AngrybobH

Eve is a huge technical challenge. I'm finding this out with my second ever eve return vehicle. It's much smaller than 700t but it's still giving me fits. I fall into the "just push harder" brute force method rather than finesse so MOAR dV and TWR is my answer. My main problem right now is how to get the thing from the KSC launchpad to eve's surface without exploding or summoning the kraken. I've solved the getting back to orbit with just putting more vectors(and some fuel) on it, which is my suggestion for the 700 tonner you are flying. Just push harder.

I don't use AJE but I turned off tac-ls and FAR and only gain about 5 FPS sitting still at the launch pad and about 7 FPS when flying in the atmosphere. I'm not sure how much FAR contributed to that as TAC-LS can be resource intensive. But, for the record, I am running SVT, SVE with high quality textures, EVE, and scatterer(all of which seemed to improve my performance very slightly). Most of my other mods are parts mods but there are some that may or may not have a FPS hit like KSPI-E and [X] science. So not much of a scientific test but I still think 700 parts all flying in atmo would be near impossible at 30 FPS. Also considering my christmas tree for challenge was near 700 parts over 4 vehicles landed at minmus and I got about 5 FPS, which was a 500% increase over my last computer with the same graphics card (on PCIe 2x16) with a Phenom II 965BE and 16GB DDR3.

I recently built a new machine. It highlights how hard it would be to get to 700 parts at 30FPS while running mods and having the parts spread across 10 planes all in the atmosphere with FAR calculations going on. I drop to 30 FPS at ~300 parts with far, tac-ls with background proc on, and 70 or so other mods. The system is a Ryzen 5 1600 (thats overclocked to 3.9ghz) on a MSI pro carbon board with 32GB DDR4 ram and booting from and running KSP from a M.2 960 EVO SSD. The graphics card is a little old being a nVidia GTX 970 running in the PCIe 3x16 mode. So for 700 parts at 30 FPS you need more than double my system.

Sometime in there games went from full games that then got expansions to games that had stuff obviously removed then sold as day 1 expansions. The transition to that caused a lot of hate for expansions. I can even remember loving expansions then moving toward hating some of them. Maybe that clears up some of your confusion.

My only concern with the DLC is my mods will probably be broken so I'll have to wait for mod development to catch up before I can really play with it. A paid DLC is exactly what KSP needs to inject some cash into it. Cost is not a concern at all when you consider the $ over time in game.

I put engines below CoM when I'm building an atmosphere only plane for many reasons, one of them being counteracting pitch down. But, I use MechJeb's differential throttle setting for most of my planes when I am flying real high or going to space. This setting makes where your engines are less important, though you will see a major drop in power output if they are way off. I never use any angle of incident on my planes. It makes the plane fly very different depending on speed and when you already have altitude as a variable, it makes it hard to make a plane fly the way you expect it too, IMO. I trial and error landing gear. The bouncing wheel bug destroys things. Best to just play with settings until you dial as much out as you can. You can look at the liquid fuel usage in the resources when flying and find a minimum usage when balancing the lowest possible speed you can fly at different altitudes. Since we don't know things like engine RPM and BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) and many other factors that can play into fuel usage, we have to trial and error it. Basically slow(less fuel and power) and high(less drag) is good economy but you may not like the way it flies.

Yesterday and today I built and setup a new computer. I did this specifically for KSP because I want more parts before slow downs and my christmas tree (in the challenge thread) totally crashes my old system. i went from an AMD phenom II 965be with 16gb to a ryzen 5 1600 and 32 gb ram and, of course, I had to install KSP on the new SSD. So far I have firefox, steam, and KSP installed....seems like I'm done, right?

I usually go with 1 and then deal with the problem, send an engineer out with a screwdriver (KAS/KIS, always one on board my manned missions), or send a rescue mission if its important enough. I actually enjoy engineering a repair for failures so, I get enjoyment out of some bugs and mission planning mishaps.

