Search the Community

I'm back again with a new mod! This one updates the lonely Eeloo!! It adds and changes some things so let me show you!! It adds 2 new Moons to Eeloo! The bigger one is Navel and the smaller one is named Netis!! Navel Netis Netis is farther out but is smaller so it may be a bit harder to get to but I believe in you!! Navel is closer to Eeloo which seems to have slowed Eeloo's rotation down which means they always face each other! So you may want to land in the right spot to see Navel in the sky! But while looking up you can get a good look at the new atmosphere for Eeloo!! It is rather thin but still noticeable! (It does have scatterer support as well! :DD) But that is what it adds, Also with a slightly changed texture map for Eeloo!! I hope you enjoy it and please be safe everyone!! :DD It has compatibility with: Scatterer EVE Planet Shine Distant Object Enhancement Parallax SpaceDock Link!! https://spacedock.info/mod/3468/Revamped Eeloo! New Moons and Atmosphere Needs Kopernicus! :0 License: MIT

I remember the atmosphere height of these celestial bodies used to be slightly different in the version of KSP I started out playing (v0.19.1), then were rounded out. The only change I remember clearly was Jool's atmosphere used to be 315km instead of its current 300k. Does anyone else remember what the old atmosphere terminal altitudes of the other planets were?

Considering Duna is a Mars analogue, I feel that the atmosphere is too thick. In the game you can get most craft down with a few parachutes and a couple of engine bursts. There was even a time that a rover I built landed safely with one inline parachute and no engines. Meanwhile irl, landing on Mars is a hassle. Parachutes can only really slow you down to 100m/s (200mph) and the rest of the descent needs to be powered. There’s gameplay reasons to make Duna’s atmo thinner as well. It could be kinda like a stepping stone. The first legitimately dangerous landing that the player makes in campaign mode.

KSP Version v0.1.1.0 Operating System and version (Windows 10, Windows 11) Windows 11 CPU and GPU models, any other system information which could be relevant i7 12700F with RTX 3060 Ti Description of the bug. Expected Behavior Apoapsis and Periapsis values should not change when orbiting Mun with all engines deactivated. Observed Behavior Apoapsis and Periapsis values are changing when orbiting Mun with all engines deactivated. Steps to Replicate - Happens when try to orbit Mun Fixes / Workarounds (if known..) - Unknown A list of ALL mods. If the list is long, please consider using a spoiler window. - NO MODS Other Notes / Screenshots / Log Files (if possible..) Same bug seems to be happening on Minmun You can see in this video below apoapsis and periapsis start to go crazy when ship is at 20.440m (second 17) That's why I think Mun has some kind of atmosphere bug. In the video below, when I open the landing gear near the Mun ground (~20km) at speed ~500m/s, the landing gear breaks.

This is a very subjective topic, as well as one I don’t have that much expertise in. But hear me out. I think that many of the jet engines are too op, and the atmosphere simulation is pretty sucky in Kerbal. From my experience once you get the jist of how aerodynamics works, it’s fairly easy to make a spaceplane in Kerbal. I don’t really have a problem that for the most part with the slower planes, what I have a problem with is the planes designed to go over mach 1 and SSTOs. The fact that you can just slap a couple of Whiplashes onto some stinky piece of junk and have it fly over mach 2 at SEA LEVEL is bonkers. Heck, I’d say that getting to mach 1 is too easy. Once I made a pretty bad, really heavy replica of an Airbus A320 and had it go 400m/s pretty easily. So how would we fix this (I’m not an expert in aerodynamics so sorry for any broad metaphors)? First, at least early in game, going mach 1 should be like smashing through a brick wall. Not that it should be extremely hard, but it shouldn’t be a walk in the park; like getting your first rendezvous. Second, heat should be much more of a factor. Going mach 2-3 and having your plane being enveloped in plasma is kind goofy. I think that there should be new cooling systems in the game, and the ones that are already implemented should be much more important. This would also apply to the jet engines. Having engine failures due to heat would not only make high velocity spaceplanes more challenging, but also make room for some pretty spectacular crashes/disintegrations. And thats it. I’m a little paranoid about this not being implemented due to the game only being a little bit more than half a year from release (assuming there aren’t any more delays), but I’m optimistic. Would like to hear anymore things that some other people have come up with.

