cephalo

This is one of my favorite mods ever. However, now that all my computer gear is upgraded to the max, I'm finding the docking indicator is super duper small on a 4k screen. I have a room size TV and a beastly 4090 vid card letting me go crazy with the mods, but when I have to dock I have to get off the couch because it's too small and I can only see it with my face on the screen. Is there a way to trick this thing to scale up?

The thing I didn't like about science in KSP1 is that it was linked to the tech tree. Once I had all the parts, I just couldn't shake the feeling that I was done with the game. Science labs were fun, but they even shortened this process so on some runs I didn't even have to go to Duna. In my opinion the tech tree should be achievement based, like once you've done X you can do Y, and then it's ok to unlock the tech tree early. I.E. Once you learn to make an orbital rendezvous, you can make a docking port etc. Science in my opinion, should be where nearly all your funding should come from, and there should be a marketplace where people are looking for experiments done in different environments, and you try pack in as many as you can per mission. There should be lots of choices of science contracts to take. I was always unsatisfied with the contracts available in KSP1, they were very rarely appropriate for the mission I wanted to do. There might be one to my planned destination, and then six to the Mun where I'd already been too many times. I don't want to test out some vehicle part in some goofy, inappropriate place where it shouldn't even be operating. Funding should come from science because it makes more sense. I would rather choose a destination or destinations, and then have the science community offer up requests and payment amounts. Orbital science stations could play a role in long term, steady funding.

Kabbages is fine. All you need really. Abstracting away pilot needs entirely is ok for round trips, but living on an alien world permanently requires more fictional input I think.

What's the point of a colony if Kerbals are just over there doing and needing nothing? There's gotta be an official life support system right?

I was playing around with my spaceplane from KSP1, and let me tell you I am LOVING the procedural wings, but I wanna toggle close the nosecone and switch my rapier to closed cycle. I found the action bar settings, but the key presses don't seem to work. Thankfully you can bring up the window and press it there with the mouse click, but I would like to know if this is broken or if I'm just doing something wrong.

I bought it, but I need at least reentry heating if I'm going to get re-hooked. I'll wait.

Does this change the career game in any way? Do we still do the right click and run experiment buttons? Does the new deployable science stations just make science faster?

While it's very doable to land without legs, it sure bothers me. I'm right in mid career and will have to stop until next patch. I need my landers to look like landers or it's no fun.

Quick question, on a ship that you reuse a lot, is there a way to recharge the ablation material?

Its a thing of great beauty.

Yeah, I was really hoping for an updated career. Maybe a competing space program somewhere else on Kerbin, or I dunno. Just a more historical tech progression.

I always felt the career game seemed a bit messed up from a historical perspective. It's like in order to learn supersonic flight, you have to get science on the Mun. Will there be any changes coming to career from the expansion?

No heating effects? Most sstos can go fast enough to burn up if their altitude is low. I'm unsure how to go super fast without heating.

Speaking of two engine nodes, I have found this problematic for a couple of reasons. The first reason is that the Mk2 adapter that splits in two seems to create a huge amount of drag according the aerodynamic forces overlay, probably a lot more than it should. The second reason is that without that, it's not that easy to have an even amount of engine nodes. The cockpit requires one fuselage stack, then what do you do? If you don't put an engine on that stack, then it's still an extra stack. Maybe you could put the two stacks vertically to keep horizontal symmetry? I haven't tried that.

Yay!

I find that if you just put wings on a spaceplane using the snap your plane will usually fly like this. As was said, you can tilt the wings so that your fuselage points more prograde. It's hard to tell if this causes less drag or not.

I have a concern as to how this is being fixed. The problems with the runway also exist on general terrain also, so if you fix the runway only, and then fix the planets, the runway will break again because you fixed the planets. This is a new problem that began with 1.2. These cracks in terrain didn't exist prior to that. Someone mentioned this earlier in the thread, and it was explained as the 'kraken' but that is not the case. There are in fact little rover destroying brick walls in the terrain, and you can see them if you get close. On some planets, (I noticed this on Eve.) you can see the rectangular terrain patches that aren't lining up. These are just like the issues with the runway and likely have the same cause. I am guessing that there is a tiling issue with the vertex textures. Vertex textures need to overlap by one texel in order to line up, or else the edges need to be blended with each other. This is different than regular textures. Also, this behavior could change on different graphics cards.

No thread about docking should fail to mention NavyFish's 'Docking Alignment Indicator' mod. All it does is give you the information you need to dock. Docking is a hundred times more fun that way, I can't recommend it enough. It will be crystal clear if something is getting in your way such as a rotating target or poorly placed RCS engines.

Never mind, the launch window planner includes the insertion burn. Didn't notice that.

The 1.2.1 dv chart on the wiki says that you can go from LKO to Dres flyby with around 1500 dv plus 1000 dv plane change, but other launch window planners etc. give about a minimum of around 3500 dv. Is the chart incorrect, or do I need a gravity assist somewhere to get there in 2500 dv?

So, I tried two variants of this craft, one with a dart and one with an advanced nose cone on the center rear node. The fuel efficiency at every stage of the flight appeared exactly the same, with the small extra weight exactly countering the small extra efficiency. However, the dart does make the ascent into space quicker and more enjoyable once you switch modes on the rapiers and fire up the dart also.

It used to be that the shock cone intake was the best choice for a nose cone no matter what. Is that still the case?

I have a question. I'm making a small spaceplane with 2 rapiers and a dart. The idea is that I would use all 3 getting to orbit, but just the dart once in space. Do I gain anything by this? The dart is more efficient, but then I'm lugging around 2 dead engines. Would it be better to just continue to use all 3, or perhaps just get rid of the dart? I have another spaceplane that uses a nuke as the third engine, and in that case I do gain a lot from carrying the two dead engines, as I only need oxidizer on the ascent. Because of the nuke efficiency, I can go all over the Kerbin system for tourist contracts. This plane is a bit sluggish though. This new plane is meant for simply going up to a space station in LKO. Rather than max efficiency, I'm looking for a fast, comfortable ride. I love spaceplanes that leap into orbit.

So my nephew was visiting over Thanksgiving and fell in love with KSP. The Obvious solution would be to get it for him on Christmas! The problem is that his household is a Mac household. What kind of specs do you need to make KSP enjoyable on a Mac? I don't want him to be disappointed if it doesn't perform like on my PC. Can you use Mods? We would need KER and Docking Alignment Indicator.

Probably should terminate those missions heh.