having gotten a few missions to orbit the moon, space planes aren't yet a gleam in my engineers' eyes. | ||
|
nimbim
Germany985 Posts
On August 17 2015 11:20 felisconcolori wrote: Those kind of missions are a little easier these days, I think, if you take along an ISRU, an Ore tank, and some drills. That would only make it harder, since you have to carry all that equipment over there. For a Tylo lander you should go for the lightest possible design. Don't try to land with a mainsail like Scott Manley did in his Tylo or Bust series, just use a command seat and 1 engine with high TWR. Tylo and Eve are 2 very different challenges. Tylo is the hardest to land on, because of the high gravity and no atmosphere to slow you down. You need to be rather precise with your landing or you will waste a lot of delta-v that you need to get into orbit again. Eve is super easy to land on and launching from the surface isn't exactly hard either, the problem is actually building something with enough delta-v in atmosphere and getting it to Eve without losing your sanity (have fun with 1fps). | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
On August 17 2015 17:25 Mordanis wrote: I watched a few Scott Manley videos recently and decided that Real Solar System was a good idea. Now instead of ~3.5 km/s delta-v to get to Low Kerbin Orbit, its ~10 km/s to get to Low Earth Orbit... in a fairly inclined orbit... that isn't coplanar with any moons or planets... and most of the engines can only ignite between 1 and 3 times, with 5 being a rarity consigned to mediocre vacuum engines. Needless to say that so far, only having gotten a few missions to orbit the moon, space planes aren't yet a gleam in my engineers' eyes. Meh, RSS makes the game too slow and repetitive, imo. Much prefer building crazy self-sustaining Eve colonies and Jool orbital outposts than spend 15 minutes staring at Kerbin orbital insertion burns with every launch. | ||
|
stenole
Norway869 Posts
Eve has killed more Kerbals than I can count. On August 17 2015 18:52 nimbim wrote: (...), the problem is actually building something with enough delta-v in atmosphere and getting it to Eve without losing your sanity (have fun with 1fps). The deltaV requirement is not terrible as long as you are able to land it on a mountain. | ||
|
nimbim
Germany985 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20326 Posts
it might be more like 6km/s of atmospheric delta-v from a fairly realistic landing height (3-5km) now. Not sure exactly, if i go there i'l be overbuilt to hell anway  eve ascent because of the 5 atmospheres is probably much more sensitive to your craft design, TWR and ascent profile now; that could make 2 different players need different amounts of delta-v also, you can SpaceY/KW the parts up there with kerbal joint reinforcement and you'll have like 5x more FPS than playing stock. I recently noticed atmospheric effects killing FPS and lowered them, now my FPS around ~300-1000m/s is not even comparable to before as well, maybe twice as high Manual flight to LKO with ~2.92km/s of DV, so 3200 shouldn't be that hard. Good video to link to people when they say ascent takes way more | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20326 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HVObuj0.png) ^_^ ^should be 1080p60 soon SpaceY continuously impresses me with its power. Aero effects still kills FPS - even there, you see it drop a ton as i speed up and increase a lot as i drop the 2 tanks at 1:52~ you can disable them, but i didn't take them back too far yet The timing was semi-accidental but pretty amazing. It was my second launch, so i knew the distance i tried the first time would have me far ahead of the station but i hit it dead-on without even looking at the map view :D Overkilled on the rocket. That thing had enough delta-v to take that 100-ton station section to Jool (2150m/s after dropping fairing 200 meters away from the main station) and by the time all the tanks were dropped, it had a 5.0 TWR while holding the station section in LKO - i could have added a smaller engine with a decoupler under it, maybe even a bit more fuel on top of that and it would have been much more efficient after the huge crazy engine doesn't have to carry the weight of all of the drop tanks any more and has been able to empty the fuel stored in the engine part itself can't wait for the even-bigger-sized SRB's (the biggest ones are the moment are 2.5m i think; SpaceY is soon adding ones equivelant in thickness to the biggest stock fuel tanks) | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20326 Posts
I am impressed :D (cool ending too 11:35+, i like the descent craft) | ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
Notable things include ~6000 electricity storage - enough to last for the dark side while processing, and easily enough generation to refill batteries. -3.5 ton lander module fully stocked with science gear, ~1.2k dV(enough to hit a polar biome and return, or hit surface twice without refueling) - enough fuel to make a couple dozen trips to the surface and back with the lander(~3000 total capacity) I still need to make a SSTO or mostly reusable craft for transporting kerbals to and from the station though, which is probably next on my list of things to accomplish. Probably my most complex station to date, and definitely one of my laggiest with around 6 launches worth of parts and stuff. Next on the list is to get both my scientists up there to land on minmus plant a flag, and return to get my level 2 kerbals. | ||
|
stenole
Norway869 Posts
| ||
Epoxide
Magic Woods9326 Posts
On October 25 2015 21:36 stenole wrote: Every time in career mode I end up at around where you are with extensive activity at Minmus and some exploration of Duna and Eve. Then a new patch is released which makes career different enough that, and I "have to" restart because of new features. The same thing will happen with the 1.05 release which should be out very soon. The update promises contextual missions which involve things you already have in space. There will also be new and redesigned parts. I'm not sure if constraints on communication will be part of this patch or the next, but it should be interesting too. Are you sure the update will be save breaking though? You won't necessarily have to restart. | ||
|
stenole
Norway869 Posts
On October 26 2015 04:43 Epoxide wrote: Are you sure the update will be save breaking though? You won't necessarily have to restart. I said "have to" restart. I did not mean that it was save breaking (although this could be a possibility). It feels wrong to continue on a career that started out with different rules and conditions. If activity on Eve gets harder in a patch, it will not feel right to have lots of equipment there from an earlier version. There might also be changes you miss out on if you don't replay the early game. | ||