Good Morning to all of KSP Community, Now I want to speak about Airliners Challenges, they were my favorite kind of challenge and makes me sad to see they are not common nowadays, designing an airplane, having to balance fuel efficiency, passenger capacity and try to design the best plane for every category. I would like to host and judge a new challenge like this, but English is obviously not my main language and I am worried that my reviews of your planes and my writing of the rules can be extremely horrible to read and enjoy. I suppose that there are many of you who would like to participate in a challenge like this, and even some of you can help drafting the rules and judging planes. Right now this is more a desire and a hope than a challenge you can participate, but with your help we can get the airliners challenges back. Thanks to all KSP Community for reading this horrible message.

Hello everyone I would like to tell you about such an idea, how to make a sufficiently high mountain or an area with a high altitude above sea level on some planet. In this area, the atmosphere ceases to act, but gravity acts, it would be rather unusual, as an analogue of Everest on earth (after all, there is almost no oxygen there), only much, much more. And accordingly, on the one hand, this would facilitate landing on the planet, and on the other hand, the kerbonauts would still have to experience the entry into the atmosphere, because a dense atmosphere begins immediately on the slope. I think this is quite unusual, what do you say?

Hello! How do I generate custom atmosphere colors with Scatterer? None of the variables in the atmo.cfg seem to adjust color, and I can't figure out how to generate new scattering tables using the config tool. I read through the documentation and searched the forum, but I couldn't find an answer. Any help would be appreciated.

Hello I played KSP 1.9.1 with Real Scale Boosters today. I wanted to launch a satellite in an 53 degree inclination orbit. The targeted Altitude was 300 Kilometers. I tried to launch 5 times without sucess. I flew on a Atlas V, after Meco and stage sep and SES 1 I fired the engine with full power. My apogee was 300 Km but everytime I reached the apogee to fast (after 1,5 minutes after stage sep) after passing apogee my altitude increased very fast and at 100 Km my vehicle exploded. Whats the problem? I‘ve also tried mechjeb at the last try. Thanks Fly save

KSP desperately needs larger (1.875 and 2.5 meter) jets, to bring down part and engine-count for players who build really large spaceplanes (since they take so long to get to orbit, the only way to do them, IMHO). I would like to request a modder build a simple mod with stock-alike 1.875 and 2.5 meter jet engines. The objective, eventually, would be to hopefully get SQUAD to work with that modder to make the engines Stock. So focusing on doing a really, really good job with just a few parts would be preferable.

Hey there, To immediately get to the core of my post – I would like to share with you a handcrafted 13+ hours playlist with the finest, strangest, most epic and most remote tunes for endless Kerbal Space Program sessions (and other space adventures): https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2Tso1b4pgou9GFyJ6q4Lry I know that attitudes towards background music for playing KSP vary greatly. For me, atmospheric background music was always something to greatly increase my rocketry pleasure – especially on these very long deep space missions. However, I could not find a playlist anywhere which fulfilled my (admittedly astronomic) demands regarding quality, length, variety and space-relatedness. Hence, I had to create a playlist of my own – and since I have spent years to assemble it, I thought I might as well share it for the pleasure of my common space farers. The musical styles range from epic mainstream scores to serious electronic, classical, indy, ambient and experimental music. The playlist starts rather pop-ish but soon descents into the void of minimal experimentalism – sort of. Most songs are instrumental, they are all are suitable for background enjoyment and have some connection to space, in one way or the other. I hope you enjoy it. See you up there! (Oh, and yes, I registered for this forum three years ago just to post this. But you know, sometimes you get stuck in a very unfortunate orbit, leading you faaar away...)

Hi all, Does anyone know how KSP computes aerodynamic heating on vehicles in the atmosphere of a body? I've found some basic relationships on aerodynamic heating in this chart package (slides 17-19), but I'd like to find out what KSP does and uses. Does anyone have any insight? Thanks!

I'm looking for a good atmosphere/clouds mod for a relatively low performance laptop. I just thought it would be nice to touch up the textures while being friendly to my i5. If there aren't any that work decently, then I guess I'll just save for a gaming pc.

