NielsBohr

I thank both of you, Sir @Signo and Sir @GoSlash27. I genuinely appreciate your replies and I'll check the article out for sure. All the best, //NB

Greetings. I remember back in one of the older versions that a great way to accumulate science in early-game, is by examining each of the different buildings in KSC, as they each have their own biome. After the update where buildings have different stages of upgrades, I wonder if the biomes are still available for examination in early game, or does one have to upgrade to level X before a new biome will be available? I ask as I, unfortunately, have not played for a while, however I did play yesterday but failed to recover any science from the different buildings, hence the above question. I thank you for your time.

I simply take a break. When I return, I always have renewed energy to explore the Kerbal Universe.

I've been on this forum for exactly a year now, and as a seasoned gamer, I'll have to agree. The maturity, genuine curiosity, excellent discussions and intelligent questions makes this forum an absolute gem among the forums that mix science and gaming. I've only managed fourteen post in a year but I am more of a reader than a writer and I have learned a lot by reading various threads. I want to express my gratitude towards the devs, the mods and the community as a hole. Thank you guys and girls for making this place sumptuously exquisitely awesome! //NB

No. However, it is purely a principle, since I regard the video-gaming industry to be moving in a dangerous direction, especially regarding DLC's That is not to say that every DLC is bad or does not justify the price-tag, I simply remain consistent in my principle. The focus in my opinion should be fixing what is broken or polishing what is not yet finished, like career-mode which feels shallow or the obvious, even game-breaking, glitches and stability issues. Instead, I believe the modding community should keep modding, and when we see something which truly deserves acknowledgement, as RSS or RP and many more, we simply donate to the authors, so they can claim the monetary reward. Let me make it clear though, even though I probably would buy a KSP DLC because the content added actually would justify the price-tag, I wont due to a principle. A principle which is a product of a much larger gaming-industry debate, which has absolutely nothing to do with KSP or Squad.

Sure, it happens all the time. I usually see something on this forum which greatly inspires me to let my creativity loose. So I enter the VAB/SPH in a mood of unwarranted optimism and with an unhealthy confidence in my engineering skills, I begin. Then, one of two things happen: 1) My optimism decreases proportionally with the amount of seconds I spent in the VAB/SPH, and within minuets my creativity is completely gone and all of the ideas I had in my head are vaporized. 2) I actually assembles something which one could argue is indeed something of a rocket – only to discover that my creation is so intrinsically ugly and unappealing that launching it, would be an aesthetics disaster. I am of course kidding a bit, but I do indeed know the feeling, OP is referring too.

"Impressive rocket... Now, where's the snacks?"

Intellectual dishonesty is what makes me smack my head the most. That usually entails being heavily influenced by ones bias and not being conscious enough to resist it, or at least be aware of it. Examples are when people have a predetermined world view and use science to justify that world view and essentially cherry-picks the most convenient facts and willingly disregard everything else. For me, climate-change deniers really gets under my skin, because, most of the time, their bias is obvious. I always say that your world view ought to be adjusted accordingly to the evidence of reality - and not the other way around. One of the biggest lessons is being thoroughly convinced that something is right, only to be proved that it is indeed wrong.

No the file is named "error". However, you can verify it yourself. If the file states something along these lines: "mono.dll caused an Access Violation", it is more than likely due to memory usage. Mr@sal_vager suggests that turning off PPFX edge highlighting may improve your performance. link: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/121313-Memory-Waste-Problem By the way, in my first post I suggests an answer to your question about performance in KSP versus performance in other games.

Post your crash-log. It is located in the KSP directory. However, as mentioned the problem is most likely either one of these: 1) Utilized all available memory which results in a CTD. Remember that KSP runs in 32bit which vastly decreases the memory available to use. It's around 3.5GB. 2) Inadequate CPU. Now, this is less likely than the first problem. An inadequate CPU will affect performance since KSP is a very demanding game for the processor, therefore lag and crashes should be expected. KSP is one of the few games where the CPU is as important as the GPU, if not more important. This also explains why you can play demanding games with stable FPS but not KSP, because those demanding games performance usually depends upon the power of the GPU, and your 760 is fine. However, when you play games which are very CPU intensive (KSP) you don't recieve the same performance because your i3 is inadequate. I still believe 1) to be the problem though, the crash-logs will reveal it.

