• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

276 Excellent

1 Follower

About AVaughan

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You have principia installed. That adds n-body physics. I'm guessing that is the cause.
  2. I'm not sure about that. I think the table might have a typo. I would expect price per kg to LEO would be launch cost/max payload. Checking a few of the rows in the table that seems to hold for most. But not for SpaceX. $61,200,000/22,800kg = $2,684/kg. Which would make SpaceX the cheapest. (Note the two transposed digits. Probably a simple typo. Also note I didn't read the report, but just the table, so perhaps I'm missing something).
  3. I did say So yeah, the probe core that is upside down is not an appropriate command part. (Very minor typo. I actually said "right click and appropriated probe core/command pod/docking port", but I'm sure you understood what I meant). The way some people build a big fairing up front, being aerodynamically unstable when you hit Mach 1 is often a possibility, especially without fins. (Indeed I'm in the habit of always adding fins, because I've seen it happen too many times with my own designs. It could also be a shuttle style design with asymmetrical thrust that becomes unstable as the centre of mass changes. But there is no way to tell if that is the problem, without more information).
  4. Assuming the root part is a probe core or a command pod that is oriented the right way, none of that should be necessary. If it is, it is normally easier to right click and appropriated probe core/command pod/docking port and "control from here". I certainly wouldn't recommend flipping the the probe core of a lander, that is just asking for problems when you try to use it later. Most like OP's rocket is simply aerodynamically unstable, and flipping due to aerodynamic effects as it's speed and aero loading increase after takeoff. @TheJoolian Try adding some fines (or for very large rockets maybe even wings) to the bottom of your rocket. If that doesn't work post a picture of the rocket in the VAB, and in flight when you start to lose control. (Make sure you leave the UI visible, so we can see things like your airspeed, and the control positions).
  5. I'm a PC player, but the first steps towards fixing any bug is to work how to reproduce it, and hopefully what causes it. A few possible causes for low fps that come to mind are too many parts (too many parts can bring even the beefiest PCs down to less than 10 fps), already having lots of other craft/relay sats in orbit, or high timewarp rates. Working out what triggers your low frame rates is the first step to solving the cause, and/or working around the issue.
  6. @63Hayden I had a good result following https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki/RO-&-RP-1-Installation-for-1.6.1 .
  7. It's been a few years while since I played with USI life support, so my recollection of it's exact behaviour is slightly fuzzy, but I used to regularly make one "mistake", that turned my kerbals into unintended tourists. (The first time it happened was a real what the heck moment). I tend to start building a new vessel with my Kerbin return capsule, then I turn that into a lander for for whatever body I am heading for, then add extra hab etc to the transfer stage. So I would get to my destination, decouple the lander, start the deorbit burn, and suddenly all my kerbals would become tourists. Easily worked around provided I remembered to make sure that the root part is on the transfer stage, and/or use a separately launched lander. (I also started to always add a probe core to every lander as well, which means that I probably still have control even if they all become tourists).
  8. 20 m/s is 72 kph (or 45 miles per hour), which is quite a respectable walking speed for anything.
  9. @AmpCat Do you have kopernicus installed? There has been a discussion about performance problems in 1.7.3 related to kopernicus in the kopernicus thread. It might be relevant.
  10. More parts means that both the physics calculations and the rendering takes longer. Doubling the number of parts probably roughly doubles how long the cpu and gpu takes to render the craft. But doubling the number of parts probably also increases the physics calculations time by around 3-4 times. So going from 45 to 224 part is probably quite noticeable, unless the 45 part craft limited by the frame rate cap, and cpu and gpu were idle part of the time. (Also note that much of ksp is single threaded, so don't expect ksp to ever max out all 10 cores).
  11. From memory on my install it was more like 90 days. (But my memory isn't the these days, so I could easily remember wrong). Regardless you will want to spend funds on increasing both VAB and R&D rates. The tiny tim isn't actually necessary for a first rocket. (I'm pretty sure I skipped it). Did you remember to tool the tanks? Not tooling the tanks makes the rocket more expensive, and that will make it take longer to build. Which version of RP-1? From ckan, github release or github master? (I'm using github master from a few weeks ago. Possibly there have been balance changes since). Edit: Also the best place to ask is on discord. https://discord.gg/8u3nrav scroll down toward the bottom for the ro and rp-1 support channels. Edit2: Just tried in a new game, minimal rocket, procedural tank (smooth cone 300x800) for the nose, 2 procedural tanks 300x800 for the body, 300mm sr core areobee. (I culdn't be bothered adding fins or a launch clamp, since I'm not actually going to launch it). Before tooling 161 days. After tooling 78 days.
  12. I don't have an RO install, but my 1.6.1 rp-1 install is working fine, including avionics limits. Maybe just try installing rp-1?
  13. @Sammakko78 Start by checking that your mods are upto date and installed correctly. If that doesn't fix things then we will need more info. For a start at least your KSP version, and a list of all the mods you have installed (including their versions). See
  14. So in that case, depending on how slow something needs to be moving before Unity/PhysX decides it is stationary, dynamic friction might not apply to cases where something lands on a slope and spends the next 20 minutes sliding to the bottom at 0.2 m/s.