jimmymcgoochie

I’ve seen others reporting issues with solar panels and Infinite Discoveries. Try uninstalling that and see if that helps?

Terrain rendering is a big one for eating frames. When I played KSP without a GPU a few years ago (because the GPU broke) the performance hit was worst when looking at terrain, so turn the graphics and detail settings for terrain as low as they can go and try to avoid looking at the ground unless necessary. Enable advanced tweakables in the main menu settings and then use autostruts between parts rather than the strut part- I tend to autostrut engines to root and boosters to grandparent for maximum rigidity. Fuel crossfeed can also hurt the physics calculations so try to avoid using lots of fuel tanks feeding lots of engines.

30 parts and 18 tons is plenty to get a small, light probe out to Minmus with relatively low tech parts and then perform several landings in different biomes to max out the science returns. A couple of Oscars and an Ant engine will be more than ample for a small probe, which means the rocket can be smaller and lighter too- my brief test had 3400m/s or so on the probe in LKO from a 16 ton rocket with fuel to spare on the second stage too- oodles for Minmus even with an inefficient launch and transfer.

Unless it’s changed recently, the BTDT only needs to get within a few kilometres of the target to count it as scanned. It should be possible to do that with a plane if you fly past it close enough.

Hold alt when placing parts to force them to snap to nodes, maybe that’ll help? If not send a screenshot of the issue.

Don’t put mods in the Steam copy of KSP.

How it started: These puny smooth-faces have no weapons! We shall crush them with ease! How it's going: oh no oh no oh nononononononono they're gonna make nukes they're gonna make SO MANY NUKES!!!1!ONE!

Use Whiplash engines, avoid Mk2 parts as they produce lots of drag, accept that the things that make a good high-speed aircraft (small wings, low profile, low drag) also make a terrible low-speed aircraft (low lift, limited control, high takeoff/landing/stall speeds) so be prepared for some challenging handling characteristics. Or just throw MOAR ENGINES!!!!1! at the problem, that usually fixes it.

@SheepDog2142FYI, BDB is not recommended for RO. Many of the part models have been imported into the various RO-xxx mods so try without BDB.

Screenshots please?

Looks like some kind of EVE city lights config has gone a bit too powerful. Try reinstalling your visual mods?

I'd suggest Stage Recovery for the simplicity of it- slap some parachutes on and it just recovers any dropped stages when they go below the Death ZoneTM (about 25km I think?), easily configurable to get more or less funds back. FMRS tends to be more useful for flyback boosters as it allows you to fly the different parts of the rocket at the same time.

Is Tundra Exploration actually configured for RO and RP-1? If not, the parts won’t be shown because RO and RP-1 will hide all non-configured parts- this also includes Breaking Ground robotics, and I would recommend removing both DLCs if you’re going to use RO and RP-1 as they can cause issues down the line. I would strongly recommend you uninstall all mods and then use the RP-1 express install on CKAN to get all the mods you need and none you don’t.

That’s a Unity crash. The log files may have clues as to why that’s happening, this thread tells you to find them:

The problem with scaling up is that for many first time players, Kerbin is too big as it is. Very few players make it to orbit, even fewer to the Mun and fewer still land there. Larger planets just mean more delta-V is needed and things take longer to happen. I have no issues with mods that add larger scale systems and I really like JNSQ's 2.7x scale, and I'm heavily into RSS/RO/RP-1 which is about 4x larger still, but that's a choice I made, not something forced by the game. Kerbin's orbital velocity being somewhere around Mach 6-7 makes spaceplanes and SSTOs viable, whereas for Earth orbital velocity is around Mach 23.

I would suggest more engines and mounting them lower down. A single jet engine so high up is creating a nose down torque which will push you deeper into the water when trying to take off. Moving your wings forwards will give you more lift at the front too, though you will need to be careful to keep it balanced when in flight. A lot of tricks that real seaplanes use to take off (clever hull design, ground effect etc.) don’t work with KSP’s physics, but adding a sizeable angle of incidence on the wings (make the front edge higher than the back edge to produce more lift at low speeds) can help; see the PBY-5 Catalina, for example.

Create a new folder inside KSP/saves, copy your save file into the new folder, open the save file in a text editor (I suggest VSCode or Notepad++ but ordinary notepad will do) and rename the save game to be the same as the new folder, then try opening that instead.

