CobraA1

Seems to fix it, thanks!

Hey, just a heads up, I've posted a log in this thread.

It seems to perform - differently. Can't really say it's faster, but it feels different. The biggest concern for me right now though is that the kracken seem to be back X(. Have to be careful to switch craft via the tracking station rather than using "[" and "]".

The website is offline?

Where? Not sure I see it? EDIT: Anyhoo, I'm waiting for the fixes for recent bugs. 0.20 is great, but the exploding ships is making it practically impossible for the missions I want to do.

Question: What exactly would qualify as a grand tour?

Duna. Which involved a rescue mission. And another mission to refuel the rescue mission.

Well, the payload doesn't have to be fuel. My design could certainly use other payloads as well. It just happens to be fuel because that's what I intended it to carry. Yes, I was including payload in my part count - it was for the entire craft. I didn't bother to subtract the payload part count from the launcher part count.

Considering the orange fuel tank is 36 tons, and I can get an orange fuel tank into orbit without using a drop of the fuel inside it, it's certainly possible . I've got two configurations that can do it: Older design: 2 orange fuel tanks in center (with a mainsail), surrounded by 3 pairs of liquid boosters (6 boosters total), each booster being 2 orange tanks and a mainsail. Spaghetti staging, with each stage releasing two boosters, on opposite sides to retain symmetry. Newer design: Again, 2 orange tanks connected to a mainsail in the center. 2 liquid fuel boosters (w/mainsail, same as old design), 2 "booster" fuel tanks (w/out engines), but with the addition of 4 large Rockomax solid boosters. Again, each "booster" is 2 orange tanks, if there are 2 "boosters," that's 4 orange tanks total. That's just the lift vehicle to get it to orbit: The payload is a large orange tank, an RCS tank, a few extra things for functionality and aesthetics, and an extra fuel tank (Rockomax X200-16) so I can maneuver to the destination (usually a station) without using the orange tank's fuel. The idea is that I have the entire orange tank available at the destination. With the newer design, when all is said and done, I lift almost 70 tons into a 100km orbit (including the still-attached center stage, with only a little bit of fuel left). As a test, I sent my newer refuel ship to the moon via its Poodle engine, and when I was done thrusting towards the moon, it weighed 43.32 tons. So yes, very much possible. Well, I'm lifting 70 tons with 150 parts. I don't think it'll balloon to 500+ for 100 tons. The idea is to keep it simple: I use a "liquid fuel booster" design, which is basically fuel tanks + engine, arranged using spaghetti staging. I only add extras (struts, control surfaces, etc) as needed to keep it stable. To keep the part count down, be intelligent with strut placement! Don't just place them randomly. Take a look at this: It's strong, yet lightweight. An arrangement like that for your struts will probably do a lot more good than randomly adding 300+ struts wherever you feel like it. Of course, feel free to experiment and pay attention to how the craft is warping/bending before it falls apart. That can tell you a lot about where and how you need to place your struts.

On the total transparency glitch: It happens to me too, but I've noticed it most if I try to alt+tab out of KSP during the loading process.

NASA seems to think nuclear is okay for ion engines. In any case - personally, I think we need something to make turning large ships faster, and to get rid of crazy rotations during the last leg of the atmosphere/space transition.

Must have: Haystack, Subassembly loader, Protractor. They make things so much easier, and some form of them IMO should be eventually added to the game. Helps a lot: MechJeb, Tac Fuel Balancer, Quantum Struts, Quantum fuel transfer, Kethane, KAS, ISA MapSat, Airships. I don't consider them "must have," but they add a level of depth to the game that wouldn't really be there otherwise. The base game is great, but it can rapidly become "okay, I know how to get anywhere, now what?" Other things I use: Aviation lights, HOME, Firespitter parts. Extra parts for some extra possibilities. Aviation lights are great for aircraft, HOME allows me to construct a more permanent base on other planets, firespitter parts - well, I actually got them so I could make airships that just use electricity. I've tried RemoteTech, but found that I spent more time trying to maintain my satellite communications rather than enjoying other parts of the game. Eventually, I removed it.

I've been using MechJeb to throttle my engines - but I have noticed that terminal velocity isn't generally an issue unless my craft has a pretty high thrust/weight ratio. Most of my launches these days have been using heavy lifters to launch heavy loads, so the smaller, lightweight craft I haven't used in a while.

By the way, there's a bug in the rover controls - setting the speed doesn't seem to work; anything above 0 just provides constant acceleration, even beyond the target speed. And it would be nice to be able to move the MechJeb thing in the VAB . . . I'm also not seeing the warning that you may not have enough thrust to land - haven't tested this a lot, but in the original MechJeb this would determine if I go for a landing or an abort, and would be useful to have again.

I'm actually curious to know how a DDoS attack actually damages data. Sure, it saturates the network bandwidth and prevents communication - but why should that actually damage the data on the drives?

Been a long time member, so my account appears to be intact. Sad to see this happen to so many people, though . Ah, looks like my signature and avatar didn't survive, though, so I'll have to set them up again.

I've landed on Duna, although the exploding bug has discouraged me from trying much else. May try a bit more this weekend.

In real life, there's no surface. In Kerbal Space Program, if the wiki's right, it actually does have a surface, but you're intended to get destroyed on it. But it's apparently buggy.

Keyboard shortcuts are not a replacement for UI elements. Most people don't have even "common" keyboard shortcuts memorized, and even I didn't really know to try Ctrl+Z worked until you mentioned it. It's still a good idea to add undo and redo as UI elements. Yes, the UI for undo/redo can still be improved. Just because something is possible somehow doesn't mean that most people will know how to use it.

I don't want realistic ion engines in KSP, and here's why: KSP is a game. It should be fun. And part of making a good, fun game is controlling the pacing. Just leaving the window open for hours, nay days on end while an engine is thrusting may be realistic, but not in line with making KSP fun. The average KSP mission probably shouldn't take much more than an hour. It certainly shouldn't take days. The nuclear engine is the closest I ever want to get to an ion engine in KSP.

MechJeb 1.9.3, ships still blowing up. Dunno how much the MechJeb author can do about it.

The most recent build of MechJeb can provide the angles. Although I currently recommend avoiding using the most recent build of MechJeb for the transfer itself, as it tends to hit the explosion bug.

Yup - entirely possible if you're going fast enough. In 0.16, I did a variety of tests using high speed reentry starting from Minimus' height. Doing that, I determined that 30km was a good perigee to shoot for for reentry. Much above that, and I'd often reenter space due to the atmosphere not slowing me down enough. With the kracken gone and interplanetary stuff fully supported, I imagine you could easily set up much faster flybys and do the same at lower altitudes.

Not having 100% success even with that, plus it kinda rules out using MechJeb for orbital transfers. I may do some more experimentation when I have the time. If it is indeed the case that it's just due to changing warps too quickly, perhaps the devs can enforce a delay between attempts to change the warp. Odd that it only happens when you're doing the maximum warp, though. I suspect it's really the case that something else is wrong in the code.

Personally, I'd like to see a quick fix for the exploding ship bug (have a 0.17a, perhaps?), then I'll certainly be very satisfied with waiting for whatever's next . I'd love to see where they're going with the training and scenarios, and I'm wondering when we'll get stuff in Decals and Crew. I'd also like to see ships that can fly without crew - it doesn't always make sense to send crew somewhere.