nivvydaskrl

I also have started experiencing this bug after about 12 hours of playtime on the same campaign. I have not yet tried starting a new campaign to try to resolve it, but that will be my next step, I think.

I successfully landed a Kerbal on Eeloo, planted a flag, and got him back to Kerbin. I'll try to remember to write up a mission report tomorrow or Sunday. :3

The launch stage of my rocket was firmly attached to my vessel after staging (decoupler and next stage engine were in the same stage). This persisted until entering and leaving time warp, at which point the launch stage was violently ejected backwards with no damage to the rest of my craft. Maneuver planning while focused on another body does not show the trajectory within that body's SOI. Communotron DTS-M1 prohibits a constructed fairing from intersecting its deployed volume, even when the antenna is not deployed. Manuever nodes are not working for a sub-craft decoupled from a main craft (orbiter probe decoupled from lander, for example) [see #1 in attached figure; 4000+ retrograde dV and no deviation of trajectory line]. Delta-V display is also 0 for that craft [see #2 in figure] despite active engines and plenty of fuel mass [see #3 in figure]. On launching a spaceplane, the default camera sometimes starts rolled 90 degrees to the right, as if in orbit: The ocean and atmosphere occasionally is visually missing. When it is, you can crash into the seabed. The jet engine functions as if the atmosphere was present and drag affects the craft. Reverting to launch restores the atmosphere and ocean. Reverting to launch skips the countdown when re-launching. The flowers are texture maps on a flat plane: SAS flutter/overcorrections in level flight with stock aircraft at >300 m/s under 500 meters of altitude. Can't pan camera side to side with MMB, only up and down. Attempting to pan with MMB pressed yaws the camera instead.

Nope, I was able to put that probe into a circular orbit as it was. No additional engine activations or other reconfiguration of the craft. It was fired up, fueled up, and ready to go, but the stage viewer and maneuver node system just didn't believe it.

Mission 3: First Aircraft Flight This one was particularly buggy, unfortunately. After fiddling around a bit to figure out how to get onto the runway, I launched the default spaceplane and was greeted with being immediately in a 90 degree rotated camera mode (as if in orbit): I then noticed that the atmosphere and ocean were visually missing: I then confirmed that the ocean was actually missing by crashing into the seabed. I'm not sure if the atmosphere gave drag or not, but the jet engine did function: Reverting to launch after the crash gave me a normal camera and restored both the atmosphere and the ocean and I was able to fly around like normal. I have no real complaints, but it was quite strange and surreal! Update (Mission 3.5: turning the default plane into a U-2) This worked pretty much flawlessly and as expected. Extending and thinning out the wings gave a lot more lift at high altitude and made it easier to maintain an altitude of 10km without any other changes to the craft. Aerodynamics seems to act much like the first game -- perhaps even more realistic -- without any strangeness discovered at this time. The U2 kinda sucks to control without an elevator, though:

Mission 2: Unmanned Duna Lander w/ Orbiter I was able to do an unmanned Duna lander with included orbiter, which resulted in a few more feedback messages to the dev team. Image of the landed probe: Feedback to dev team: Map screen showing orbiter and lander: I'm getting used to some of the weirdness and changes.

Mission 1: Manned Mun Landing and Return Pretty standard Mun mission profile that ran with a few hiccups. Stage 1 stayed tenaciously attached until I did a quick time warp. A phantom spin in my translunar injection stage caused me to be a bit short for my landing stage (ran out of fuel about 100 meters off the surface), so I wound up balancing on the engine bell of the return stage for the landing. The craft: I wound up providing a lot of feedback to the development team via the feedback form in the game launcher (hint: if you start KSP 1 in Steam while running KSP 2, it give you the launcher and you can provide feedback mid-game that way) during the rocket construction, map planning, and flight. There's a lot that needs work, but I was able to get the mission done on the second try. Here's the flight report after landing back on Kerbin: Here's the feedback I provided for others' reference, in no particular format or order: So far, so good. Looking forward to seeing how things progress over the next days and weeks! I'm diving right back in to keep playing now. <3

I arise from the depths of the past after an 11 year hiatus from the forums! I haven't been active here since 2012, but I'm starting to get hyped up for being back in the joyful days of Early Access discovery and feedback. Edit: My signature is as true today as it was when I wrote it.

