velve

You have to have the navball open in order to filter everything. If you hide the navball, for some reason clicking on the filter options become impossible.

Yes they seem to constantly appear. The trick is, if you feel like you're exploiting a gameplay mechanic or a bug, just don't do it. I did it once or twice but when I realized they were recurring I just ignore it. Besides most of the test (x) part on launch are kind of an exploit too. If you just do them you also end up with no expense but a lot of income. You might be interested in trying out the mods "Fineprint" and "Mission controller extender". They add a lot of more interesting contracts to help alleviate the grinding of part contracts.

I'm going to try this with .25, Will post results as soon as.

Are you using any mods? (This should be in support though, either of the two categories.) I recall running into an issue like this after incorrectly updating a mod.

Build a Dyson swarm that has no actual use haha

Was wondering when this would come along. Thanks for implementing it, I'm gonna wait for B9 as well, but will be sure to keep an eye on it. I am however also curious as to how this plays with FAR, I'm sure this is a chain of echoes to follow, but maybe include it in your description whether it is compatible yet or not.

So you decided to read the replies of people actually trying to help you and understand your problem, only to come back to post a reply that I'm pretty sure has alienated anyone interested in helping you finding a solution, without adding any new relevant information. Well done. @peachoftree, have a look at this mod http://help.howproblemsolution.com/500957/plugin-0-25-pilot-assistant-0-1-nov-14-on-kerbal-space-program Appears to indluce PID tuning of some sort.

Voted procedural fairings, but might I just add do you not rather want to do a bit of PC maintenance, for instance, disable anything in the process manager that you don't need to free up some RAM. I just don't see how so few mods could possibly be crashing KSP. I run with at least 3 times your list with massive parts packs and KSP is still fine. This is assuming you do at least have 4GB RAM in your machine, if not then I understand your predicament.

To be fair to the second machine you linked, I can provide some input from running a laptop with an HD5470. The one in your link is effectively twice as good as mine, and I'm capable of running kerbal just fine, albeit not on high but medium-low. Full textures I don't need to compromise here either. The graphics my machine is capable of, does not ruin the experience at all. I can still get my 60fps vsync on those settings. You might be able to reach high settings, but This is purely a guess based on how mine performs. I think my input could perhaps be quite valuable because my laptop also has an i3 processor. only a 2.4ghz clock speed though. The concerning pc has a 3.4ghz clock speed. I think if you go for the second machine you will not be disappointed at all, as long as you don't get addicted to or feel the need to run everything on full with graphics mods etc, and try to get 1000fps hehe. Good luck

Realchute uses its own scaling. There is no reason to use tweakscale for it. They both work perfectly together.

Where do I add this?

Wow awesome support, very fast biotronic you are legend! Testing new version right now. Thank you. //All the issues I was having have been resolved with this new update, Thank you. Only problem now is with KER and the mass values it reports, seems to be a bit buggy. If I go from a 1.25 engine to a 62.5 engine the mass only reduces by about 2%, same applies with upscaling, yet now and then the values do seem appropriate after removing and re-attaching, but only now and then. But that I'm sure is quite a mission to try and get working, I am no way trying to sound like I'm whining, just trying to help. and if I recall was there in 1.44 as well so no biggie.

Yes, I noticed this recently too. I am also playing on hard career mode and thoroughly enjoying myself but this little oversight on my part suddenly left me scratching my head as to why I was suddenly gaining a lot more funds. On hard career mode you tend to focus a lot more on your funds so I'm sure it wouldn't bother players on say easy difficulty for example. But alas i eventually got a bit frustrated at all these "no free launches". What I can suggest to fix this and still keep your aggressive campaigns intact is to download the "Mission Controller Extender 2" mod, What it has is a little red button you can push after a failed or in this case test launch, where it then charges you 1000 funds to revert to the VAB. You don't need to use all the extra contracts if you don't want to, you can disable them in the GUI. I use it with all my on launchpad tests just to try and balance the relationship between the OP of the admin building. Its not a huge difference but might help from feeling cheaty if you commit 100% for example to the negotiations giving you plus minus half your ship value added to your total funds. The red button takes you directly to the VAB thus skipping the recovered parts section, but you are still able to complete contracts after you have used it. //oh I realized this is in the unmodded installs section sorry, not sure if you are open to mods, but all you will really be using is the red button, as I said you can disable all the other facets of mission controller and just use it for the "pay to revert".

Hi there! I'm assuming its normal that the cost of the parachutes go up the smaller you scale them, I'm just wondering why this is? From a technical point, is it to balance the benefits of having less mass? thanks for a great mod wouldn't play without it.

