Jaeleth

You bet! The same happened to me too, reverse steering and other weird stuff... 1.1.x was a total disaster with the rovers.

Why are my 1.0.4 saved game rovers stuck in the ground and unable to move?? (I skipped 1.0.5 because of speed issues with both my computers), 1.1.x seemed to solve that but rovers are completely broken) Shall I have to get back to 1.0.4? The last reasonably working version of KSP...

No... But if it did it would skid less, not more, like the old Honda 4ws, high speed handling is trickier though... Anyway, I am talking low speed here, ksp rovers do not go over 80km/h on a plain surface with wheel motor propelled only, and the problem I am reporting happens right at ridiculously slow speeds.

I never used v 1.0.5 since it made my saved game impossibly slow. I was glad to see v 1.1.1 had none of those issues so I jumped from 1.0.4 to 1.1.1. I noticed that the 1.1.2 version has been released but didn't downloaded it yet and on the corrected issues post this wasn't listed, anyway so, here it goes: It's just me or the editor (VAB) just got worse? the graphics look shadier (that's the unimportant bit) and now when I want to assemble a part in the inverted position I have to rotate the entire craft being build instead of just rotating the part since I am unable to rotate "ghosted" parts now, only "in place" parts... Am I doing something wrong or was this just a big blunder in v 1.1.1's editor? as for the rest of the game, so far, v 1.1.1 is looking good. oopssss. Take back what I said, just tried to drive a rover in 1.1.1... what the hell is this? I can't drive in a stright line! I have more control driving my real world car in the snow than driving a little rover on the grass in kerbin!!! is there a workaround for this nonsense?

1. Land directly on the base, use a large docking port, on Ike should be ok. If unconfortable yet with precise landings use mechjeb2, that's the way I solved this problem. Although the klaw is a good prospect too. 2. Better still, my new approach, build a BIG ship with large fuel tanks, adequate engines, an ISRU, gigantor solar panels, ore storage, batteries, nuclear power generators and a couple of mining drills. land ship on good mining spot, let one small probe there to mark the spot. Drill, convert, launch to orbit, refuel all ships. Fuel efficiency of this is less than land base, but not that much less, but game time efficiency increases ten fold! this method only works on no atmosphere, preferably low gravity, worlds.... But than again, why would you build a mining station on any other kind of world?

Most likely you have rotated the part where the wings are attached. The correct way to correct this is either re-rotating that part to correct attitude or remove wings and install them again in case you need that part rotated the way it is. Pitching up the part slightly will also produce the same effect but it is not correct since it will introduce a minor unalignment in your ship, increasing lift and drag too. pitching up wings slightly will also solve the problem but it will generate more lift and, therefore, more drag which might not be intended.

This happens to me, some times, when another bug happens too. Usually I am in system view and, suddenly, the manuever nodes start running to infinite, or the view point starts behaving erratically, also running away to infinite. Whenever you notice strange things happening, just check your contracts, if they've been "cleaned" just don't svae the game and reload. If you already saved with empty contracts, go to last good game save, and copy the contract area, it is relatively easy to identify, and paste it on the current game file, ersing the new contract area. Takes a bit of time but it solves the problem. Never forget to keep multiple backup saves, of course.

2 years, have you always had this problem? Or only after you upgraded to 1.0.5.x? I never had problems with speed (except over 500 part count) until I upgraded to 1.0.5.x, which made me return to 1.0.4.x. And I have nowhere near the hardware you have. note that 25fps is almost ideal (30fps is enough to look smooth) and 12 fps is not that bad, I've docked huge ships at 1fps, with slower speeds, using mechjeb for flying is recommended, on some ocasions.

Although I have editd the game file on other purposes before, Ii never relocated docking ports, so I do not know. However, since docking ports work in pairs I would try to find the other docking port that connects with that one and move it the same amount. Another idea is to detach the ports, in game, relocate the port, editing game file, and then try to inch the whole structure up again, to dock. You will also have to reset the magnet, (which will imply more game file editing or a ship that's capable of pushing the whole thing back and forth. but... Before that, I would really try to use Hyperedit, it is very easy once you get the precise coordinates where you are and where you want to relocate your base, maybe selecting different terrain slope will solve your problem. In that case I suggest you have some reaction wheels attached to the base so that you can position it while landing. one final idea, where you would only partially, dump parts, would be to redesign only the tanker section, scrap the old one and replace for a new one... In terms of workload it seems much simpler to replace that base section, than all the other stuff.

