MajorThomas

Indeed that was it...thank you Aelfhe1m! Now the female Kerbals are frozen...I think I saw something about how to resolve that. Off to look that up. Cheers.

Thanks...a bit cryptic though. Do you mean "old version" textures? I see discussion of converting PNG to DDS...so TTR uses DDS exclusively? Or is it just recommended?

Hi All (HaArLiNsH, Cetera, et. al.) Not easy to bust into a thread that's about a mod obviously in progress, but I thought I'd ask a couple general status questions! But first off, took me a while to discover this "TextureReplacerReplacer" as probably the main, or best way to update the look of Kerbals in-game. My KSP is up to date; I found that the GUI button for the previous TR did not even work, but TRR's does in v1.3 of KSP. So far, so good. However, in my experimentation thus far, I've not yet been able to get a texture made for TR to work in TRR. Actually, I've not yet been able to replace any textures at all, however the GUI seems to allow that possibility. I've put in a few (PNG format) files, 1024x1024, in the usual "Heads" directory established by TRR, and modified a config file to point to the appropriate directories for TRR and even to assign a few Kerbals to their new textures. No luck yet. Could it be due to the texture files somehow being not right for KSP 1.3? Is there a way I can test if they work or not? 1. At this point, HaArLiNsH, are you able to give a quick status post on what your TRR can currently do and what lies ahead? 2. Are there any texture files (heads, suits) that are known to work with TRR currently? Many thanks-

Tourists can't EVA so indeed they're stuck. The Klaw will be much easier to use than sending up some EVA-capable Kerbonauts to use their jetpacks to push the ship home (yes this can be done but it's tedious). I'd recommend using this rescue craft (with Klaw) to send these tourists home, if you can do so safely. If you can't get the pod the tourists are in to reenter Kerbin's atmosphere without killing the tourists, then they're pretty much doomed...might as well just chalk this one up to a loss and move on. Lesson learned: don't let the ship run out of power. Solar panels all over the place (or thoughtfully arranged) can prevent this in the future. - - - Updated - - - Our posts arrived at about the same time. Question: Can one really make changes to a ship in flight as you suggest? Never seen that or even heard about it until now. EDIT: Sorry, sounds like something "KAS" is being referenced, which probably allows ship changes in flight I would presume.

Jetpacks work really well as a ladder replacement on Minmus, the Mun and even Duna. But not on Kerbin or Eve (gravity too high). To turn on your Kerbal's jetpack, use the R key. Then it's WASD Shift Ctrl to thrust in the 6 different directions.

Fun to see your documented trip up the learning curve! As you've learned, the better you are at building and flying, the less grind you have to do. But there is still a little...I recently started a new career game and was able to launch a rocket with early parts that was *barely* able to orbit a pod, weighing 17.8 tons. But there was a brief time when I had to do a little bit of grinding on contracts to build up enough money to purchase the required upgrades to KSC. But it wasn't that bad, took only an hour or two. As for MechJeb, it's really useful to see how it handles such things as launch speeds and trajectories, landing, etc. It's also really nice to get instantaneous Delta V calculations presented. (The alternative...using the rocket equation and plugging in your craft's design numbers...is fun but can get little tedious.) But I suggest using MechJeb as a guide and a tedium buster, rather than a substitute for learning how to fly Glad you're here and having fun!

Kudos! The text style is somewhere between Doge and XKCD's "Up Goer Five" poster...

Indeed the tourist missions are tough if you do them as soon as they're offered...they're tempting, but often deadly until you get the larger (3-seat) capsule. I've learned my lesson

Update: I might have solved it. I had had a saved craft (actually several) that used the Mk16. In these ships, the Mk16 deployment altitude was set to 500. But building a fresh, brand new ship and using this same part, I now see the deployment altitude is fully 1000 m. I think something was tweaked between 1.0 and my current 1.0.4 (or whatever it is), meaning indeed the older versions of this part (vintage 1.0.0 etc.) had a "suicidally low deployment altitude" after the changes to the game. Postscript: Yep, verified. The current atmospheric model is apparently incompatible with the older Mk16 settings. Using the updated Mk16 (just swap the "old" one with a new one from the parts bin), it started deploying at 1000 m as expected, and it took fully 600 m of drop until the ship fully decelerated to the usual 6.5 m/s descent speed. So indeed the 500 m (former Mk16 settings) just weren't enough "runway" to allow the chute to function properly. RIP two lady Kerbals.

