Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by OHara

  1. Having many craft and bases in your savefile only makes saving the game take a bit longer. KSP only simulates physics for craft within about 2km of the craft you are piloting. I have 'persistent.sfs' files around 5MB that cause me no problem. I think size of the save-file is a reasonable measure of the number and complexity of the craft in flight. If you keep the game running for a long time (hours) in one sitting, though, @Anth12 has noticed that KSP gradually uses more and more memory, and that problem is worse with a larger save-file (link to bug report). At some point the op
  2. Maybe the antenna in the satellite is not a 'relay' antenna. I don't know the rules for communications links, but there is a post here (link) that explains them and the types of antennas. You can disable the communications rules temporarily with Pause (Esc on PC) => Settings => Enable CommNet :off
  3. This could be a bug that appeared with EVA construction (bug-tracker link) where a decoupled sub-craft doesn't get its physics simulated, if the root of the decoupled sub-craft is a cubic strut or hexagonal strut. (Those two structural parts, like thermometers and small surface-mount parts, are excluded from the physics simulation,)h So far the only suggestion in the bug-tracker about avoiding the bug is to re-arrange parts around the decoupler so some other part ends up the root of the sub-craft.
  4. I see. If you want to use a marker craft, you could place it on the Moon's orbit, 60° ahead of the Moon. There is a configuration file somewhere to define the orbit of Moon for Kopernicus, so you can copy those orbital elements into the 'set orbit' mechanism in the debug menu (a.k.a. cheat menu) except add π/3 = 60° to the MNA, and set your marker craft into the desired Lagrange point. Then you have a direct target for your real craft.
  5. De-orbit and landing in one burn (a.k.a. the 'suicide burn') is the most efficient, for the reason that you describe. Well, the small initial burn, that turns your orbit into a trajectory that contacts the surface about where you want to land, might be called the 'de-orbit' burn, but then the large burn to bring you to a stop just before reaching the ground is called a suicide burn.
  6. I am fairly sure there is no way to show the time to a target's AN/DN directly. (Sometimes I cheat a 'marker' craft into an orbit so that I get the markers that I want.) Myself, from what you described, I do not understand why you want to time any burns relative to the Moon's AN/DN relative to the Earth. Is that a separate goal to reaching L4/L5 ? To reach the Earth-Moon L4 point, I think you can launch from 51°N into an inclined low Earth orbit, place a burn at your AN/DN relative to the Moon to raise apoapsis to touch the Moon's orbit, make that burn on whichever orbit has you re
  7. You can find at the bottom of the log that System Heat caused an exception, [EXC 18:05:58.452] NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object SystemHeat.UI.SystemHeatOverlay.LateUpdate () (at <ec1041d6b73c464086f8d8133cb1f2d3>:0) But at the top of the log there several (about 2600) error messages from other mods concerning files missing in "C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData" so maybe the update from Steam caused some files from mods to be missing. I have heard that people who use Steam make a copy of the
  8. Well, the original question was about cooling, but I see your point. It is not necessary to fully cool the converter in order to use it. And the "Thermal Efficiency" in the right-click menu actually indicates the percentage of full conversion rate. When the converter gets hot, and the "Thermal Efficiency" goes down to 50%, the rate of electrical use is also 50%. Once I discovered that I could turn off some the the radiators to slow the process and avoid the converter shutting off due to lack of electricity. For me, though, playing a game where I don't know the rules was more frustrat
  9. So in that case, it is the bug with lots of solar panels around a light part (link link). I don't know what it is about solar panels that causes this problem so I don't know any direct way to avoid it. KSP tries to make these cubes-struts physics-less but then encourages us to attach physics-full objects onto them, so in effect we have 10 solar panels all connected to the single hinge. This problem does not appear on this craft if we turn off that 'physicsless' option, and let Unity simulate normal physics on the cube-struts @PART[strutCube] {%PhysicsSignificance = 0 } Another way
  10. I have seen no indication that Squad has any paid person checking for support requests on this forum, after @sal_vager left the job a few years ago. Within the forums, this would be the best place because the technical problems are not hidden by posts other topics --- or would have been the best place while @sal_vager was reading. If I understand your description, GOG currently provides : KSP main game, version 1.11.2 only KSP main-game language-packs, version 1.11.2 KSP DLCs in English for KSP version 1.11.1 (which also work with KSP 1.11.2) KSP DLCs in other languages for KSP
  11. There is a bug in version 1.11 where pilots and probes have all their SAS abilities from the beginning (link link)
  12. You would run the risk of double-counting, though. In any case we should make sure @swjr-swis has access to the proposed repaired drag cubes two posts above, since he did ask for them. You know I have some sympathy that the drag system from KSP 1.0.5 probably seemed like a very good idea at the time. Run an automatic mini FAR-like analysis over each part the first time KSP sees that part, cache the result in PartDatabase.cfg, and combine parts using simple rules. Sound very mod-friendly. I will fault them for the poor documentation, though, because unintended consequences, like ladder
  13. I just looked through all the stock craft. I had forgotten how many there are. New players might expect them to be examples of good ideas for KSP, but mostly they are not. The "Kerbal X" Mun-capable rocket is pretty good, though. We could certainly have a forum challenge to make sample craft for demonstrating KSP techniques for new players, one each in categories we choose. Then there is nothing stopping us from putting them in a KerbalX hangar with license statements that make it easy for Squad to republish them with just an attribution. Categories might be (ignoring the DLC pa
  14. It takes some effort, but not any extreme effort, to install Luna Multiplayer and launch two copies of KSP to see how LMP handles the questions raised. (I need to run each KSP instance in its own small window, but that is not too bad.) 1. Time Warp: Anyone can time-warp at will. If any player is ahead of you in Kerbin time, LMP gives a button to time-warp to catch up. This facilitates an agreed mutual time-warp, but does not enforce it. Each player can see if the others are ahead or behind him, and by how much time. While players are at different Kerbin-times, craft in the pa
  15. No answer from me, but I'll point out that KSP Steam Controller was trying to initialize an overlay renderer when the Intel Graphics Driver made an access violation in hopes of getting attention of someone who uses the Steam Controller and who might recognize the problem.