Actually... Some bad news... Until squad solves that clliping into terrain extreme reaction, that is I am having the same problem on a base, curiously on Minmus too. Luckily, it started only to happen at the edge of the base, and destroyed a pipeline extension I planned to put there. The point is: You cannot build large ground bases... period. You simply can´t. If part count doesn't kills you in the meanwhile, sooner or later they will encounter terrain and until squad finds a way to let them dig a little into moon dust... there is no way. Another solution would be to level terrain (i think someone, somewhere, would be making a mod for that). There are, currently, 2 workarounds, for future bases, as far as my experience with this annoyance goes: 1. Use Klaws to connect buildings, they are cumbersome, ugly and totally un-realistic, but since you can "flex" them by unlocking the pivot, they help solving the problem of going around terrain.. 2. Use landing legs. Put everything on landing legs, I even designed some base modules using landing legs, panels (for good looks) and docking ports, and then I wil lower my fuel tanks on top of them, each base takes 3 sr doking ports facing UP, and several docking ports and small docking ports facing the other sides. thus allowing more modules to be attached to each other. But each module rests on landing legs, several of them, to support large fuel tanks. But... even these workarounds have limits, do try not to stretch your base too much along a single direction and make it more circular. Oh, and by the way, unless for good looking reasons, you need only one ore tank and one ISRU, and a few drills, just enough so that the whole thing works 24/7 on the energy package you have, the only thing you need to have plenty is fuel tanks, of course. SO, on to some PRACTICAL ADVICE: Since you already have the base in place and, obviously, do not want to waste all those hours (believe me, I know what that means...(sad, rolling eyes )) Try to find the troublesome end. Detach it, if possible, and attach a claw with a docking port on each side, to make an hinge. But this might be more troublesome than one can imagine... OR... Since the game is, obviously, cheating on you, cheat it back... Find a bit of terrain which you think would've been better to place your base and use Hyperedit MOD to land your entire base at that point... If, for some reason, it still doesn´t works you may go as far as (if you can) relocate (a few centimeters) the offending port by editing the game file. One final remark... Sadly, since I am fond of ground bases, I found that the most efficient in game terms (not in fuel terms, note) is to have a huge self mining spaceship, which lands on planet, drills huge amounts of fuel and brings it all to orbit where smaller ships will dock and refuel. (particularly on low gravity moons) It will waste huge amounts of fuel up and down but it will save countless game hours doing the landing - docking routine of multiple smaller ships which is always more complex, although fun, when you're talking docking at a ground station, and will prevent the inevitable clipping into terrain problems that occur with permanent ground bases...

AH, ok, mistook GC for graphics card ;). Now it makes sense That´s why, in aviation, ATC never uses registration abbreviations when there might generate confusion eheh

But I find it strange being a graphics card problem, since, in a strict graphics point of view, there is almost no difference for taking off an averagely complex SSTO or a small jet off KSC. Since the majority of the graphics being rendered at the time are KSC buildings, the difference between the SSTO and small jet, in terms of total polygons to be rendered on scene should be less than 1%. And I don't have problems with a small jet, on a new game, and a lot of problems with an SSTO, on my migrated career game...

Well... I guess I'll keep playing in 1.0.4 for the time being then... No heat model or flight model tweaks or a few extra gadgets, albeit cool, are worth the absolute stall the software gets into 1.0.5... In my conditions. Does 1.0.5 checks for anything else than the 2.3km sphere around currently selected vessel? Anything else but what 1.0.4 did already. Because I have hundreds of spacecraft and debris floating around Kerbol system and if squad changed the way that objects, outside of that shpere, are treated, that might be the cause. Immo the game should not be upgraded to a point where only super machines will run it, at least not without a players option to downgrade it by tweaking settings (and, in a game like this, I am not exacly referring to graphics settings, but to the calculation of the applied models, where applicable) or else this will put off thousands of people who don't have the money to buy a super machine.

Mechjeb II, AGX (action groups inflight edit), Hyperedit, Kerbal alarm clock, ship manifest. From all of these only mechjeb has implications in ships components, however, the problem is not in 1.0.4, but in 1.0.5, and in 1.0.5 I removed all mods to test.

Hi. I installed v1.0.5.0 as soon as it was released, but since the few mods I was using were not updated then, I tested it but waited to migrate my career game. I let time go bye and, finally, migrated my career game from 1.0.4 to 1.0.5 a couple of days ago. But... A strange thing happened. The game runs incredibly slower. Not only that but every x frames (say, every 3 seconds, real time, to 10 seconds, sometimes) the screen freezes for half a second, and then resumes... I removed all mods to see if it was an incompatibility problem but no... Problem remains. I noticed that if I start a new game, build a small jet aircraft and fly it, for instance, this problem does not appears or is not noticeable. If I remove almost all ships from my career saved game and fly an SSTO (more complex ship), I start noticing the slowdown If I use my saved game in full, all ships, all missions and MechJeb (I have to have MechJeb installed in order for most of my ships to load), the problema assumes drastic proportions. I am pretty sure that it is not MJ fault, since even without it, the problema is noticeable. NOTE: There are no ships within the 2.3Km radius of the test vessel, just around Kerbol system and far away, as usual. Using 1.0.4... no problems at all. Any clues?

I'll try module manager then, but previously I didn't have module manager and it worked, the reason is, whenever possible I prefer to do all things manually and be in control of everything. By the way, ever thought of improving the interface? It's really hard to navigate.

