• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

46 Excellent

1 Follower

About AVaughan

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast
  1. Making history is no longer for sale??

    Still shows as available for me.
  2. Ah I wasn't aware that pressure cutoff affected the pitch to horizontal. I thought it was for fairing deployment. But I have pressure cutoff set lower than default as well. For RO, these days I highly recommend Mechjeb for launches. The dev version has an implementation of Programmed Explicit Guidance that can put a suitable rocket into a nice circular orbit without needing throttle control, or coast to AP or engine relights. I haven't tried that in stock or x3.2 yet. (Maybe I'll play another x3.2 campaign once 1.4.1 is stable and mods have updated).
  3. Principia Laythe Lagrange

    But since the Principia mod brings n-body orbital mechanics to KSP, then they should exist (assuming Principia is installed of course) .
  4. As I understand GT, it isn't hard-coded. Once your vertical speed reaches "Start m/s", GT pitches over by the amount specified in "Turn Angle". It then tries to follow prograde, and maintain its desired time to apoapsis. If time to Ap is rising too much GT will throttle down, if it is dropping, then GT will pitch up. If Gt is pitching up too much, then that stage probably wants more TWR. Alternatively you can start the launch with a high sensitivity to prevent GT throttling down, and let time to AP grow above 50, let the next stage burn some of its fuel, and then gradually drop sensitivity to bring time to AP back down. I normally use a start ms of around 80, and a turn amount of 8. I often have a low TWR of around 1 to 1.2 on the second stage, and often launch with sensitivity at 0.9. If you are getting flat too early or too low, you want to start the turn later and/or turn less. Note that GT follows KSPs internal prograde calculations, so when the navball auto-switches between surface and orbit, the rocket's prograde marker pitches down, and required TWR to maintain time to AP grows. Also make sure that any SRBs burn a decent amount of time, and you have a decent TRW at SRB burnout.
  5. You really should give mod authors a week or more to update their mods for 1.4. Some might work, but you shouldn't be surprised that some mods will need an update to be compatible with 1.4. This is goes doubly for mods that actually need to hook into ksp code, like kerbal alarm clock.
  6. It's been a while since I used GT as well. My current game is RO and RP-0. A few years ago I did successfully use GT in RO as well, but that took too much fiddling with the parameters of the initial turn to be worth while. Another possible reason for being too flat/failing to make orbit is pitching over too much in the initial pitchover. (GT's defaut guess is tuned for a default sized kerbin. On a x3.2 you probably want to pitch over around 5-6 degrees).
  7. I've used Gravity turn in a few x3.2 games without problems. (Although I always set the launch parameters myself, and never let GT attempt to optimise them). If you are burning up in atmosphere, then you are either turning too aggressively, and/or have too high a TWR on the lower stage(s). I suggest a takeoff TWR of between 1.2 and 1.4, (maybe as much as 1.8 if using short burn time SRBs). Then each subsequent stage should have a TWR of around 1.2 at ignition.
  8. Updated Terms Notice & Privacy Policy

    This is a legal matter. Squad really shouldn't make any official statement without getting that statement cleared by the relevant legal department. And T2's legal department would have most likely told them not to comment, because any official comment could potentially undermine the EULA, if it ever came to court. For the same reason I didn't expect T2's management or legal department to comment. So probably the only comment Squad could have made is something equivalent to "This is the new EULA. We have been told not to comment further." Would that have actually helped? (Personally I think a non-comment like that would just have inflamed the discussion).
  9. I'm guessing based on similar problems with RSS. Try reverting kopernicus to version 1.3.1-3. The later versions of kopernicus made some changes that broke some mods.
  10. Kopernicus has also made some changes in the last few weeks that might have broken New Horizons. If you are on 1.3.1, try kopernicus v1.3.1-3 https://github.com/Kopernicus/Kopernicus/releases/tag/release-1.3.1-3 . Also be aware that kopernicus is very sensitive to the version of ksp you are running (they _must_ match). So if you aren't on 1.3.1, you will need to track down a version of kopernicus that matches your ksp version.
  11. Is Kerbal construction time worth it?