  16. You do not need to enable 'Advanced Tweakables' in order to transfer fuel between tanks, at least not in my copy of KSP. Just in case anyone new has a similar problem and finds this thread. See the posts above, by Reactordome and Snark for example, on many reasons you might not get the 'in' and 'out' fuel-pumping buttons.
  17. Autostruts are in an optional menu. You can activate that option from the in-game pause menu, choosing settings then looking for 'Advanced Tweakables' to enable. Then the autostrut options are in the right-click menu. But since you have not used autostruts on this station, they are not likely the cause of your problem. From your description, I suspect that the probe core is wobbling one way while the RCS jets are wobbling the opposite direction, so SAS controlled by the probe-core could drive the oscillation bigger. Try turning off SAS before going into more complicated solutions.
  18. It is not possible under any circumstances. The Convert-o-tron Jr was designed for intermittent use only. The only clue you see in-game is that 'max cooling' is less than 'cooling required'. When this came up before (link, link) people uncovered the reasons it was made this way. There is a patch (link) to change the rules if you want to.
  19. On the bug-tracker entry (link) someone has posted screenshots showing how to restore the parachuted and jetpacks with KML Persistence File Editor. I cannot confirm the workaround, because my installation of KSP does not have this problem, but the edits do match what KSP does to my persistent.sfs, when I first take control of a Kerbal from my version-1.10.2 save
  20. Just use 240s in the 'rocket equation' If you want a way to remember that, Isp is an efficiency, so three thrusters have the same efficiency as one. The number means you get 240 kg-force for every 1 kg/s of propellant-use-rate. With three single-jet RCS ports on that probe, you will need to orient it so that one probe is pushing you prograde, in order to do your circularization. Also, the port should be centered well enough that it does not tend to turn your probe, any more strongly than your reaction-wheel torque can counter. It is likely to work for you (I have done similar
  21. We do not need the .loadmeta file to try your craft, but we do need to have all the mods for parts you use (KOS for the KAL9000) . I have used KOS so I reactivated it to try your craft, but you might want to upload a version with the KAL9000 removed so more people can try it. Letting people try the craft is a very good idea, because otherwise people are just guessing. For me, the rocket flew fine with SAS off, but it turned off course with SAS on. As you uploaded it, the control point is the Probodobodyne in the miner probe, which is upside down, so it would steer backwards. You can s
  22. KSP's jet engines are quite efficient, it turns out, which is easier to see with the suggested conversion of fuel units to kg. I'm flying right now at Mach 0.6 with a single Goliath (they don't like to go too fast) and that engine is burning 0.22 units = 1.1 kg of fuel per second, and producing 140 kN thrust (35% max. sea-level thrust). The wiki gives fuel consumption at sea level where you get max thrust. Fuel flow goes down with altitude, as it should; even in single engine prop planes you have to lean the mixture at altitude. So the 'specific fuel consumption' (the inverse of Is
  23. Yes, if KSP measured fuel in kg (or changes to measure it in kg in future) that does make comparisons much easier. The 4.5-tonne Goliath engine, burning 2.9 kg/s to give 360 kN for takeoff, is comparable to the Rolls-Royce on the A380, weighing 5t and burning 5.8 kg/s to give 360 kN. That burn rate is only for initial climb. Both engines can throttle back significantly in cruise, but you need a bit more open throttle in KSP because the other the parts tend to be heavier, thus the required lift greater, thus the drag greater. The game makes it a challenge to circumnavigate of Kerbi
  24. Just to be sure you know (more likely, for someone finding this thread while looking for help) you can click the root part to pick up the whole craft, and then Shift-D rotates the craft 5° so that it points slightly east when held by its clamps on the launchpad (shift -W -A -S -D -Q -E for rotating in other directions). I understand you are suggesting a control and display like in the mod Part Angle Display be made stock, so we can make finer adjustments in a quantitative and repeatable way.
  25. The 'Pegasus' ladder with separate rungs that you bolt onto the side of a craft is not very draggy. The retractable ladders are very draggy because of their big boxes. KSP's drag model since version 1.0 treats all surface-mounted parts as if they were independently moving through the air. Maybe the idea was that part-clipping could then be purely aesthetic, with no effect on performance, so we could have challenges and not worry so much about clipping. The drag of each part is figured automatically from the shape of its visible model (maybe so part-modders don't have to compute a
  • Create New...