dvp

Started a new save with some mods I couldn't resist. Something about base building and colonization, and one that adds another star. Should keep me going longer.

I've only messed around with the space center biomes once. Built a "spaceplane" with mk1 parts and no wings, and put-puttered around gathering science. It didn't get me many science points, so instead I ran missions until I had enough tech to orbit a science lab, and then waited on that until I had heavy rocketry to land science lab on Minmus. Between the basic experiments, high over, low over, different biomes, and stuff, you can load up with data very fast. I'll probably move it to a different biome soon. I'd say science labs are almost more of an exploit that the KSC biomes.

I am getting the same thing, on both MacOS and Windows. Used CKAN and it installed Kopernicus 1.3.0-8 when it did dependency resolution. (Is using CKAN a known bad idea?) In the KSP.log, I see it throwing errors like this: [ERR 23:32:40.992] Exception handling event onNewGameLevelLoadRequestWasSanctionedAndActioned in class RuntimeUtility:System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at Kopernicus.RuntimeUtility.UpdateMenu () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at Kopernicus.RuntimeUtility.<Awake>b__1_0 (GameScenes scene) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at EventData`1[GameScenes].Fire (GameScenes data) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 Then it starts spamming this in a loop: [EXC 23:33:12.870] NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object Kopernicus.Components.KopernicusStar.LateUpdate ()

I just want to say this thing is freakin' slick. Very nice work and thank you very much.

Landed a probe on Duna in career, but the communications antenna broke during reentry, so I can't get the science back. I don't NEED the science, but it's a mission requirement. Also, running up the score after getting through the tech tree. Also, kinda proud of myself that I was able to land it with only partial probe control. (no throttle, just all-on or all-off thrust.) The solution, of course, is a manned mission. Might even try to land near the probe and get screenshots, but it's kind of on a hill, not sure I want to risk it. Also, getting more creative with reusable spacecraft, rescuing Kerbals and equipment, and shuttling them back to LKO, then sending up a single craft to bring back a bunch of them at once. If I can't fulfill 3-4 contracts with a single launch, I try to avoid doing that launch. Also trying to launch tugs, pods, landers, etc., as parasites on other missions - that way I have ships around when I need them. The only caveat is sometimes I forget the drone cores and have to launch a pilot separately. God this game is fun.

Built a station in Mun orbit for refueling and shuttling back rescued kerbals, etc. Holds 54k/44k units of fuel, 7k Mono, and has a refinery. Behind it is a tanker/mining ship. From another angle, better view of the docking extension and utility pods/landers. (Haven't used any yet - so the struts are still visible.) Unfortunately, it's complex enough that I have to disable all my torque rings when docking otherwise this happens: Doesn't look like much, but that thing sticking out from behind the station is all that remains of a much larger ship that shook itself to pieces and left a huge mess. On the upside, the station holds 1500 Ore now too!

Is this still a bug in 1.3 or do I just need to learn to play?

I've designed purpose-built rescue craft with a hitchhiker container and a claw to go grab the lost-in-space kerbal missions in career mode (if you can resolve 3-4 missions with one ship, it helps). Assuming you have a commnet and refueling stations set up, it shouldn't be too painful.

Angle of the shot - it stuck out a little past the tanks, but had plenty of clearance when the legs were deployed. (Which they were, when I attempted to land.) I toggled the legs back and forth a couple times trying to see if I could get it to tip upwards enough to get it off the ground again, to no avail. To your second point, I would generally agree. But that thing handled like a whale, even empty, and I actually crashed it once because it didn't turn back fast enough after a correction burn. (It wasn't until I was low to the ground and travelling <10m/s, that it became obvious I had 1-2m/s of lateral velocity.) Probably should have spammed a lot more RCS thrusters in the design.

I have some bad news for you. That's vertical.

Today I learned (again): Landers should be as low and wide as possible. Mining on the Mun sucks. Bouncing is bad. There are no flat spots in craters. Only spots that LOOK flat. Make absolutely sure you kill ALL of your lateral velocity before you begin your final descent. Three landing attempts (quicksave/reload) and that was the only one that didn't end in fire and death and agony. So, knowing that I was going to have to mount a rescue mission, I switched over to Sandbox mode and tried a few designs. This is what I came up with. (4 successful landings in a row.) Like the old Pontiac commercials: Wider is Better. And yes, it has twelve Terriers.

Needs more solid fuel boosters, obvs. Congratulations!