I can highly recommend the links provided by the above gentlemen. Learning through video is also an option and there are multiple excellent videos on youtube explaining how to calculate the most crucial aspect of space missions. A very powerful equation is the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation - and it's really simple to utilize. Learning the Hohmann transfer is also extremely powerful and again fairly easy to utilize. Essentially you'll get to the so-called vis-viva equation and this equation allows you to calculate the periapsis/apoapsis velocity of a given orbit (v is highest at periapsis and lowest at apoapsis), thus you can calculate the difference, delta-v, between a current orbit and a desired orbit, and derive the needed energy for the orbit transfer. The equation is incredibly simple for circular orbits and remains simple indeed for elliptical orbits. Those equations would be a great start for a new player. For planetary transfer an understanding of trigonometry is essential. The ability to draw triangles ought never to be underestimated. edit: you must also explore the thrust-to-weight ratio equation. This will ensure that your rocket will actually lift-off. (I would be happy to help you out, just throw me a PM) The PDF by Mr.@mhoram includes the above equations and much much more. Highly recommended.

In hindsight it was probably a good idea playing the first many hours in KSP without mods. It simply forces you to learn the basics of the game through trial and error. The main reason for the absence of mods in my start, was ultimately because of my unawareness of this forum or any mods. I simply just bought KSP in early access, started it and enjoyed it so thoroughly, that I missed any mention of mods. But as I stated above, it was probably a good idea, since I learned how to play the game, before downloading mods, showing me how to. There is a profound satisfaction in figuring things out yourself. When I then discovered all of these amazing mods, it completely changed my game and made it so much more enjoyable, vast and indeed challenging. The tremendous skills of the KSP modders is simply awe-inspiring. So the most important lessons I learned is, for me personally: 1) Start stock and figure things out. 2) If things fail; it is probably due to an insufficient amount of struts.

I tend to severely overestimate my piloting skills and therefore, inevitably, severely underestimate the delta-v required for a specific task. Even now when the evidence of my sumptuously bad navigation skills are apparent, I still tend to underestimate my delta-v. That must be a sound definition of insanity: Keep trying the same thing which keeps failing and still be convinced that you are not the problem. Oh and I consistently utilize the "kill rotation by time-warp" glitch. I would consider this a sin, especially in light of the mod which actually corrects that glitch. I tend not to use the cheat menu or hyper-edit, though on some occasions I have definitely used them. Which is not necessarily a sin (it probably is, given the words edit and cheat are included), but definitely not how one is supposed to gather resources or achieve a slightly more convenient orbit - which is why I tend to stay away from it. But I have indeed sinned on multiple occasions.

I think that no mods are essential to the game. Now, given previous, and perhaps ongoing, discussion and disagreement over the word “essentialâ€Â, I will try and formulate my modding advice, as carefully as I can. First though, lets start with why I don’t think mods are “essentialâ€Â, and what I believe essential means. Actually, lets do that in reverse. In my understanding of the word essential, Ill try this rather trivial example: If we have a device X, which we can turn on and off, and the mechanism which allows X to turn on and off is called Y. Now, it is obvious to see that Y must be an essential component for X to work. It is indispensable. Not just necessary, but absolutely necessary. Therefore in short, essential = indispensable = prerequisite for the thing to work. I do not believe, by any stretch of the imagination, that any mod satisfy that definition of essential. Now, in my experience however, many mods enhance the game play and immersion and essentially provides more things to do, with more parts and better physics and stability. My most recommended mods would have to be these: Kerbal Engineer. Alarm Clock (Very useful for plenty of simultaneous missions) Ferram Aerospace ( Enhances the physics of aerodynamics, making flying more enjoyable) Joint Reinforcement Visual Enhancements I would say that those are probably the mods I use the most. There are plenty of other excellent mods which expands the parts list, adds new technology, adds new planets and so on. But for a new player, I believe that the above list is a good starting point.

Space stations are unfortunately of little use compared to its potential use, it's only really appropriate for re-fueling, mining and crew-transfer, but indeed not necessary. I, for whatever reason, receive a lot of pleasure from building small stations. The whole process seems to relax me completely, especially de-orbiting them after a while and see them burn in a sumptuous flame of reality in the atmosphere. Just today, for absolutely no practical reason, I build a polar space station around Kerbin and flew Jebediah in a SSTO for a visit. Did some science as well. I just love this game. image posting