Green Baron

... hope this is not considered necro-posting ... My vessels started to accelerate when time warping. Stopping time warping did not stop the acceleration. Haven't checked if all vessels where affected. This is a rather advanced game with missions to moho, eve, duna, dres, jool and sarnus, stations and Asteroids in Kerbin orbit and probes all over the place. Linux, KSP 1.0.4, mods: KER, KIS, KAS, OPM, Camera Tools, Color Coded Canisters, KerbalJointReenforcements, KWRocketry, Near Future Solar, OPM, PlanetShine, PreciseNode, RealPlume, SCANsat, StationPartsExpansion, WaypointManager, Kerbal Alarm Clock and TransferWindowPlanner. What i was doing: i was deorbting a small tug that was connected to an asteroid with a large tug before. When i a had an intersection with the ground i killed the thrust with x, switched to another vessel, perfomed a manoeuver, then switched to orbit view to view the outcome. I typed three points for time warping and ... wondered. Exiting to Desktop and starting again solved the problem. k

In TWP click "Add KAC Alarm". In KAC then click on the alarm to view the details (Message), there is everything.

Do you know that you can set a kac-alarm directly from twp and copy the figures from the alarm details into precise node via cut&paste. Usually needs a few corrections as well ... k

Thanks a lot, well, i gave up and decided to first mount a docking port to the asteroid opposite to the tug and then dock port to port. I was never good at jump&run games, and not being able to set the claw as target almost made me throw the mouse @ the wall when i razed the solar panels, pushed the station into evasive rotation or passed the thing at a few meters distance. Really, i never miss when docking, but in this case the masses are just too high and the whole cartload is too inert for me to fly it to a point with am acceptable accuracy ... Ok, no more excuses, plan B, but thanx :-) k

Hi, it's possibly a silly question and/or has been answered before but a brief search didn't help. Is it possibe to fly with an asteroid clawed to a tug into a claw connected to a station and thus dock - one after the other - more than one asteroid to the station ? Mayhaps someone knows, and before i make too many circles in the sky ....

After a few tries i'm adapted to the 1.0.4 aerodramatics now and realised that the lifting effect is not that strong or not even there with larger, heavier constructions (like mk3). Btw., that quickly slabbed together mk2-Spaceplane flies really nicely ... But i think my spaceplane-phase for this release is allready over. Thanks so far :-) k

Yes, i did the change the tanks and now have plenty of delty-v. Haven't obeserved the pe yet, but circularization "cost" (for circ. between 75 and 80km) was between 100 and 200 dV during my flights, so maybe the cost for the effect is low. It's a pity that ker seemingly can't compute delta-v for the rapiers ... In my flights i started with a high climb rate to 15km and than lowered gradually to a height of about 27km and 1000-1200m/s before switching to closed cycle, so i'm far away from what you guys achieve with open cycle flight. k

So far i didn't lift anything into space with a spaceplane (i mean in 1.x), and this thing barely manages to lift itself into orbit. But, interesting, when you say you circularize in the upper atmosphere, maybe you could try to lift your apoapsis from 55 to 75 just with a change of angle of attack and use the engine to then lift your periapsis out of the atmosphere .... will play more with that :-) (and then 1.1 resets everything ...) k - - - Updated - - - Ok, i changed the tanks and now have plenty of delty-v for orbit and back. But to the lifting force effect: it's definitly strong enough to lift the apoapsis from 60 to 68 km just by coasting at 2000m/s with an AoA of 20-30 degrees between 40 km (engine cut off) and 60km altitude. Am not quite sure about the consequences to the ascent profile though ... k

Hi there, normally i'm more into rockets than spaceplanes but every now and then i try one. So i realised that flying at high velocity (2000m/s) at 30km alt. and at a high angle of attack (let's say 20 degrees above prograde) the lifting force on parts seems to heavily exceed the drag force: the apoapsis climbs rapidly, engines cut off (1.0.4). Which is nice to have. I never realised that effect when flying rockets, they allways (well, mostly :-)) point prograde ... k

I wonder why this bug wasn't corrected in one the 1.0.x versions, cause its not new. I usually place the node further down and drag it back or use precisenode and copy/paste the time from another node. Can be quite thrilling when it has to be fast and accurate, like multiple ships entering jools soi and need calibration for aerobraking ... k

So we definitely need two new professions in KSP :-) btw., the last big jet crash in the US (B777 in Frisco one or two years ago) was caused by the autopilot (which was missing data (glide slope ?)). Yes the autopilot was falsely handeled by the crew before someone else points that out ... but it was the autopilot. They can crash at least as good as humans, maybe in a less creative way ... and these bastards (the autopilots) allways ponit to the user when blamed for having caused a catastrophy :-) None of my games has, up to now, reached the 50s. New versions regularly prevented that ... Back to the poll: i tried mechjeb in the beginning of my career (a year ago) and realized quickly that it was not perfectly effective and it doesn't add to my playing experience, so for my playstyle ker serves me more. But i appreciate the work and efforts of modders ! I just don't use all of them ... :-) k

Boredom, actually. Been playing since 1.5 (earth-)years now and doing things over and over again in different universa with different 11dimensional (or were there only ten ?) string arrangements :-) has had a certain satisfying the effect on me. Just launched the duna-mission in 1.04, next will be Jool, then Sarnus ... hmmm .. probably 1.1 is out by then. Start all over again ? "jeb !! Come back !" And in 1.04 my crafts have to have less parts, something is causing more lag than in earlier versions ... err stringuniversa, thus assembling the typical 5-probes, 5 scanners, 1isru-capable lander, one transfer-stage and maybe a car plus skycrane has become even more sporty than before as i have to guess were evrything will be in next frame during assembly ... even Jeb's once friendly smile has become sort of a grin of schadenfreude. Well, the whole contraption is awaiting the launch-window to Sarnus. Plus, (i was allways wandering why people had problems with bugs), i encountered a few bugs lately, mostly things falling through the floor, of some remote moon of course where a bold Kerbal watched a planet rise, sighed, turned around and ... well, you all can imagine her desperation. Well, maybe i go ans slay and a few orcs ...