How much has the earth’s atmosphere shrunk since 1990?

Hey all! It's been a long while. Maybe since v 1.0? Probably since asteroids were introduced. I used to play the ever living crap out of Kerbal and now it feels like I don't even know which end of the rocket I should point mostly up. It seems the atmosphere is holy crap unforgiving and I can't even make orbit which is insanely frustrating since I used to do it blind folded...well...not really... Did they make it so making a rocket is just as hard as making a space plane? What am I missing? Hoping some vets will know where I'm coming from and send some tips my way. I tried watching some vids and they just say to keep pointing prograde, but my rockets don't seem to want to. This is career mode BTW. Basic rocket stuff to work with.

i need help i have been playing KSP with scatterer for awhile, but i installed EVE (haha pun) and SVE, to make it better, but it appears that i have glitched scatterer, and now the atmosphere of all planets + the ocean of all planets is a white mass. can't screenshot it right now because i'm not on my PC, but it looks like a low poly sphere when you reach space (i've done it after 7 attempts, because the sky was hurting my eyes.) Please help me solve this, as it seems many people are getting this error, even though there is no solution if you search it on Google. By the way, i know it's scatterer when i removed it and everything was back to normal. I have a 64-bit computer , 8gb RAM, Intel Core i5-7200U, Windows 10, with a NIVIDIA GeForce 920MX. Is Scatterer doing some conflict between EVE(pun x2) or SVE?

How do I add custom static clouds in the sky without using eve? Like, clouds actually in the sky that you can fly through.

How do I add custom static clouds in the sky without using eve? Like, clouds actually in the sky that you can fly through.

Before posting feature requests or bug reports, please read the FAQ. Download Toolbar Controller and Click Through Blocker and SpaceTux Library are now dependencies of the Trajectories mod. Please install them first. On SpaceDock On GitHub Description The mod displays trajectory predictions, accounting for atmospheric drag and lift. Works with the stock aerodynamic model, and with Ferram Aerospace Research (FAR). With this mod, you can choose precisely the location where you'll crash. The typical precision is about 6km. Plan Aerobraking maneuvers that can, for example, put you on intersection trajectory with another body (see point 1 about what you can do from there) Keep in mind that this software comes without warranty of any kind, and in particular that it may or may not help you survive, reach a specific target, or anything at all. But it usually helps FAQ Works with stock aerodynamics and FAR Reportedly works with deadly reentry real solar system Rescaled Kerbin Outer Planets Mod Compatible with Blizzy's toolbar If you see weird spirals or other crazy lines everywhere, double-check you didn't enable "body-fixed mode" by mistake If the predicted trajectory seems inaccurate, check that you set the correct orientation in the Descent profile (or checked Prograde or Retrograde), and that you keep that orientation all the time It's not possible to predict a trajectory for a future stage. We know this is a highly requested feature, but unless we duplicate big parts of the KSP-internal code, we are limited to simulating the current state of the vessel. Parachutes are not simulated (that's usually not a problem if you open it near the ground) User manual See your predicted trajectory Open the map view This is it ; trajectory display is enabled by default, you have nothing else to do White is the trajectory in space, red is the trajectory in atmosphere, the red cross is your