Blaarkies

Even if agencies just use KSP2 for rendering their video feed, it would already be a huge step up from the low quality renders typically seen after the rocket leaves the camera's view. Such API idea would greatly simplify the process for them

The harder the difficulty, the more important reusability becomes to save fund (or profit more from contracts). For each mission, funds are used/gained to accomplish a few contracts. In harder difficulties, the Funds Rewards multiplier is lowered. This makes the rocket launch cost become a significant part of the total cost. Recovering most of this cost via reusability makes a huge difference in harder difficulties, but less in easy difficulties. On max difficulty, you only receive 10% funds rewarded by contracts. This means that some contracts are needed just to break even on launch cost, paying to get a craft into orbit. This craft can then complete some more contracts for actual profit. Doing this is quite easy after the first few tries from the Desert Launchpad

I completed my NCD run without external savegames, you can do it too! Trust me it really adds a lot to the gameplay when every launch starts with you nervously tapping spacebar, not knowing if the launch will go according to plan. Sure I tried testing what I can, making a capsule do an unmanned launch here and there before putting kerbals in it. I actually preferred sticking with the older less efficient designs, just because they were well tested by then. I had a magazine-type fuel tank system on my Mun lander. Only when i got to refueling reloading the fuel tank, I realized it is really difficult to do docking with the setup i designed...so i learned how to do it by kerbal-hand in EVA to make it work, something I would have never spent time learning. The same goes for many other situations, things you only discover when there are no shortcuts.

"Remember to like and subscribe"

Yeah completely agree. All time-based mechanics have this problem, but in normal difficulty you can already make 5 million funds every 20 minutes by just doing the rally contracts. If players want near-infinite money, they can certainly get it without this. If there was a way to sell a service by having a specific craft, it could motivate players more to build proper surface bases instead of the bare minimum to fulfil the contract.

Making funds in KSP would be nice if it followed a frontier model, where you do the first few boundary-pushing launches of a complicated mission, and then get the opportunity to "automate" it, letting it run in the background. Much like how SpaceX is using starlink to get funds. It gets boring by the 5th launch of the same vehicle just to make some funds, and by that time the player has proven that they could get infinite funds from just repeating that. As long as it requires some setup and effort on the player's part to get the system going at first, it would be great to just automate that later.

I completely agree with this, i would be happy with chop-chop helicopter sounds on the electric motors, even in space, with broken-off propellers...anything is better than the deafening silence they produce now good idea with the Juno...that hum sound might fit really well into the liquid fuel motor. I haven't looked at sounds in mods yet, i'm still figuring out textures and animations now, i'm working on something that I should probably expose on the forum as a pre-alpha version for some help

Been looking for this as well. Im guessing a part module on the motor part can detect if propellers(or any lift-generating parts) are connected, and then play a propeller-engine sound. It might get bad if many motors are on the same vessel. Is there something like VesselModule instead? Something like PartModule, but one level higher? It can quickly get quite complicated considering atmospheric pressure (in orbit, or flying at duna vs taking off at KSC runway) motor used as a wheel, or with propellers, or underwater count and size of propellers added (does it sound like a quad-copter, a bi-plane, or a helicopter) airspeed and airflow direction (maybe, i don't know enough about that though)

Maybe this can help? It doesn't handle RemoteTech parts yet, but it has everything sorted for stock KSP

Almost always happens in the "SpaceX Discussion Thread" when there are tons of new posts, and I move over to the newest page (using the paginator). Then "https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/" shows this error for the next few hours

Hi @Ande, sorry about that issue. The website is definitely made to support tablets and phones as well. I did most of my hands-on testing with a Pixel 2, and that tiny screen made the calculator quite constrained but still manageable. The off-screen issue is something I have only seen on a friend's phone, I couldn't replicate it on my local development environment, so it was hard to track down the root cause of the issue. I'm speculating that it might be some scaling feature, but haven't been able to test it out. For now, a workaround might be to try landscape mode. The website is designed to work on a "sideways" phone screen as well. Now, if you are up for it, I would greatly appreciate it if you can put some screenshots and details in the github issue tracker (https://github.com/Blaarkies/ksp-visual-calculator/issues/new). Thanks for the feedback

You can open up and edit the .dds textures of any part in `...\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\Squad\Parts\` with GIMP, but the model/mesh files are .mu which needs some sort of decoder to read (or convert into .obj files). You might need more than Paint 3d to create good collision meshes, since those need to be low poly-count for better performance, but still follow the object mesh closely to be believable.