Kerbal Atomics and the Near Future mods were all made by the same person, so yes they definitely work together. What exactly is the issue you’re having? Are you trying to use a Kerbal Atomics nuclear engine but they don’t produce thrust? Make sure you have the correct propellant, Kerbal Atomics engines use liquid hydrogen by default (I think) but there’s a patch to make them use liquid fuel instead which means lower ISP but more dense propellant so smaller tanks and no boiloff issues. They don’t usually need radiators as the heat from the reactor is heating the propellant which gets thrown out the back, though this may have changed since I last checked.

A few things to consider: What if someone worse came along and took control of 1930s Germany instead and they actually won the war? The socio-economic situation at that time was pretty dire with rampant hyperinflation and so the promise of an economic, social and military comeback appealed to many; that won’t go away just because one person isn’t there, and who knows who else could step in to take the lead? If time travel was possible and you could go back in time and change a historical event, it’s almost certain that you would erase your own existence in the process (and the further back you go the more likely it gets) and so you would never go back in time to change that event, so it would happen anyway. Or alternatively, you might still exist but you wouldn’t know that you needed to go back in time to change the past because it didn’t need changing in your new version of history, so it wouldn’t change and you’re back where you started. You end up with a loop of “x happens > I go back and prevent x > x doesn’t happen > I don’t go back and prevent x > x happens”.

You don't have to know how to pronounce those words- nobody else will either, just make it up as you go along

Ah, the old “aggressive negotiations” trick. Anakin would be proud.

This might be useful in future. Ignore the KSP v1.4 at the top, the values are the same in 1.12.

Travelling directly against gravity uses 9.81m/s of delta-V for each second you're doing it, just to have a net zero change in velocity. Travelling perpendicular to gravity uses 0m/s of delta-V per second to counter gravity. Atmospheric drag in the upper atmosphere is more of a suggestion than something that actually makes a difference to a rocket launch. On Earth, it's just not worth trying to launch straight up; on Kerbin, the penalties are much lower and escape velocity can be reached much faster so it's not nearly so clear-cut. I saw someone saying something about direct ascent trajectories earlier- launching to the Moon without stopping in Earth orbit, or launching from the Moon back to Earth without orbiting the Moon first. Launching straight up from the Moon to return to Earth is possible and I've done it myself in RSS/RP-1, and it makes sense because the Moon has low gravity and is tidally locked so landing on the trailing side guarantees you can launch straight up and get a return trajectory (it also allows for unguided stages, saving mass on all prior stages). Launching from the Earth to the Moon without "orbiting", however, isn't a shoot-straight-up thing: the Soviet Union didn't have a restartable upper stage rocket engine at that time and so had to send their Luna probes straight at the Moon without stopping in Earth orbit first. The US did have a restartable upper stage engine- Agena B- and so could stop in low Earth orbit before performing a lunar transfer burn.

Vertical launch to escape velocity is a bad idea, for several reasons: Gravity. Every second you’re ascending vertically, you lose 9.81m/s of delta-V just not-falling. Real rockets pitch over as soon as they can to minimise this gravity loss and gain horizontal velocity towards orbit. Drag. A high-TWR rocket will encounter significant drag very quickly in the atmosphere, losing even more delta-V in the process. The structural and thermal stresses would also be much greater, requiring a sturdier rocket that can handle those stresses, which adds more weight. Mass. Higher TWR requires more thrust, which adds more weight, which reduces delta-V, which requires more fuel, which adds more weight, etc. etc. It’s a vicious cycle and not easily broken. Scale. Earth is ten times the radius of Kerbin, its atmosphere twice the height, escape velocity more than triple and density substantially lower meaning gravity decreases much more slowly. Launching straight up on Earth would be hideously wasteful. Sol system is inclined, no two planets are in the same orbital plane. Most launch sites are nowhere near the equator either, plus Earth has a significant axial tilt. It’s incredibly unlikely that shooting straight up would actually result in a trajectory that went anywhere near another planet, whereas launching into a parking orbit can allow a departure burn from any launch site, and once per orbit (1.5-2 hours) rather than once per day.

You’re trying too hard with all those different engines. Try swapping the Rapiers for Whiplashes and the Vector for a cluster of four NERVs, which will keep your fuel situation much more manageable as they both only need fuel and not oxidiser. If that isn’t enough to climb out of the atmosphere, a couple of SRBs slung under the wings or a pair of Swivels directly under your tailfins might give it the necessary kick. Ditch the big monopropellant tank and the docking port- that thing is too big to try and dock it efficiently- and then open the CoM and CoL markers and gradually drain fuel from the tanks to see if they shift to an unstable position as the tanks empty.