Video has a mods list in the description. https://www.dropbox.com/s/qjslk5xt1fr5qd3/RocketProfilemods.txt?dl=0

If you can get the mobile lab, put one in orbit. That's enough science to unlock the tech to get a mobile lab on Minmus or the Mun. That's enough science to unlock the entire tech tree, if you wait. Travel outside the Kerbin/Mun/Minmus area is a bad idea until you've got advanced communications. Space tourism seems to be my best revenue generator.

Learned the difference between quicksave and autosave by loading an 8-hour old quicksave.

Ooh, I like that one.

Not all around, since that would get computationally confusing, but would it be possible to get this as a feature when we're within, say, the SOI of a planet? (So the moons would have a minor effect on our orbits and maneuver planning, and so we'd have Lagrange points.) I didn't see any other threads about this; I apologize if this is one of those things that was long-ago and emphatically dismissed, and anybody who asks is a dummy for asking.

So, to my shame, I've lost a couple landers and rovers on Minmus. (Minmus? It's really easy to land on Minmus!) It's my own fault, really - they come down @<12m/s, bounce, and SAS (set retrograde) flips them over. Then they're tall (Rockomax-64s), and have a high center of gravity, so the noses smack into the ground, or they roll down a mountainside, and SAS/manuevering can't keep up. Now, obviously it's better to land in the flat plains, and I can (and have now) designed landers to be wider and lower. (Radial X200-32s instead.) I'm also turning of SAS along with the engines when I'm within a couple seconds of touchdown, so there's no unexpected rotation. What i"m curious about is how to avoid the bouncing in the first place. Is there a maximum speed that is "no-bounce" for different planets? I would assume it varies with gravity, but does it vary with the ship or the number of legs? Or is there another recommended method? TIA On a semi-related note, is there a way to tell what the strength of connections and components will be? (It seems like some fuel tanks are more likely to fall off on impact, etc.) I'm sure there's some mod that makes it obvious, but I'm vanilla at this point.

My mining rover caught air going over a hill on Minmus and exploded, and then the tanker lost 1/4" of its capacity when it flipped and rolled down a hill. I'm sticking to the flat parts now.

Hmmm... when I tried that in the construction area, I saw some weird graphical glitching between the heat shields, so I kind of assumed I wasn't supposed to do that. Thanks for the advice above, all. :-)

Some of the contracts are pickier than others - I think the margin of error is smaller for 2- and 3-star missions. Try to get the AP/PE within 2km or so.

It's from the Legacies novel The Truce At Bakura. <wellakchshoooaly.jpg>

Sorry for the lack of screenshots: I'm not home a/t/m, but this has been bugging me. With sufficiently advanced tech and a bit of trial-and-error, I've been happy to find that landing capsules is pretty "easy button.": Enter a low (<100km) orbit Drop periapsis to 40km Turn on SAS Set SAS to keep the nose pointed retrograde Watch the lightshow pop the 'chutes. This is pretty much the same regardless of what other stuff I have hanging off the back of the capsule - cargo bays, empty fuel tanks, science containers, etc. With a heat shield, enough radial-mount parachutes, and a reentry speed <2600m/s, it's pretty safe. The problem is specifically when I have a "tourist box" consisting of a Mk1-2 command module on top of a hitchhiker container and a heat shield. Very simple, right? Except it wants to tumble - even with SAS on, it'll spend a good chunk of the reentry stuck about 20 degrees off-axis. I've got plenty of electricity. They're surviving reentry, and I know that any landing you can walk away from is a good landing, but I won't lie - it makes me nervous. Is there something inherently off-balance about the hitchhiker container? Is there a way to balance it better? Or maybe change the aerodynamics of it so it's more stable? (I could put on some reversed tail fins... or would that interfere with takeoff?) TIA

Did some shuttle missions to move scientists around and finally put a research lander on the Mun. Finally unlocked enough tech that tonight I will probably spend tonight designing some kind of mining rover and tanker to deploy to Minmus, then some sort of tanker/tug expansion for the station there. Then I'll be able to fuel manned missions to Duna. :-)

Nah. It's just unnecessary complexity. Scientific instruments are there to get research points. More experiments mean more research without having to leave Kerbin SOI, create landers and gather data for labs, etc. The cool stuff at the end of tech tree doesn't even get you RP - it's to enable specific game mechanics, like asteroid tracking. We could do with more game mechanics.