impact point (that takes the body rotation into account to show the impact point on the terrain, this is useful both for bodies with and without atmosphere) Disable the trajectory display Click on the Trajectories icon in the stock KSP toolbar (or Blizzy's toolbar if it's installed) to display the main UI Click "Display trajectory" to toggle it on/off Click "complete" to toggle display of the complete trajectory (including parts where it is superimposed with the stock KSP trajectory) Set a target point (nav ball guidance) Adjust your velocity so that the red cross is located where you want to go Click "Set current impact as target" to enable the green cross Alternatively, there is a button to set the target on the KSC (works on Kerbin only obviously), or you can enter longitude/latitude Go back in flight view, and notice the two new indicators on the nav ball The square indicator shows where you need to point your craft at if you were exactly following the predicted trajectory The circle indicator is a hint about the direction you should go to adjust your actual trajectory to reach the target (this is not necessarily where you need to point, what's important is the direction between the square and the circle, and the distance between them indicates how far you are from the perfect trajectory) Body-fixed mode Use this toggle to switch between the regular mode (similar to stock KSP orbits), or body-fixed mode. In body-fixed mode, the trajectory is displayed relatively to the body frame, following the body rotation. This mode makes sense for atmospheric or low terrain fly-by, and also to adjust a geostationary orbit. However, for most high orbits, it will just look funny. This can help you keep occupied for those 2-year-long planetary transfers, but try not to burn up all the fuel to see how it can make funny curved lines. Manoeuver nodes You can plan aerobraking or re-entry after manoeuvers, just place your nodes as usual and see the predicted trajectory. Keep in mind that you always place nodes on the stock trajectory, that might be very different from the predicted one, so you may have to place nodes at a point that have an effect somewhere else on the predicted trajectory (especially when planning landing on a body without atmosphere with body-fixed mode). Also, atmospheric prediction can happen only for the body you are currently orbiting, so you can't plan a Kerbin re-entry while you're still arround the Mun. Support and Bugs If you have questions and feedback regarding a current release, feel free to post in this thread. Please post bug reports on the GitHub bug tracker. If you don't know how, don't want to learn or are unsure it's a bug, you can ask in this thread. Contributions This mod is a community project! It was originally written by @Youen and is currently maintained by @linuxgurugamer. The following people have already contributed to this project (in approximate order of commits): Youen (Github neuoy) PiezPiedPy Kobymaru (Github fat-lobyte) atomicfury (Github sawyerap) And many others. You want to be part of this list? Contributions are very welcome! Read our Introduction for Contributors, fork the Repository on Github and have a go at the code! When you feel that your changes are mature enough to be included, send us a pull request! It's always best if you work on your "pet problem" - a bug that needs to be fixed or that you personally want to see implemented. Or you could just grab an issue from our Issue Tracker! Change log The changelog started with release v1.6.7. For the changes in versions older than that, please visit the GitHub releases page. License This mod is under GPLv3 license, feel free to look at the source code: https://github.com/linuxgurugamer/KSPTrajectories/