I typically think of it in terms of metric tons for weight, and kilonewtons for thrust. Well, note that the NERVA is a 1-meter part. I think that an ion engine could be a 2-meter part with a much higher weight but similar thrust to the NERVA -- that would allow a usable amount of thrust to remain, but would decrease the thrust-to-weight ratio. A 2-meter NERVA could then be added with similar weight, but lower efficiency and a higher thrust. Examples off the top of my head would be: or something to that effect. I'm at work, so can't load up the game and see what existing parts are hanging around to compare to, but these are just off-the-cuff examples. EDIT: A one-meter ion engine could be a high-efficiency, high-weight version of the current landing engine. The current landing engine has a thrust of 20, a vacuum Isp of 400, and a weight of 0.5. Bump the weight to 2.5, raise the Isp to 4000, and leave the thrust the same, and it starts to look appropriate; the weight can even be increased further to 3 or 3.5 for balance, and it can be justified by saying it has a built-in nuclear reactor or nuclear thermoelectric generator to provide the electrical power.

The moderators have a job to do. Please understand that you weren't being singled out; several other people had also quoted those images, you just happened to be the last one before Skunky said something. No one was picking on you. ^.^ Other folks, be nice. The guy probably feels like he was singled out, and is being a little prickly as a defensive measure. Let's just let the subject slide, I'm sure he didn't mean any harm, not really. As I understand, the solar heating model isn't yet complete; at least, it's not in the patch notes. I'm unsure what that means for Moho in this development cycle, but the alpha currently has some limitations. We know, for example, that Moho is supposed to have lava on it, but due to time limits in this sprint of the development, lava's been left off for now. Indeed! NERVA engines also have a much higher maximum thrust, and a better thrust-to-weight ratio, than ion engines. They fill a nice slot between low efficiency, high thrust-to-weight chemical engines and high efficiency, low thrust-to-weight ion engines. They're medium performers in both categories. Great choice by the dev team, so far as expanding the players' toolset goes.

At risk of sounding terribly self-promoting, my blog here on the KSP site (http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/blog.php/6794-nivvydaskrl) has a lot of the math for various fun things, and I'm always looking for more things to write about. I do most of my posts based on questions from other people, so if you have any questions, shoot them my way and I'll answer them in (mind-numbing!) detail!

Very cool! I've been toying with the Kethane mod; I had an idea to do miner Mun landers which shuttle fuel to an orbital tanker, which then takes the fuel to a station in Kerbin orbit, but I wind up burning most of my Kethane before I even get it into the tanker! But yes, rendezvous and docking are a lot of fun -- I've been playing with spaceplanes and rendezvous as of late. I should slap a docking collar onto my spaceplanes and rendezvous targets!

Hah, no! That's a great way to eyeball the angle, sure as sure, but no, that's not the way I go about it. I'm the blogger that's been doing intercept stuff: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/blog.php/6794-nivvydaskrl X= Target Orbit Y= Parking Orbit R= Orbiting body Radius |{|Square root|(X+r)^3]/Square root|(X+Y+2r)^3|}*180-180|= -It looks intimidating first glance, but its basically two orbital period formulas (one being your target, other the excentirc transfer orbit).. -Divided by each other to get the relative periods.. (when one dose a full revolution the other one dose x % of that..).. -Multiplied by the 180 and subtract by 180.. (to get the burn angle).. Simple as that.. Ah, see, I go about it in a very similar way; the orbital period equations are, hands-down, the most important navigational tool aside from the map that I can recommend. Mine's slapped down into a spreadsheet...but, you know, someday I should write a little white paper and post it for people; these equations would look very good in LaTeX. However, I'll share my equations here: So, the way that would look in map view is: Everyone plays the game their own way! Besides, interplanetary transfers are like trying to hit a peanut in London with a BB gun...while you're in Paris. It's very finicky!

I have the equations for interplanetary transfer angles prepared and ready to go for official distance data; when that data's available, I'll post diagrams which will let people eyeball the transfer windows, like I did for the Mun.

I have the mathematics for various transfers prepared, and will be drawing diagrams for interplanetary Hohmann transfers to Jool, Duna, and Eve once 0.17 is officially released (and their orbital parameters are finalized). I'm looking forward to it!