No... It becomes an "unnatural" satellite... But if you turn it into a space station, it then becomes a supernatural satellite... Lol

Looked it up... It's no longer "there" for download...

I had this mod, AGX. I didn't install it because I needed all that fancy sff and 250+ action keys... No, why would I have more keys programmed than my memory can remember... I installed it to cover a specific "flaw" in the game... That is, the impossibility of programming action groups in flight. Either because I forget to do so before launch or because I attach 2 or 3 ships and I don't want the action groups to do unwanted things... problem is, although AGX mod has some nice stuff, like the ablity to choose hidden parts, to include in actions, its interface must be one of the most difficult to tackle, of all mods, and after upgrading to 1.0.5, and even using the latest AGX available, stopped saving the action groups, that is, I program the action groups, leave hangar, and action groups actions are erased... is there another, simpler, mod out there that just lets me reprogram action groups in flight. Just the basic action groups, really... Or... In case there isn't, what the hell is happening with my AGX? And how can I fix it?

Or edit the game file, and add the funds... But that'll be just too much trouble since I would have to sum, one by one, all re-activation of old upgrades, add the money, and then buy the new ones, the proper way. Plus the time I already spend buying them all again in VAB or hangar... Nahhh... Let it go... It's only money

When docking with a ground station with a large tanker, I spent the last of my monopropelant Some 10 meters above the station port... Gravity did the job but the ports weren't fully aligned, since the terrain wasn't level, and I had to yank the tanker around, luckily, pushing the ports into the correct alignment. there was another... An SSTO returning, overshooting kerbin space port by too far, out of fuel, barely dragged it, gliding, to the dirt runway on the abandoned base, but made it. of course... There was that one of a 2000000 credit worth of spacecraft lost in space due to too little fuel and too steeper angle of approach on Eve, but that wasn't a close call, it was a catastrophic miss...

Why are we forced to buy techs we already had, in career mode, when there is a program upgrade? Buying newly introduced techs is perfectly reasonable, but re-buying old ones?!?! why? it happened when I upgraded from 0.9 to 1.0, most recently from 1.0.4 to 1.0.5 and, I'm pretty sure, will happen again when I migrate my career game from 1.0.5 to 1.1...

Too shallow may kill you, ues, but so will too steep... And more frequently. You forgot that choosing a flatter profile also means choosing a slower reentry speed, and speed is the real killer, as heat buildup is concearned. With a slower speed heat is not as much and temperature stabilizes at a point, if that point is below critical you may remain as long as you wish aerobraking. When coming from higher Ap the reentry speed is higher too, I am not considering using engines for significant deceleration before reentry, of course. Although yes, there is a balance between reentry angle and speed. Actually, in Kerbin, with an heat shield, ( and even without one, on occasion) it is hard to really blow up on reentry. Anyway. Air brakes a heatshield and enough chutes, properly deployed, should even get an whole space station down on Kerbin without burning it. If anything, airbrakes are usefull for the final approach, anyway, before deploying chutes. I can't remember the last time I blew up anything on Kerbin, usually i set Ap at around 90km - 100km and Pe 50km. So, I just put it to the test... both ap 80, pe 55 or ap100, pe 30 yielded the same results on a bullet-like vessel, that is an ftl400 tanks strapped to an heat shield, control gear and a chute, no fins, no airbrakes. both didn't burn on atmos both spent little ablator, the steeper angle worn less but, and this was the question, terminal speed for both was high enough so that the chute could not be deployed, and both crashed due to that, actually terminal speed was ver close to each other at 3000m, the steeper angle was a little lower at the very end, but then again, it impacted terrain at a lower altitude than the shallower angle. Both impact speeds were subsonic. so... Final advice... Regardless of angle, do use airbrakes... Or fins... Or something that produces drag. Or simply, use heatshields as fins, at the rear, they will withstand huge reentry speeds and stabilize the ship like no other thing... Ugly, yes, but efficient, just think of an arrow, the front heatshield is the tip, the rear heatshields are the feathers...

With AP at 80 and Pe at 30km your angle is a little steep, but that shouldn't be a problem... Unless you have an heavy, and aerodynamic, vessel. This way the aerobrake will be minimum until you reach lower layers of the atmosphere and, thus, burn up or, not burning up, you won't get below a safe speed for the chutes. Add aerobrakes in the rear end of the vessel and deploy them prior to enter atmosphere, it should work. If you feel necessary, add one or two drogue chutes to deploy before the real chutes. Also... Do not deploy all your chutes at the same time, do that gradually, this way, when they open, the stress on the structure won't be so big. If, after all this, the ship is still breaking up, consider reinforcing the weakest parts with a strut or two...

Ah, so, locking suspension before landing? Maybe, not as easy as legless but... it makes sense. I'll try that. I'll mix that with a modular all purpose base foundation that I am designing. it would be great that squad would allow us to tweak suspension height once in place. Actually, is there a mod for that? For individually setting the height for each shock absorber? It would be easier than develop the mod for buldozzing.