AVaughan

To be honest, picking some of the more interesting questions (eg what game modes will be available, and how will they differ from the game modes in KSP 1), and getting detailed answers is probably more interesting than a slew of "yes"/"no"/"no comment at this time" responses. So I suggest sorting the questions into some sort of priority order, based on what you want to ask first/you think is an interesting topic/question and if possible getting some more detailed answers for those interesting questions. Probably many of the interesting questions will be things they can't answer at this time. Then if you still have time, you can run through more of the yes/no type questions.

@CocaoGames Which version of KSP? What versions of ksp (if any) did you tell ckan to consider compatible? See https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki/RO-&-RP-1-Installation-for-1.6.1

Gravity turn never did that. However if you had Mechjeb installed, it would ask MJ to plot and execute a circularization burn.

Are you referring to https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/154851-add-on-posting-rules-november-24-2017/ ? Personally I view most of that as common sense requirements from a game developer/publishers perspective. (The work needs an explicit licence statement, otherwise Squad doesn't want to expose themselves or any forum users to any potential legal hassles from hosting it, if bundling other works you need to comply with their licences, etc).

Will KSP 2 have persistent rotation, or will they use the timewarp stops rotation that KSP 1 uses? Will solar panels and resource extraction be properly simulated when the ship is unloaded, or will they just use something similar to the current catch up system? Edit: Also will engine shrouds have something similar to decoupler shroud, where the shroud is calculated based on the dimensions of the tank above, and the decoupler below?

You have principia installed. That adds n-body physics. I'm guessing that is the cause.

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).

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).

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).

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.

@63Hayden I had a good result following https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki/RO-&-RP-1-Installation-for-1.6.1 .

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).

20 m/s is 72 kph (or 45 miles per hour), which is quite a respectable walking speed for anything.

I'm pretty sure that contract is doable with a 20 ton pad.

@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.

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).

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.

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?

@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

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.

Don't forget that increasing the grip of the landing legs would also mean increasing the chance of tipping over if you attempt to land without perfectly cancelling all your horizontal velocity first. These things almost always involve trade offs between realistic physics, fun gameplay (different people will have different expectations here), performance (simulating physics in one millisecond timesteps would probably improve realism even without other other changes, but would probably be much too cpu intensive for more than a tiny part count rocket/lander) and developer time.

@AmpCat That sound like a well known issue of KSPs electrical system at high time warp. See Streetwind's comment

Nothing will stick to teflon.

Was that image from a direct ascent concept? (I think that the early Soviet concept level plans were direct ascent). Edit: It might also have been from an Earth orbit rendezvous concept were the lunar mission was assembled in Earth orbit, then did TLI, capture, descent, ascent and return without a Lunar orbit rendezvous. That would also explain the return vehicle "docked" to lander.

Regarding used crew Dragons. I wonder what the market is like for orbital space tourism? Used booster, new second stage, used crew dragon, 5-7 passengers at maybe $10-20 million per seat? Life support should be adequate for them to stay over 8+ hours in space. To me that would be more attractive than Blue Origin's or Virgin Galactic's sub-orbital flight with only a few minutes of weightlessness, even if it was 2 or 3 times the price. (Not that I have even $100,000 spare anyway). This wouldn't need to be a long term program, just for however many years it takes until they have a manned starship version available as an alternative. (That could be a few years, even if starship + superheavy make a success test flight next year). Commercial passenger flights to ISS is another possibility. SpaceX can probably undercut other bidders there, and might be able to re-use crew Dragon that way.