The problem with the typical subway dv map is that it does not show the dv values going from Duna->Dres, or Tylo->Laythe, or any other combination that does not contain Kerbin. Not attacking your reply, I quite agree with the reversible property of any vacuum dv trip, i mean my whole website planner tool is built on that premise OP might be struggling with the fact that subway maps don't show the costs between elliptical orbits and low orbits for all planets/moons, it just sums them up into "capture"? (i don't know, this is just speculating at this point)

If you are looking for a delta-v planner, here is one that provides all the details: https://ksp-visual-calculator.blaarkies.com/calculators/dv-planner

Version 1.2.4 Theme Dark-mode; on which side of the fence for dark/light theme are you? doesn't matter, you can now select the one you prefer It will automatically detect your browser preference, but you can tap the sun/moon icon in the top left to switch it per device Improved some theme aspects and layout across the whole site Moved the Tutorial button to the lower-left orange panel; that panel is contextual to whichever page is active, just like the tutorial is Introduction Page This is some article content to provide background about how Delta-v and CommNets work; it will be useful for new players It helps the website with Search Engine Optimization; it should help to increase the number of users Fixes Split the website's internal structure to allow faster loading Removed dodgy ad network; the types of things showing up there was never what I signed up for URL Routes You might notice they now add '/calculators' as part of the route to the dv-planner or signal-check Don't worry about the old routes/links you bookmarked, they will still function as if nothing changed This proper route structure allows for faster site loading, and prepares a foundation for more future improvements If you run into any issues, or have great ideas, please let me know

That's insane, what is the equivalent 35 km pressure-altitude for Kerbin? (Trying to figure out how thin of an atmosphere these fins can use) How do you handle the pitch angle on those, do you just place a static angle on the fins and then vary the RPM limiter?

Sorry, please have a grain of salt with the 30 km altitude claim So it is definitely possible to go 30 km high on Eve with ducted fans: But as can be seen this craft has almost no payload, and it probably lost lift by 29 km already (so 30 km was just the ballistic apex due to velocity). Realistically with a pod/payload, i would not aim for more than 25km. But looking closely at the video, i think that craft maybe still has some lift above 18 km? What i did here was max out the props, and use a KAL-1000 controller. I'm not sure how well adept you are at the propellers in game, apologies if im just repeating stuff you already know, but here goes, this is what i use: The electric motors have a editor toggle for how many blades can be attached. I don't think KSP cares about too many blades in the same airstream (in real life this here probably has some bad side effects), so just max out the blades for now. Blades can be set to have pitch/yaw/roll controls. I disabled them for this, they work better on helicopters with long blades I gizmo moved the blades out from the moter a bit, hoping it helps Set the blades as "Deployed" Then we are going to use the "Deploy Angle" with the KAL-1000, so it transitions those between 0-14° Then connect the KAL controller to the main-throttle. Now we have smooth control over the pitch of the blades Propeller pitch works a lot like higher/lower gears in a car. The faster you go, the more you should pitch those blades But the current pitch should match the speed, else the blades stall (much like the car engine in 5th gear at a traffic light...but the stall reasons are way different of course ) I added the motors' "Torque" value to the "Custom 1 Axis", which like like a secondary throttle for robotics things (there are actually 4 alternative throttle axis stuff in the settings) When you launch, just max out those torque values. You can do it with these PAW windows as well if you prefer Nothing much more to it, i just leave the RPM at max, and torque at max, and then keep the throttle(blade pitch) in line with the current speed. The last prop attempt for Eve I did used a lander that was like ~8t (or even less, but i would lie if i had to guess now). It only took a single kerbal up in a fairing chair and everything selected to be miniature. I think it was 4 stage? The last stage was an Ant engine, and the Kerbal did not have to use their jetpack. The weight savings really made everything else soo much easier, even the Eve re-entry and landing was a breeze. Before props my best attempt got down to the 40ton range.