Thank you very much Master Tao that resolved the problem, should have tried that first before posting here. Sorry. //alright so with a bit more playing around I seem to be having a problem with this new version. It has to be something to do with either the autoscale feature or the part chain hierarchy scale system, or something else. Basically. when building on any scale if I alt copy a part like a fuel tank the new copied part has a significantly less fuel. here is an example of the chain please note the 22.500/22.500 meter. Then the second "alt copied" part. And third When launching with this setup for example, the fuel guage will not move until the last 0.352 is being used, then it goes so fast you barely see it. This happens if I select a new fuel tank and it autoscales to the root scale as well. Making it impossible to use a larger first stage on my rockets. Perhaps There is a setting in the mod folder I'm not aware of? Perhaps a conflict of some sort, my mods list is pretty extensive but tweakscale worked fine with version 1.44, so I don't think it's a conflict

Quick bug here concerning tweakscale 1.46 and realchutes. In tweakscale 1.44 the realchutes had no option to rescale, which was fine because you use the realchutes scaling option. Yet in 1.46 the option to rescale is there and it breaks the realchute scaling completely, using the realchute scaling option does nothing, i can see the weight reducing or adding but no actual size changing. even when scaling it with tweakscale as soon as I launch, the scale defaults to the realchute scale. So basically its not changing appearance in the VAB only at launch. Also something is going wrong behind the scenes because attaching any realchute slows the game down exponentially, FPS wise, which never happened before I suspect these problems might be releated to the "chain rescaling" introduced in the new version, but thats just hazarding a guess. I'm reverting to 1.44 for now. Hope this helped. Great mod by the way!! Sorry for my first post in tweakscale being about a bug.

// Nevermind Sorry, Found the fix in the general bugfix section. Really tired apologies.

Funny I searched and found this exact thread yesterday, I too was searching for what it does exactly. I Use and AMD GPU and had no clue what enabling that option does exactly. I run with it enabled and have not noticed any side effects yet, but also no noticeable increase in performance.

Ah yes the payload was essentially nothing, I only strapped a stayputnik on top. KER states that my DeltaV is 1,642m/s and a 3.23 min 8.08 TWR on the Real life adjusted preset. I'm not as versed in all these things as most on the forum, but I grasp most concepts. I did not attach a fairing so I'm guessing I could have acheived at least another 10,000kms. I know going straight up is not really a viable option in any scenario I was just trying to figure out if KIDS somehow introduces fuel efficiency with throttle control and atmospheric densities. If I understand correctly what KIDS is trying to do is "fudge" this somehow. I'm still juggling the idea of playing with FAR to real life adjusted. Because of the introduction of funds to kerbal I'm assuming this preset will introduce the need to set up refuel stations in orbit in order to conduct missions further than minimus. I'm scared I become attached to this setting but it just ends up being way too difficult later in the game. I'm playing on hard difficulty but not really struggling for funds at this moment, and I've been playing on the FAR to stock KSP universal preset, but after this test I conducted I feel its just a bit easy haha

Hi there folks I have a quick question about KIDS. Ive conducted a minor test just to evaluate the different presets and these are my results. The test was conducted with a basic FLT-800 fuel tank with a LV-T45 attached to it, to keep out variables I did all the launches at maximum thrust from launch. I am using FAR running 32bit KSP so it is working. I did not test the presets not including FAR as they are not my aim in the question that is to follow. 538,000kms - FAR to stock Universal 368,000Kms - Far to stock Atmosphere only 73,100Kms - FAR to real life adjusted 47,500Kms - FAR to real life raw. So basically all I'm looking to understand is regarding the last two, the FAR to real life raw/adjusted. Simply because they use the settings toggled on which are the "Extend curve to zero ISP" and "throttle varies with ISP". Do these settings included in these presets still allow for better fuel efficiency in a vacuum? Because both their multipliers for in atmosphere ISP and vacuum ISP are the same. I have tried multiple launches on the "FAR to real life raw" preset lowering the throttle to try and achieve a greater height, but I fall short of the maximum thrust control by about 20,000kms each time. This means it is still more efficient to launch at maximum throttle? I am not bashing KIDS at all, by no means I am just trying to understand if the mod itself deals with efficiency in any particular way. And finally I apologize for all the questions, but what would be regarded as the most "realistic" setting? Is FAR to real life adjusted setting actually pretty close to being considered realistic? I find the other presets to still be a bit gamey, I am no rocket science but I just cant fathom the idea of a single tank of fuel being launched half a million kilometers into space. //Just adding that I know in stock KSP the 500,000+ is also attainable and it is not KIDS that is making it "gamey"

Thanks a lot! Was looking for this, I thought the default throttle wouldn't bother me, but after a while it started to.

This is a good idea..Often I have found myself wanting to click to control throttle was just afraid to suggest it.

Sounds pretty amazing. Downloading gonna give it a shot!

Correct me if I'm wrong but, does this not still apply to persons such as myself who are running KSP on a potato? With 512mb Vram I'm quite sure this would still be useful for avoiding that limit. As hitting it introduces stutter so....? I still use it for that reason, but if I'm misunderstanding the mechanics behind ATM I could indeed also not use it anymore.

Ah yeah just to mention I meant that light-heartedly. I'm pretty positive it would not work that way, was just an observation.