    If you really want realistic mods then you should check out RP-0. (KCT is strongly recommended when playing RP-0).
  12. [1.3.0] Kerbalism v1.2.9

    Back when I tried Kerbalism I had problems with a craft in Kerbin orbit. I kept running low on EC. At least once when I switched to it it was in full sunlight, roughly halfway through the day section of its orbit. But Kerbalism though it was in shadow. Whilst the problem would happen intermittently, loading an saving the game was enough to solve it.
  13. No we got your point. The problem is we don't agree with your point. Please do not conflate people disagreeing with your point, with people not listening to you. BTW you are also completely ignoring the points other people are making. That is your right. But if you are just going to re-iterate the same point and ignore everything anybody else says, then please stop accusing us of missing your point. 1. I agree there was something that was referred to as Asteroid Day DLC. I'm not sure whether that was the official squad term, but I remember players referring to it as "Asteroid day DLC". It was free in the sense that players didn't need to buy it. But that is completely irrelevant to whether new dlc produced in 2018 should be free. 2. I don't recall who made that dlc. I have no idea whether it was made by a Squad employee, possible in their own free time, then just rolled out as an official mod. Or whether it was made by someone who wanted to promote asteroid day, and then donated to squad, with an arrangement that squad would release it as an official mod/dlc. Or whether NASA or ESA or someone else paid Squad (or possibly another modder or developer) to make it and arranged for Squad to release it, to help promote asteroid day. (In the last case whilst it might have been free to players, someone got paid to make it, and possibly Squad got paid to release it). But again it that is completely irrelevant to whether Squad should charge for new dlc. 3. Let me repeat the point that I and other posters made a few posts ago, but which you keep ignoring. If you want Squad to keep working on KSP, then they need an income stream. It can be selling new copies of the game, or selling dlc. No income stream will mean no further further development of ksp, and no more patches. I have no idea how many new copies of KSP they sold in 2017, but by now I expect sales are tapering off. Most people who are interested in KSP have probably already bought a copy. So that leaves the choices of selling dlc, or abandoning KSP development. No matter how much you think new content for existing games should be free, the realities of the real world is that someone needs and income stream to pay the salaries of the developers working on ksp, otherwise there will be no more patches. (And remember that, as I understand things, patch 1.4 will be free, it's just the new content that Squad are charging for). 4. Do you remember games like Football Manager 2018? Because that sort of yearly or bi-yearly release is the only way to keep a game/franchise running without selling dlc. And instead of optionally buying dlc occasionally, that is buying a new full priced version of the same game every year or two. I'd much rather Squad sells new content as optional dlc and makes periodic free patch releases than the alternative of them stopping work on ksp and start working on ksp 2020.
  14. I get your point. But do you understand what the consequences of your attitude would be? Developers would release a game. Push out a patch or two for the worst bugs a few weeks or a few months later, then start working on another game. If they can't sell dlc, then once the sales of the existing game start to level off, their is no reason for the developers to keep improving the game. So at that point they will stop working on the game, and start working on something else. Possibly ksp v2, possibly another game entirely. The only reason a shipping game likely to get long term support is because people buy dlc. You might not like that, but that is the way the world works. No financial reward means no reason to pay developers to work on a shipping game. In the long run, if you want a supported version of the game that works, you will need to buy a new copy, at full price, every 1-2 years.
  15. Should I buy KSP Enhanced Edition?

    Personally I would rather recommend the pc version. Mods add a lot to ksp. You don't need a particularly powerful pc to run ksp. I'm using a 7 year old pc with an i7-860 cpu and a HD5770 graphics card, and that runs ksp fine. Would I get better performance and pretty graphics from a more powerful pc? Sure. Can my pc cope with all the graphical mods that really improve the graphics? Nope. But my pc is probably roughly the same performance as the ps4 or xbox one, and those mods won't be available for the console versions anyway.