If you did that on Kerbin, you are looking at some +5000 m/s dv needed to do it at Eve. Because of the thick atmosphere, you can go pretty high before it thins out too much. I got a ducted fan launch close to 30 km altitude on Eve, and i'm sure a better design can go higher. The problem is that Mk1-3 Pod at the top. It is heavy, and heavy things are a luxury for any Eve launcher. If you are comfortable replacing that MK1-3 pod instead with 3 kerbal seats protected inside in a fairing, the mission becomes much simpler. If you intend on getting that Mk1-3 pod up there, you should try a wider base (3m parts near the bottom) to get the necessary fuel or dry/wet mass ratio to improve the delta-v capability. It is also worth experimenting with more stages and less TWR, but you might have to make this rocket shorter to successfully land so that will be difficult. Unless it is for aesthetics, you won't need such big fins at the bottom. Those propeller ducts are pretty light weight so the rocket should point nicely prograde.

Sound like you should limit it to Plant a flag on Minmus Score by largest part (the smaller that is, the better) Does part "size" count as the 0.625m, 1.25m ,... measure, or do you look at mass? Do you want spaceships built out of tiny parts, or minimalistic rocket chairs? This will determine scoring by part count Breaking Ground DLC has tiny propellers that can lift craft the 10-20 km high, it will make quite a difference in the scoreboard What about EVA construction? Do you have an example attempt we could look at?

Wait what who among us has 10 billion dollars?

Same here, at first I thought it was because of alt-tabbing out of KSP (seemed to happen right after that). So the last few sessions were on strictly single-monitor, never leaving KSP full-screen, but it still happens after a few scene reloads (going between VAB, flight, tracking station) Mods: Chatterer Waterfall Better Timewarp I usually still have "windy" atmospheric reentry sounds, and parachute sounds, even the staging sound

Yeah the crossfeed rules are like english grammar rules How does do everyone get around crossfeed limitations (and the difficulty setting enabled) when you have a tank at the front, and lots of hab modules and stuff in the middle, and then more tanks/engines at the back. I have been trying to run a fuel pipe neatly along the sides, but it needs a bend at 1 point because of tank size differences. The question is basically: what do you use as an intermediate connector part between fuel pipes that span curves? I used the Ant engine for that, it seems to work pretty well. Cheap, small and light. I don't know if it handles other fuel types though?

How many people are in the team at NASA that worked on Perseverance? In KSP you are the 1-person space program, you design, pilot and decide everything going on. Gameplay suffers quite a bit when you try and do things that should really be done by 10+ people, or even by computers instead. When launching a new rocket in KSP, there is a high chance that at least 1 thing is wrong somewhere. The same issues don't happen with real life launches, because there are 100+ people looking over every detail, but a 1-player space program can't do that. Consider the rocket launches you do in KSP, how many real life rocket launches have been directly controlled by people, instead of relying on the pre-programmed code that has been tested through countless simulations and even some previous real launches? It is silly adding some control delay to a probe that the player should not even be directly controlling in the first place, but it is more fun for gameplay to control it directly. Giving the player the tools to pre-program landing sequences would be great, but that is arguably less fun gameplay-wise than just giving direct immediate control and saying "the current player input is equivalent to what they would have wanted to program previously". Light delay is real and should have an effect somewhere in the game, but it doesn't make sense locking the player out from controlling the probe just because they should have instead sent that command out hours ago when they didn't realize the problem yet.

I hope this still works. It gives you a special fuel pipe that kerbals on EVA can use to attach your spaceplane. Just park close by, walk over there with the pipe, and you can transfer fuel without any actual docking EVA Resource Transfer - 9.0

Yes, i have used this to keep the core stage full until booster separation. Remember to enable crossfeed on the booster decouplers