If its worth doing It's worth overdoing or as my good friend says, "if you're going to be a bear, be a grizzly". My tree is a 70 meter tall 5 meter diameter trunk with 77 MN of thrust and ornaments filled with LFO. The topper is a tri-alpha nuclear fusion powered 2300 light (288 a8 lamps) eye melting ball. I made a present for Bob (it uses mods) but it is the perfect gift for him. Since he is scared when moving more than 2 m/s, I built him a mini sci rover with a full roll cage and a top speed of 1.9 m/s. Tree and top docking above minmus Jeb landing with the bob rover package on the top of the lander Bob going out to light the tree And the nuclear powered eye melter fully lit And the rover It even has a reel to reel hi-fidelity sound system (atmosphere required).

@kcs123 If you did read my posts, you did not understand them. The pics in your last post show the 2 planes (yes the middle and lower pic are exactly the same plane) that I have trouble with but the first one is not a roll instability it is a yaw left at all times which I have fixed by removing the white section of the wing right up next to the body and that makes no sense as to why that fixed it (wings are still the same dihedral angle). The second plane rolls right for no good reason without input at all speeds and rolls right with only pitch (up or down) input. I fixed that plane by making the wings in smaller sections (more than double the parts, see my previous post). It seems there is a problem with the way FAR handles body length B9 Pwings or the way B9 gives data to FAR. I'm starting to think the old symmetry bug has returned. You would think but the craft in question exhibits asymmetrical lift. As for the 1-4 or your post, 2. main wings have 4-5 degrees dihedral, 3. the outer vertical surfaces are exactly vertical. 1 and 4, there are no "aesthetic" only parts, clearance is not an issue and the vertical wings are shorter on the bottom because the CoM is higher than the true center line, and the perfect yawing control surface would be directly inline with the CoM with enough distance to have the required force. That set up would give only yaw without any roll. I use downward surfaces to balance roll out of yaw and provide sideslip reduction when flying at extreme altitude. This works in KSP with FAR installed and is most notable with heavy planes that can get huge sideslip problems. This might even work in real life but my engineering prowess lies in wheeled vehicles not aerospace.

I mainly use them for part reduction.....but they also look really cool. There is, I believe now, a bug which makes it beyond anyone's ability to fix other than the mod creators/maintainers of either or both B9 Pwing and FAR. Your example is easily replicable. Mine, on the other hand, is strange enough to make it hard. It at least starts with creating a stack of short span, body length wings and then the problems start from there. I did finally throw together a test. I recreated the problem craft with more small wings stuck together. I didn't recreate the exact geometry but I got close enough. The canards I used are from the first try at the original, the body is exactly the same (started from the same craft file). the new plane actually flies straight, returns to 0 roll without input, and pitches up without roll(although yaw still needs work). The mass of both planes are close, 148t problem, 146t new. ref area is 216 m2 vs 179 m2, scaled chord 6.05 vs 3.5, scaled span 2.83 vs 2.65. with those numbers the problem plane should fly much better. More span, more wing area and such for the same mass, right? The new plane is more stable and flies as expected at all speeds and at altitude. For now, I will just use more, smaller wing parts to make up larger, longer wings since that seems to assuage my issue. I will keep the problem craft file around if anyone wants it to test. The new plane for reference.

@Maeyanie While that seems to prove there is some issue, why would a plane built by mirror symmetry(all from the left side) exhibit uneven results? Your last post prompted me to stare hard at the voxels and I don't see anything. I also took a shot of the plane in flight and on the runway with the aero forces display on. Now that is a bit interesting and proves there is something wrong. The voxels and CoM/CoL. The CoM and CoL are perfectly aligned. The voxels around the S2 crew cabin seem weird but I don't often look at voxels, so I don't know. The middle pic is with no control input except throttle but SAS is on. The last pic I tried to get straight and level without SAS and no engine output but that was not happening even when the speed was ~mach 3. If anyone has an idea of a diagnostic measure, I would surely try it. I'm also not seeing any exceptions in the log. @kcs123 While I normally appreciate any opinion, even (or especially) if it proves me wrong, your post seemed kind of hostile. It also was not helpful in the slightest and gave me the impression you did not read what I had posted. As for the strange dihedral angles, the main wings don't have that that much and not out of line with other craft I have created that fly quite well. If you are referring to the center "vertical" wings, the angle there is to dial out roll when yawing. Also, not strange or out of line with real world aircraft (see sr-71, f/a-18, F-4 flying bandaid phantom, etc). And, finally, yes I create planes with aesthetics in mind for the original concept after, of course, intended purpose but, we all know(or should), that the difference in concept and the actual thing that works can be very different. This particular plane has been redesigned several times trying to dial out roll right under ALL circumstances.