Hi Y'all, I've been playing KSP for almost 2 years now. Really like the changes in 1.0. But I'm losing Kerbals during re-entry, which for me has become maybe 10 times more difficult. One thing in particular that's recently cost me two Kerbals on "routine" missions with the smallest command pod (one-seater) and the Mk16 parachute: It takes forever to open, so I hit the water or ground before slowing down. Deployment altitude of 2000m no longer works. Heck, even 3000m is too low. But if I deploy at an altitude much higher than this, I'm going so fast (above 250 m/s) that the speed will destroy the chute rather than allow it to open. So formerly (before the aerodynamic changes for 1.0), you could open a Mk16 chute at just about any altitude and it would open at 500m reliably, and all would be well. Now, open it too soon and it fails, open it too low and you hit the surface before the chute opens. The "narrowing of the window" of operation for this chute is cool and I like how it makes the game more challenging, but in this case...they may have narrowed it to the point I can't do anything to save the Kerbals. I've searched the forum here and don't see this to be a particular issue, or maybe I just missed it. Any advice / recommendations? (I suppose I could increase the altitude at which the chute opens, from 500 m to say 800 m...) (Anything else to add?) Ciao

Nah, it's just plate tectonics.

That looks A LOT like my Duna ships, up to 1.0. But would such a ship survive Duna re-entry in 1.0??

Typically a correction burn is quite small, maybe even just 20 m/s if you were fairly close in your initial burn. Yes, halfway is a good place to do a burn. I'm sure that the mathematics of orbital mechanics could tell you the "optimum" point to do the burn, but it may only save you a tiny bit of fuel compared to just doing the burn midway through your transfer orbit. TBH, I've not yet been to Duna on v1.0. The trips I've made to Mun and Minmus were pretty much the same as before except for the re-entry, which is much more interesting, eventful and dangerous than ever before. The new aerodynamics and heating might make Duna landings more difficult--I dunno. In the past I've used drogue chutes, which slow you down part way, from a point higher up in the atmosphere. They worked well for Duna re-entry, which was typically a combo of engine burning and parachuting. But now in 1.0 I see that regular parachutes behave like drogue chutes, slowing you down A LOT more when you initially deploy them, before they fully inflate. Hmm, an idea for a Duna ship is forming...

Loving v1.0. Brilliant work Squad, this is the game so many of us have dreamed of for years!! I really like the "surprise" changes to aerodynamics and heating. These changes eliminated two of the major areas of unrealism I had noticed (and generally turned a blind eye to). It makes the game a lot more challenging...I've already lost multiple Kerbals during reentry, something I haven't done in years. Quick story for you: I, along with two other "grown ups," are using KSP to teach spaceflight to a bunch of high school students. I had my curriculum written, and it was about 80% good, based on 0.9 (beta). Then, before the class actually happened, out came 1.0 and some hasty KSP playing / editing of the curriculum ensued. But then we had a pre-class meeting last week, where I learned that rather than 1.0, the students would instead be using the (free) demo version based on a much older build of KSP. Older, in fact, than any version of KSP I had ever played. (I started in Oct 2013). So...back to the drawing board again! We will be purchasing a few copies of KSP for contest winners. Already some copies have been purchased including at least one Kerbal EDU. (Would be nice if Kerbal EDU and the demo version were brought either to 1.0 or close to it...) Of course, as you'd expect, there are a few students "ringers" participating in the class who already play KSP. All good news!

What a great thread...such helpful people! Rex, the trip planner not only gives you DV required to reach your target planet, it also tells you when your DV requirements are minimized, i.e., that's a good time to depart. You might have to wait 100-200 days (use time warp) for the relative positions of Kerbin and Duna to allow a good transfer. Kind of analogous to an orbital rendezvous, but with planets. If you wait until the right time, then you can get an encounter with your target when you setup your burn. Also, remember this (rephrasing advice from Violent Jeb): To get to Duna, which is in a higher orbit around the sun than Kerbin, you need to leave Kerbin in the same direction that Kerbin is going around the sun. That will give you a higher orbit, which should intersect Duna. Conversely, to get to a place in a lower orbit (Eve, Moho) you need to depart Kerbin in the direction opposite Kerbin's movement around the sun.