Fabri91

Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 11 Pro | CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 5800X | GPU: Nvidia RTX 2060 Super | RAM: 32 GB 3200 MHz All the parts that have some sort of reaction wheel seem to have an incorrect unit of measurement displayed in the part description. The torque seems to be measurend in kilonewton, which does not make sense, instead of nm (newton-metres). Included Attachments: .ipsImage { width: 900px !important; }

In all my KSP 1 saves since the introduction to Commnet I set the related difficulty options to the following: realistic occlusion (i.e. effective planet radius = 1) no probe control without commnet no additional tracking stations beyond the one at KSC Especially the last point was intriguing because it forced me set up a (small) relay network early on, along with bringing relay satellites on my first trips to the Mun and so on. It really gave a feeling of building and setting up infrastructure.

Indeed there is, but to me the name used in the first game ("in space low" and "in space high") would seem to make more sense, avoiding the misunderstanding of "in space"="in orbit". EDIT: an additional thing - when flying with 0G, the G-Meter pointer doesn't line up with the number 0 or any corresponding mark. If I didn't know any better I'd think that my spacecraft is being subjected to negative G:

After picking up the game again after the latest update I started a new Exploration savegame and so far I have to say that I really like the concept! Flight HUD/GUI During my first hops and jaunts around Kerbin, however, I noticed some oddities regarding the flight HUD that may be placeholders or items in progress - nonetheless, to be safe I'll address them here: Yellow arc behind velocity display - it seems to be static, at this point, as opposed to the one behind the altitude display. What will it display? Velocity indicator - in all screenshots I took the decimal place always seems to display 0 - when not required, it could be not displayed for better clarity. I did not yet e.g. try docking, but I assume that when slowly closing to a target the decimal place will become functional? The vertical speed indicator in the top right of the artificial horizon cluster - what units does it use? it doesn't seem to be m/s like in the first game. For example in the following screenshot my vertical speed is around 290 m/s, but the vertical speed indicator seems to indicate +10, more or less. Science locations - orbit vs. space: On a suborbital flight I did some scientific observations and noticed that the ones performed outside of the atmosphere are listed as in "low orbit" as opposed to "in space", which would make more sense given that e.g. in this case I was clearly on a suborbital trajectory, as can be seen by the Perigee height: It would make more sense to use "in space" to refer to the location of an experiment being performed, if the intent is not to consider the type of trajectory.

Had the same problem, but fixing this has sal_vaged my save!

@Ferram4: yes, my previous SSTOs were only able to achieve low orbit without much of a margin. I'm able to reach 1400 m/s in airbreathing mode, 1440 tops.

I have a question regarding the new drag model: my SSTO that was able to bring 6 kerbals or a small sat in low orbit is now unable to do so. Can this be due to the introduced changes?

How would it be possible for the Isp of an engine to decrease with altitude? It always increases with decreasing air density.

That is indeed an idea. It should also be possible to send capsules to "retrieve" science and incentivate flights to the space stations, maybe.

Greetings, fellow Kerbonauts! The way it works now in career mode (I'm aware that this is still just the very beginning of it, but thought to pitch in anyway) is that space stations are completely and utterly useless, aside from their role as fuel depots. The point is: they don't have any direct role in the research for science (points). So, here's my proposal: it would be useful if space stations, depending on their complexity (instruments onboard, but mostly power generation capability and crew capacity), would generate a steady, if slow, trickle of science points. This would make them relevant, while keeping the role of other research, such as sample returns, which bring in lots of science in one shot. Of course a way should be devised to incentivate the building of "realistic-ish" space stations, not just a couple of crew tanks with some gigantor solar panels, which would exhibit both a large power output and good crew capacity: station mass or it's size could somehow be computed and taken into account, maybe. So, what's your opinion?

Regarding Windows 8 on traditional desktop/laptop PCs: I like it! Seriously, it boots up extremely fast, runs every "legacy" application I managed to throw at it, and, at least until now, I haven't noticed any instabilities. Granted, with the original release of Windows 8 there was the problem of the constant switching between the two interfaces when dealing with the control panel, since most of the settings were only available on the "classic" control panel. However, I find that the 8.1 update alleviates most of these concerns. For example, here's how I setup my start screen: With one click on the windows button one can check (like in my case) weather for a number of sites and e-mail on a glance, and the tools available for contact syncronization across devices and services is also handy. PS: there is also a free 90-day trial of Windows 8 (and 8.1) Enterprise available, which is virtually identical to the consumer version. EDIT: Windows RT is indeed locked to MS Store apps, and while techincally it is possible to sideload desktop applications, they still have to be recompiled to run on the different architecture (ARM). So even if Microsoft removed this restriction you could not just copy KSP over and play, sadly.

On the two-man four-wheeled rover I'm driving around the Mün right now I use two RTGs and a big buffer of batteries (two of the cylindrical 1m type and four of the bigger side-mounted ones), supplemented with two of the smalles solar panels. True, two RTGs aren't enough for continuous maximum power output, but the buffer takes care of this most of the time. On stations and interplanetary craft I go pure solar panels usually, trying not to overbuild the system with too many admittedly great-looking giganto panels, so my stations tend to look a bit "bony", while on other craft I usually just put 4 of the smallest panels, which is enough to cover the power-need of the gyros.

Link isn't working :/ I also first played with the 0.7.3 version when it was published on Orbiter-Forum, but sadly I deleted all versions I had when KSP was still free.

Ships will "work", as in, they will load. However, the behaviour of the SAS and command module has been changed, so you'll have to account for that.