I design a lot of planes, it is my favorite thing to do in KSP. I look at the derivative numbers a lot and also tab out to google so I can remember what half of them represent and the normal fix for a bad one. Which one is the roll with respect to accel?...Well OCD just got me, now I have to look it up. This problem exist from take off (~150m/s) all the way out to mach ~7 or 8 (when the wings try to melt). It also will not climb without rolling right so, higher than about 9 km is impossible. As far as derivatives go, they go green at 0.45 mach (just barely). At mach 1.0 they look really good. I have a couple of other planes that have very similar derivative numbers and they fly just fine. I'm currently trying to redesign the wings into many different sections but achieving the same rough shape to see that has any effect of my problem. @Maeyanie I looked a couple of pages back and didn't see anything which is why I posted. But, that happens to me often I definitely will go look again, ty for the info.

Is there a known problem with B9 Procedural wings interacting poorly with FAR? I seem to remember there used to be some issue that was solved a long(-ish) while back. I am having a strange issue when building a certain style of plane. When i build certain delta wing design with procedural wings it yaws and/or rolls uncontrollably, sometimes with nice green derivative numbers. Also, without changing anything, the derivative numbers seem to change depending on whether it is a fresh load of the craft or a revert to hanger situation. I haven't quite nailed this down to a specific behavior yet so I'm not going to say its a bug or not. I'm still collecting info to see if it's something on my end and that's the point of this post. So this plane yaws left hard without any input. And this one rolls right even from a 90 degree left bank. It also rolls right when pitching up or down. But these 2 fly normally The first two planes have something in common the other two do not. They have a section (or 2) of near body length short wings before the main wings start. The plane in the second picture is the most problematic of all the planes that I have created. The Mw number(and others) is red and, as I understand it, moving the wings up or back should help. When I move the wings up or back Mw gets worse. Almost everything I do to this plane has the opposite effect that it did on every other plane I have built. All 4 of these planes have been created in KSP 1.3.1 with FAR 0.15.9 and many other mods installed. So, what do you think? Is this more likely a FAR problem with B9 procedural wings or something else?

While that stick looks nice I would caution anyone from buying anything from Saitek. I have owned a couple of their products that had great features but the quality and longevity of these were not up to snuff. Their customer service is also terrible giving you lines like "well, we don't actually build that even though our name is on it so we can't really help you." and "We can't send you a replacement until you send yours in and see if we can charge you to fix it even though its only 6 months old". I recommend to anyone the tried and true Logitech 3d extreme pro. They have built this same model for a decade or more, it is dirt cheap, it handles abuse well, and it lasts for a very long time. The one on my desk right now has outlasted 3 PCs. With the 3 axis stick and the 2 axis hat plus 12 buttons and a throttle you can do any setup you want. The IP desktop controller looks like it would be real fun with a bunch of games, too bad about the price though.

I flew and entirely untested spaceplane with 1 kerbal into orbit to retrieve 7 others and a huge load of science(over 6000 sci points) from LKO. The plane was based on a previous line of sub-orbital planes that were quite unstable but mostly flyable. What could possibly go wrong? I flew straight into orbit and performed the rendezvous and it was smooth the whole way. de-orbit was uneventful. The glide path looked ok. Somewhere about mach 3.5 and still over 20 km in the air the airframe decided it liked yawing left better than flying straight. The flat spin was recoverable after losing 5 km altitude and it still had the speed to make the runway. At 2km up and still a touch over mach 1 it decided upside down was better. An engine burn and some frantic inputs put me over the ocean at about 200m and still mach 1. Thats when it suddenly rolled left and yawed into the water. The left wing exploded and the plane rolled right and pitched hard into the waves. 1 landing gear and the cargo bay with all my science is all that survived. So, it was a success after all.

