• Profile image

    sounds good! I hope that:
    A. you're telling the truth
    B. it actually works

    +3 1.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    That's looking good! I'm assuming that there will also be heat and G-force damage rather than just visuals?

    +3 2.3 years ago
  • Profile image

    @Chancey21 I hear you. While it is a space game, it would be nice to emulate the Mars helicopter and make our own extraterrestrial UAVs, bush planes, etc

    +2 1.5 years ago
  • Profile image

    Well now we need Scott Manley to do a second review.

    +2 1.5 years ago
  • Profile image

    You even got a shockwave effect! I don’t know of any games with that simulated as an in-game feature rather than just in cut-scenes.

    +2 2.0 years ago
  • Profile image

    In incredibly simplified form that physically hurts to say, rockets push off their own fuel. Essentially ejecting it out the back at high speeds pushes the aircraft forwards due to equal and opposite reactions

    +2 2.0 years ago
  • Profile image

    Geostationary refers to Earth specifically. Stationary or droostationary is the correct term. Sorry to be petty

    +1 1.4 years ago
  • Profile image

    I have to agree but SR2 has a lot of catching up to do in terms of implementation and refinement. SR2 is rapidly improving though and I hope it manages to overtake KSP with its functionality sometime soon

    +1 1.4 years ago
  • Profile image

    @AnotherFireFox Yeah... realised that afterwards. I thought it was just a made up fun name lol

    +1 1.6 years ago
  • Profile image

    Looks pretty good but I have a couple of questions:
    1. Is hydrolox hydrogen or hydrazine? (or something else)
    2. Will liquid hydrogen also be a fuel for regular engines? (Look at the space shuttle and SLS)
    3. Will there be cryogenic effects (ie, leaking fuel at 1%/X-hours)

    +1 1.6 years ago
  • Profile image

    I agree except for the bit about weapons not working in space. I assume when you say 'weapon' you actually mean firearms. A firearm would need to be specially designed for a vacuum but it would definitely be possible. Self-oxidising explosives also work in a vacuum so you also have bombs. On top of that, there’s lasers, railguns, kinetic missiles and nuclear devices that all work in space

    +1 1.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    Ion engines use electrical power to push negatively charged particles really, really fast out the back of it. Everything has to obey conservation of mass and momentum so you need xenon as expendable fuel. Since it requires electrical power, you'll need batteries to store power as well as solar panels to produce power. You should be able to see an option on fuel tanks to change their fuel type to xenon, monopropellant, battery or RP1. You'll need one battery and one xenon tank at a minimum.

    +1 1.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    @nathanmagnus Your central processing unit (CPU) handles pretty much everything except graphics. Your graphics processing unit (GPU) handles mostly just graphics. RAM is trickier to explain. To run almost anything smoothly you'll probably need 8GB of RAM. If I knew exact specs of your computer, I could give you more tips but it's quite likely you'll need a whole new PC to run anything higher than minimum settings. However, SR2 will have lots of performance upgrades over the coming months so it might be fine in the future.
    PS get someone else to give you better tips because I'm no expert

    +1 1.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    "A"

    +1 1.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    Yes, it will make a difference. How much difference? I don't know. It will probably be fairly significant but your GPU and CPU may also be holding it back a lot so you may not notice a difference.

    +1 1.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    Yep, I agree. Solid fuel rockets are in extensive use for small, cheap and reliable LEO rockets

    +1 1.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    I'd be happy with the stock solar panels with options to have it pre-extended or case-less.

    1.4 years ago
  • Profile image

    They're pretty busy with everything else. I'd rather have gyros and multi-directional RCS before expander cycle. The ability to create unmanned satellites without tinker panel is more important to me than yet another engine type. But I definitely want expander cycle too

    1.4 years ago
  • Profile image

    The other benefit of staging is that you can have a booster that's extremely efficient at low-altitudes pushing a second stage into space that's far more efficient in a vacuum. You end up with much, much higher efficiency. SSTOs with aerospikes are cool too but they're much harder to build due to limitations mentioned by the OP.