I noticed in KSP 1.3 that parts using ModuleResourceHarvester type = 2 (atmospheric) no longer appear to harvest any resource if surface speed is exactly zero, such as if the craft is attached to a launch clamp or has wheel brakes engaged. If there's any motion, such as a heavy craft wobbling on its clamps, or with brakes engaged but can still be tilted side to side, then it'll harvest the resource. This seems to happen regardless of abundance. This differs from air intakes that can still take in a fixed amount of IntakeAir if perfectly stationary. I originally tuned my harvesters to match whatever the corresponding air intake would harvest in IntakeAir while stationary, then re-tuned that to match the IntakeAir rate times whatever MinAbundance was (assuming MinAbundance and MaxAbundance were equal). Now it seems I'll have to re-tune that based on a fixed non-zero speed. Or maybe there's an option for a stationary atmospheric harvester to still work. Where can I find changes to ModuleResourceHarvester?

Hey everyone, I recently have been sucked into this game, and I'm loving the math. My question is this simple, determine the altitude a rocket will achieve on full fuel burn of a single stage. I've done a lot of research and have come up with the following example problem to test my algorithm/process of calculation. Let me know what you guys think of below and what I'm missing or potentially a force I haven't considered into the calculation such as lift, as you'll see my answer is off by nearly 3,300m. (For the sake of simplicity the rocket travels straight up in a vertical dimension only.) Known Values of my Rocket: Full Mass [MFull] (Entire Rocket) : 7.5t (7,500kg) Empty Mass [MEmpty] (First Stage Depleted) : 4.5t (4,500kg) Fuel Mass [MFuel] (Both LQ and OX) : 3.0t (3,000kg) Isp [Isp] (Reliant Engine) : 265 sec Thrust [FT] (Thrust Force Atm.) : 205.2kN (205,200N) LQ Rate [BLQ] (Burn Rate of LQ) : 7.105 u/sec OX Rate [BOX] (Burn Rate of OX) : 8.684 u/sec LQ Volume [VLQ] (LQ Fuel 45% Mix) : 270 u OX Volume [VOX] (OX Fuel 55% Mix) : 330 u Known Values of Kerbin: Accel. Kerbin [g] (Accel. of Gravity) : 9.81 m/sec^2 First I will calculate the time required to burn through the fuel mixture. This time will be needed in the final calculation. Tburn =VLQ /BLQ =VOX / BOX << >> 270u / (7.105u/sec) = 38.0 sec Next I convert burn rate units from volume/sec to units of kg/sec. (I assume 1u = 5kg of both LQ and OX) BLQ_M = BLQ * (5kg/u) << >> (7.105u/sec) * (5kg/u) = 35.525 kg/sec BOX_M = BOX * (5kg/u) << >> (8.684u/sec) * (5kg/u) = 43.42 kg/sec BTOTAL= BLQ + BOX << >> 35.525kg/sec + 43.42kg/sec = 78.945 kg/sec (M *Dot = Mass Flow Rate) Determine effective exhaust velocity of rocket motor related to Specific Impulse and Gravity. (NASA Formula) Ve= Isp * g << >> 265sec * 9.81m/sec^2 = 2,599.65 m/s Determine acceleration of rocket (Found this formula on a physics forum, not sure if valid) a = Ve ( BTOTAL / MFULL ) - g << >> 2,599.65 m/s * (78.945kg/sec / 7,500kg) - 9.81m/s^2 = 17.554 m/s^2 Apply classical kinematic physics equation for displacement with acceleration. (Vertical Axis only...) deltaX = 0.5 * a * (Tburn^2) << >> 0.5 * 17.554m/s^2 * (38sec ^ 2) = 12,673.988m So in the end this calculation results in an effective altitude of 12,673.98 meters. If anything, I expect drag (if simulated) among other forces to take away from this value. Instead the opposite occurred, my actual test flight while holding steady to the center of the NavBall resulted in roughly 16,000 meters altitude at 38 seconds into flight (after stage finished burning). Any ideas?

Good evening to you all. Hopefully I have a simple question here. I have built an early tech plane, and, in order to make it long range I added a Terrier rocket engine to it so I could get it off the ground with all the extra fuel it's carrying for the Juno engines that are on it. I set the thrust limiter on the Terrier to 20, just enough to get the plane off the ground, and then I shut it down once I have enough speed to keep the plane in the air. My question is, does the oxidizer burn at the same rate no matter what you have the thrust set at? When I do activate the Terrier in flight it seems that the oxidizer is still burning at the same rate it would if the Terrier was at full power. If it does, is there any way to limit the oxidizer so I can maximize the effectiveness of the Terrier?

Hey guys, I am trying to get the atmosphere on Kerbin looking good but I am getting blocky clouds with sharp edges and bugger all atmosphere glow from orbit... I have EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements, Scatterer and TextureReplacer installed. I am wondering if there are settings that can be adjusted for these mods or is it possibly limitations of my Graphics card? I have a GTX 960 with 2GB ram on it (my system has 24gig ram). I am trying to attach a screen shot but I can't see a button anywhere to attach a pic (only a url link) Any help would be greatly appreciated

It seems that the ksp atmosphere(stock) has some visual artifacts with the brightness and contrast. Which makes me curious about: How's it rendered? Is it intended to be physically accurate (in some degree), or just artificially constructed to look good? Also, I've heard that Tylo and Eeloo supposed to have very thin atmosphere, but it is discarded due to the rendering method of ksp being incapable of those rendering. Can I be given a short description of the cause of the incapability?

Once Galileo probe entered the atmosphere of Jupiter we made a lot of dicoveries and conclusions about Jupiter and all gas giants in solar system. But in ksp we can much more than in real life The idea is - you dive deeply into jool atmosphere as deep you can can and then return . For this task you beter use a plane/glider. Rules :Dont use cheats to prevent overheating nor cheats for infinite fue (just dont use cheats at all !) . Dont use mods except the the mods that add balloons . You need stay at the low altitide for 55 sec. That is your guide Easy: 70 000 m Normal: 40 000 m Hard: 35 000 m .