(Filename: ..\..\PhysXCooking\src\convex\ConvexHullBuilder.cpp Line: 1486) Gu::ConvexMesh::loadConvexHull: convex hull init failed! Try to use the PxConvexFlag::eINFLATE_CONVEX flag. (see PxToolkit::createConvexMeshSafe) (Filename: ..\..\PhysXCooking\src\convex\ConvexMeshBuilder.cpp Line: 266) ConvexHullBuilder: convex hull has more than 255 polygons! (Filename: ..\..\PhysXCooking\src\convex\ConvexHullBuilder.cpp Line: 1486) These lines are copied all through my output log. what is this? And, do I need to worry about it?

If you have the mod extrasolar planets, that is the problem. I recently had this issue and removing it solved the problem. There is more information about it in the extrasolar planets thread.

Apparently reading is hard. just read up a bit and found my answer. I'll sit over here and wait....

So this worked out and got rid of 3 errors and fixed some issues I had with GPO. I changed what I had posted before to: @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[InterstellarFuelSwitch],!MODULE[GPOSpeedPump]]:NEEDS[GPOSpeedFuelPump]:AFTER[InterstellarFuelSwitch] { MODULE { name = GPOSpeedPump } } // Firespitter fuel switch support @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[FSfuelSwitch],!MODULE[GPOSpeedPump]]:NEEDS[GPOSpeedFuelPump]:AFTER[FSfuelSwitch] { MODULE { name = GPOSpeedPump } } // B9 fuel switch support @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleB9PartSwitch],!MODULE[GPOSpeedPump]]:NEEDS[GPOSpeedFuelPump]:AFTER[zzz_CryoTanks] { MODULE { name = GPOSpeedPump } } It also makes more sense to me. Thanks again to @TranceaddicT , @blowfish, and indirectly @DStaal. Can you NEEDS twice or more?

Ah. I think I get it now. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction.

Ok. Thank you. I'm trying to do some of my own debugging which includes learning just about everything I need to know about modding this game. Any suggestions on why this file gets an error? // Interstellar Fuel Switch support @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[InterstellarFuelSwitch],!MODULE[GPOSpeedPump]]:FOR[GPOSpeedFuelPump]:FINAL { MODULE { name = GPOSpeedPump } } // Firespitter fuel switch support @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[FSfuelSwitch],!MODULE[GPOSpeedPump]]:FOR[GPOSpeedFuelPump]:FINAL { MODULE { name = GPOSpeedPump } } // B9 fuel switch support @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleB9PartSwitch],!MODULE[GPOSpeedPump]]:FOR[GPOSpeedFuelPump]:AFTER[zzz_CryoTanks]:FINAL { MODULE { name = GPOSpeedPump } }

I am trying to go through all my installed mods that have errors starting with GPOSpeedpump because it has a bunch of errors. The quote above leads me to believe that changing a [*] to a ,* would likely fix a line like: @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[InterstellarFuelSwitch],!MODULE[GPOSpeedPump]]:FOR[GPOSpeedFuelPump]:FINAL if I change it to: @PART,*:HAS[@MODULE[InterstellarFuelSwitch],!MODULE[GPOSpeedPump]]:FOR[GPOSpeedFuelPump]:FINAL Am I correct?

I diagnosed 12 errors from the new Module Manager 3.0.1 for several hours. Diagnosis revealed the best course of action is to revert to 2.8.1. Some of the mods I "need" have stopped updating at KSP 1.3.0 (and MM 2.8.1) and I don't want to do something crazy like adopt them.

This is one of my favorite mods but, I had to uninstall because of the problem defined by @MKev . I am not sure when it started but it was working with 1.3.1. I change mods somewhat often, hard to nail down when the problem occurred. Also, earlier in the thread it was mentioned to not install with CKAN. What is the reason for this? I prefer CKAN to manual installations (even if it is really slow to get updates) because I use a lot of mods and change mods often.