    1.4 years ago
  • Profile image

    Well that's what happened in SimplePlanes as well. It's not optimised for extreme high and low speeds. It works for cruising GA very well but not much else. Hopefully they can fix it up but Jundroo is a small team and very busy

    1.4 years ago
  • Profile image

    @swope How about the bony-eared assfish?

    1.4 years ago
  • Profile image

    Ever heard of the sonic hedgehog gene? @swope

    1.4 years ago
  • Profile image

    @swope Yeah, KSP career and science modes aren't very serious. But that's literally what science is sometimes

    1.4 years ago
  • Profile image

    Oops. Even still, satellites and landers use much, much smaller engines than that. Probably closer to <10% @Kell

    1.5 years ago
  • Profile image

    Ability to shrink the engines down a bit more would be nice. 75% just isn’t small enough for a lot of things. It’s fine for most launchers but the engines are way too big for small probes and landers

    1.5 years ago
  • Profile image

    @pedro16797 electric motors don't need fuel to work

    1.5 years ago
  • Profile image

    but actually no

    1.5 years ago
  • Profile image

    yes

    1.5 years ago
  • Profile image

    A radial-specific option for a parachute like in KSP would be nice

    1.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    Now to make something that’s accurate for asparagus staging

    1.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    If it’s for the Buran, go ahead. It’s not as if it’s a symbol of hate like the swastika. It’s just a symbol of communism which has inadvertently been used by various dictators

    1.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    Sadly not possible since they changed too much stuff. It is possible for them to add upgraded versions of everything on SP but weapons are unlikely at this stage. Lots of people will make weapons mods though

    1.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    Tag it as a bug to get the attention of Jundroo

    1.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    Since I don’t work with small parts very often and I only have low part counts, I have no issues at all with whole aircraft mirroring. Just remember that SR2 automatically mirrors a lot of stuff which makes it easier @AN2Felllla

    1.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    I use it sometimes but I only make simple stuff. Once I make complex things I use individual mirror but that's only happened once lol @AN2Felllla

    1.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    Having that as an additional option would be nice but I barely use it in Simple Planes (and you know how complex my stuff gets cough)

    1.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    Just open the file through file explorer and it should automatically open SR2 with the craft loaded

    1.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    @tsampoy there's a tick box somewhere to enable stuff that's normally hidden. I don't have the game in front of me to give you exact instructions

    1.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    @Jetspeed1001 If it looks too big on the side boosters, make your center stage bigger and put more engines on it

    1.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    @Jetspeed1001 Sooooo... now the Apex is too big?

    1.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    Haven't had time to do that yet. I've constructed large-scale moon bases and orbital lunar stations in KSP so I should be fine. I have noticed that it's much harder to get high delta-v on SR2 though

    1.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    As far as I know, no.

    1.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    As @SupremeDorian has stated, the solar system is 1/5 scale so you don't need your engines to be nearly as powerful. Add 6 large side boosters if you don't have enough thrust. I do agree that in some instances you will need more powerful engines but I think that's what XML is for. If it's for campaign, you'll just have to make smaller rockets or rockets with more side stages and engines

    1.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    Just add more engines. Look at the SpaceX BFR which has 31 Raptor engines (medium size engines) all-up. Adding something bigger than the Apex would be a bit ridiculous for stock but you can XML mod it. If you open up the tinker panel and enable hidden stuff you will see a size adjustment slider

    1.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    I’ll fight you for that licorice @Caveman999

    2.0 years ago
  • Profile image

    You only 'dislike' it because it’s superior to you and you hide your jealousy with feigned disgust @Teague @Nerfenthusiast

    2.0 years ago
  • Profile image

    In most armies, double stripes are corporals. I don’t know about Air Force rankings or whatever SR2 uses since it isn’t military

    2.0 years ago
  • Profile image

    What about detachers/separators? Do they obey the laws of physics unlike simpleplanes?

    2.0 years ago
  • Profile image

    Now known as the BFR @tsampoy

    2.3 years ago