While the game is well playable i must admit that i'm getting tired of redesigning my missions. Well, it's not that much a problem but i'd really like to advance instead of grinding for science and bucks over and over again. And i believe that the faster the updates come out the more opportunity is there for ... criticism, be it justified or not (in my eyes much of it is not). Squad, you can't make it right for everyone. So maybe, please, Squad, i appreciate your work and like to watch my Kerbal stand on a moon and watch a planet rise, no other game provides that feeling, but if you could let us catch our breath. And do not (pls read back) announce an update before it is really done. Eeh, no offence meant ... should be natural. :-) k

So far i've only been to solar orbit in 104. A 2.5m heatshield on the back of my capsule with the whole staple of science experiments was used up half when aerobraking from about 3600m/s, initial perapsis was at about 34km, second round about 20km. edit: added 3 abouts :-)

while( not content ) { F3, enter bodys soi, choose perapsis, watch your craft, F9 } // not content :-) We don't have the means to calculate the periapsis for a given craft for an aerobrake/-capture. But there are allready hints on the forum about certain altitudes for aerobrake or even -capture. :-)

As i understood, there is a max Temp. for each part (3000 for the heatshield) and a conductivity, the latter being just very low for the shield (0.01, whatver that means). Your craft explodes from shield to chute upwards "due to overheating" (F3 printout), meaning (for my understanding) that the part heats up too fast (in a second as from the gauges) for the shielding to take effect. That behaviour is close to exactly what i would expect. Solution: choose a shallower path and your fine. :-) k edit: maybe it's easier if you see it that way: Even the shielding has a max Temp., though higher than the rest. To take effect it must slowly melt thus take the heat away. If its heated too fast it can't melt (change of state from solid to liquid takes time), it breaks from thermal stress. Ok ? :-)

That's *not* personal, but i'm wandering and can't understand why people are having problems with choosing an appropriate perapsis for aerobraking. And why it's so difficult to understand that plummeting through the atmo @3km/s with a too steep angle doesn't leave the heat enough time to dissipate and heat storage capabiltiy of parts is limited. That's expected and accepted, or not ? Adapt the flightpath is so easy and then even parts that stick slightly out of the heatshield stay alive :-) And i would really appreciate if squad wouldn't change it over again, because they can *never* make it right for everyone. It might be a nice idea to stick a post on top explaining what to do in physx.cfg to avoid heating dramas ? k Edit: partly ninjad ba padisher :-)

From what i see you hit the atmosphere coming down from minmus at >3km/s in a 60 degree angle or thereabouts, am i right ? I mean ... then you're blowing your craft on purpose. There have been so many discussions here and so many hints about apropriate periapsises (periapsides ?). Set it to 30km and you'll be fine (use a heatshield), but even exposed parts won't explode then. My opinion, no the games needs no balancing, there has been enough of that in the last stack of updates of updates and i don't want to rebuild my missions over and over again, more often than before realease .... For my playstyle 104 is not more difficult than 102 (in fact a little easier) though the pressure gradient in the atmosphere could be a little shallower ("realistic" would be half pressure after 5,5 and 11km altitude, i don't know whether that "law" continues in the stratosphere and upper atmosphere). btw., Meteors do break up from temperature stress as well as aerodynamic stress when they hit the upper atmosphere (though at 10-20times the speed) ... i'd take it that way adapt my reentry-tecnique ... :-) k

Just checked out on plain clean install 103 against 104 with identical rockets and settings, launch and atmo flight through sonic transition. Lowest framerate was same and highest under 104 was slightly but not significantly higher (something like 3-5 fps more). Realized later that browser was open in background so that could have caused the difference. So i'd try to sort out one of the mods or blame another process ... k edit: o, sorry, am on linux. Wrong thread ... too fast w/o thinking ...

Hola, as steve_v said: if your on linux just download the latest linux-version. You have two executables, one of them 64bit, you'll recognize. Set LC_ALL=C and start KSP_x86.64. Disable AA (and PPFX ? Though i never had problems with or without that setting) in the settings and let your graphics card do the job. k

64bit has about 20-30% performace gain over 32bit under Linux concerning framerate. If that helps you ...

That happened today when racing through career in 1.03. Jeb grins, he knows its not the first nor the last time ... :-)

lol Exactly, with his "What ? Me worry ??" attitude Jeb (Kerman) would be in best company ... oops, back to game k

That's what i'm trying to say ... allthough i would have chosen other attributes for the game ... :-) k

I prefer games that run on linux beause i do most of of my things on linux, the 64bit are mere coincidence, in fact i was astonished when i first heard about stabiltiy problems of 64bit on windows. But i'm very often even more astonished when i read that people switch to a new os just for the 64bit support. I wouldn't do that ... the world is not rounder and the sky still dark. Valentina just compared framerates just after launch (mod-F12) with two identical rockets, unmodded, lowest graphic settings, on linux mint 17, i3 1.7ghz, intel hd4400, 4gb ram total: 32bit: 30.2 64bit: 38.4 When Jeb returns he'll want to know why she didn't wait ... :-) k