|
Epoxide
Magic Woods9326 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20326 Posts
thinking of playing KSP with ~4 - 6.4x scale now on a seperate save for a bit, at least for a few cool missions. RSS is a bit hardcore and perhaps not even fair without differnet part stats but the default KSP feels way too small and also too easy in some ways IMO. I got better at the game now, did Tylo return, got a lot better at launches and rendezvous. I also learned more about orbital mechanics! Actually checked some numbers because i was curious: If you do a burn from LKO to Jool intercept, it takes ~1900m/s. That's the equivelant of escaping the kerbin SOI (930m/s) + 970m/s to put you on a hohmann transfer orbit to Jool. If you do that 930m/s burn to escape the SOI and then burn for jool transfer from outside of the kerbin SOI, instead of taking 970m/s to transfer, it takes 3515m/s. You have a total burn of ~4445m/s instead of ~1900m/s because of the Oberth Effect alone I also borked one of my launches (went more horizontal earlier than intended, didn't reach >70km apoapsis or turn off engines until over 2300m/s) and it actually turned out even more efficient: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XoJM456.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8VrHa95.png) 2932m/s vacuum delta-v to get to 73x72km orbit on my first flight. That was a bit of a shock, an autopilot mod with a bunch of iterations on the same ascent and some good programming could probably get into the 2800's. I feel very comfortable with 3250 now using gravity turn trajectories with a wide range of TWR's! (gets up there smoothly 10 times out of 10, especially if the launch vehicle is in a certain configuration that i like) | ||
|
spritzz
Canada331 Posts
Is there a guide at the start that lets player ease into the game? What's the most important skill required to play this game? Creativity? Patience? Pen, Paper and Math? I got to level 4 of Besieged and got kicked in the face by lack of creativity, so am slightly intimidated by sandbox games. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20326 Posts
On November 03 2015 09:49 spritzz wrote: I'm interested in this but feels a bit intimidating. Is there a guide at the start that lets player ease into the game? What's the most important skill required to play this game? Creativity? Patience? Pen, Paper and Math? I got to level 4 of Besieged and got kicked in the face by lack of creativity, so am slightly intimidated by sandbox games. The hard part IMO is the presumed knowledge of aerodynamics and/or orbital dynamics. Without reading some guides and talking to some people who know their stuff, it's very hard for some people without prior knowledge to get into. The career system is not great IMO and the tutorials don't cover that stuff particularly well - it makes it more of a sandbox with an obligation for you to do research, talk to other people and take inspiration from outside of the game, though it's still an excellent game if you do so. I would hate to be trapped in a room with KSP, lacking some knowledge/inspiration and no internet connection but if you enjoy looking outside the game (go post on www.reddit.com/r/kerbalspaceprogram ) then it's a lot of fun and a good way to learn and actually put the knowledge of orbital mechanics and everything else to work. maybe this is a good place to start: Math is important but most of the players are using pretty basic understandings and doing fine. There are mods to calculate and display some numbers for you automatically so that you're not pressured into using spreadsheets or anything like that, even for more complex craft. You can use a lot of math or a little, is up to you | ||
|
stenole
Norway869 Posts
On November 03 2015 09:49 spritzz wrote: I'm interested in this but feels a bit intimidating. Is there a guide at the start that lets player ease into the game? What's the most important skill required to play this game? Creativity? Patience? Pen, Paper and Math? I got to level 4 of Besieged and got kicked in the face by lack of creativity, so am slightly intimidated by sandbox games. I would say the most important "skill" is perfectionism. Because you can play the game very inefficiently and still complete the missions you set for yourself (or missions gotten from contracts). Perfectionism is what will drive you to design optimized vessels and fly optimized trajectories. That same perfectionism is what will drive you to learn the math required to play the game well. In a sense, the game is like Starcraft. You can can be playing terribly and not know it. A perfectionist will be able to find what can be done better. And as with Starcraft, those seemingly tiny details have a huge impact on the quality of your play. In Starcraft small inefficiencies quickly compound and propagate until the game is lost. In KSP, tiny inefficiencies will also compound and propagate but for different reasons. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
KSP is easy to play. Hard parts, like figuring out the best window for a flight to duna, can be done by mods like Mechjeb. The actual flying part is very easy, the game boils down to being able to understand basic aerodynamic (actually, only about drag), and build things accordingly. Meaning, put fins on the bottom of your rocket, and you got the ascend pretty much covered. My first moon landing i had after roughly 2 hours, back then without mod-support (didn't know about them). It's really not rocket science, no need to be intimidated by it. edit: math is pretty much a nonissue too, no shame in using Mechjeb or Engineer to calculate your DeltaV (happens automatically). Most of the famous and respected KSP players (Scott Manley, DasValdez) use them too. edit2: actually, check DasValdez' series called "Kerbal Space Academy". I assume it's on youtube. That'll help you (enabled my girlfriend to get to the mun too) - he's very beginner-friendly and focuses on teaching the game to beginners. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20326 Posts
It's really not rocket science It literally is rocket science but it's simplified in some ways, a lot of stuff that's neccesary IRL does not apply at all and as a whole it's made easier by the small size of the kerbal solar system | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On November 03 2015 13:48 Cyro wrote: It literally is rocket science but it's simplified in some ways, a lot of stuff that's neccesary IRL does not apply at all and as a whole it's made easier by the small size of the kerbal solar system There's pretty much no rocket science in unmodded KSP mate. Like.. none. Neither do you have to chose fuels, nor do you have to worry about re-ignites, fuel pumps or anything that actually is rocket science and not orbital mechanics. Which are not rocket science, yet again. | ||
| ||
