InfernoSD

It's a glitch specifically with auto time warp, and it only happens on first activation. Something about those first few frames of accelerating to a high time warp speed causes the glitch. Note that it's not the manuever itself changing, but the position and heading of your vessel, which can be proven by monitoring things like apoapsis and periapsis before and after engaging auto time warp. The manuever only changes because it was repositioned, although you may be able to fix the manuever by adjusting it again by any amount. You'll find this problem goes away if you manually enter time warp instead. Go at least to 5x time warp. Then it doesn't matter if you manually warp forward or auto time warp ahead from there. You may still see a tiny jump in the orbit of your vessel, but it will be much less than with auto time warp.

I experimented with rover designs all today and yesterday. Made at least ten different rovers. Fun, but I'm not satisfied with any of them. What I really wanted was to exceed the speed limit of normal rovers with a rotor-based wheel. No such luck. Rigid attachment isn't enough to keep things from losing alignment at 360 RPM, and KAL isn't doing what I need it to do for the controls. I do like this idea of a rover with central wheels. By putting big wheels in the center and tiny unpowered wheels to the outside, it could be made to fit in a fairing much better than typical designs. But it's probably not worth the trouble with stock wheels being the sizes they are.

I haven't used sandbox, but the 30 part limit would be because you have a level 1 building. Try selecting the VAB and pressing Square/X to open the manage building interface. Upgrade all your buildings for full functionality.

https://www.playstationtrophies.org/game/kerbal-space-program/trophy/145789-Mun-Rover--Mun-Rover.html Trophy sites say you just need a craft marked as a rover type on the surface of a planet. Sometimes the game misattributes vehicle types, so you would need to rename the vehicle to change its type. The only thing that counts as cheats is if the cheats menu was opened. You can check if cheats are disabled on a save by using the cheat code: up up down down left right left right. When you do, a prompt will warn you that enabling cheats will disable trophies/achievements. You can back out of the prompt to not enable cheats. If the prompt doesn't appear, then cheats were already enabled on that save.

Okay, now this is possible with today's update.

It's not much to look at, but I'm pretty proud of myself for this Duna lander design. I got nearly every part stowed that should be stowed, and there's a lot of them. That includes the antennas, the science, some fuel donuts, a tiny rover with scanning arm, a hinge to push the rover out, a generator, and some fold-out engines with RCS incorporated. So just the landing legs and the ladder box are sticking out. The orbiter/return vessel also keeps all parts within fairings until it reaches space. Very clean looking rocket while it was on the launchpad.

I have had the parts stuck to cursor problem before. I'm gonna have to say your rocket is maybe a teensy bit too big for the game to handle. 30 stages, wow. Maybe try monitoring your RAM or other performance metrics while working on this.

I don't think it looks for specific parts. I think it looks for any solid object within a certain space above and in front of the kerbal, and in fact it often misses what you would expect to be a good platform. In this case I would simply press jump and then mash the climb button. Usually does the trick.

It's tough to tell what's wrong from just the picture. If everything appears to be symmetrical, then perhaps what's wrong is that you have two or more boosters in the same place. Check the front of the rocket to see if you can spot two fuel tanks, engines, etc. clipped together. This is an easy mistake to make when using radial symmetry. Note that this duplicate booster would also show up in staging, so you should be able to count or hover over your engines there to find it. If all else fails, you might have to disassemble and reassemble. That would not be fun with all the fuel lines and such, I know. As a side note, having off-center mass and thrust is not necessarily a problem in itself. Since thrust appears to be directly behind center of mass, it should still fly straight. The blue circle is lift, by the way. You won't need it for a rocket.

I'm not 100% on this, but it seems like where you access KerbNet from makes a difference. If you get to KerbNet from the Narrow-Band Scanner, it only shows the ore display. Try opening the part action window on one of the probes and you should be able to cycle from there.

I sent some "missiles" around the Sun to various places for surface deployed seismic science. Unfortunately I didn't account for how much they have to be babysat along the way. Some of them passed straight through Gilly and Ike. The last one that I tried hit Ike at high speed, but I got no data. Whoops, I hadn't thought to account for hitting during the daytime.

I tested this out and it doesn't seem to work in enhanced edition. When you approach the bottom of the next stage, nothing changes. It doesn't snap on, so you have to manually move the cursor as close as you can get it. Then you have to press R1+X to "terminate construction" which ends the fairing there. I suspect this feature is missing from or broken in enhanced edition.

As far as I know, fairings don't snap to any object. You should use the R1+X or RT+A button combo to end the fairing where you want it. You can get it close enough to any circular object as to appear attached. However, I'm not sure if this is as effective at reducing drag as a fully encapsulated fairing.

On the console version? It could be a faulty controller. It's pretty common for PS4 controllers to send ghost inputs from either the analog sticks or triggers. Does it stop if you switch control schemes, or if you press in left stick to bring up the cursor? Does it stop if you use a different controller?

I was getting some contracts to explore Gilly, so I went completely overboard in designing this lander. The front decouples so the driver can make a return trip. The engines face perpendicular to its launch orientation, which makes maintaining CoM-CoT balance fun. In retrospect, a few extra fuel tanks would have fixed my balance problems. Then I put one on Gilly, one on the Mun, and one on Ike. Should make future trips easier if I find myself needing to refuel.

Thanks for the answers, people. I guess what bugs me about this problem is the amount of time involved in solving it. Designing rockets, you get instant feedback on how it flies when you go to the launchpad. Rendezvous and hohmann transfers, you can use manuever modes or fast forward for a moment to see what happens. Even the effects of a gravity assist can be found pretty easily by luck or by playing with manuever nodes for a few minutes. But if you aren't aware of the concept of transfer windows, as I wasn't, then you won't even know you're doing something wrong when you blast your way out of Kerbin's SOI. Learning what transfer windows are and when they are is something you can only achieve in-game by enormous fast forwards or by making many interplanetary missions. Anyway, I decided to look into this a little deeper. I drew up this graph showing the relationship between the transfer window phase angle and SMA. This one depicts the Kerbol system but the relationship is the same for the Kerbin system or Jool system or any other. From this, I guess you *can* easily eyeball some transfer windows. Going to a higher orbit is easy since the phase angle is within a narrow range between 0 degrees up to a maximum of 116.36 degrees. Going to a lower orbit is more of a challenge because the target can orbit its parent body once or multiple times during the transfer. The phase angle loops in the same way, hitting 180 degrees when the target has an SMA 46% of your starting orbit. Best thing to do is test to figure it out once and then write it down for future use. I was going to take an extra step to chart out the deviance of prograde marker to target marker on the compass against SMA ratio. This would prove the point I was making in the OP, but the formula is a bit too complicated. From what I can tell, going to a higher orbit *does* always put the compass markers close together. In two very close orbits, the target marker is around 20 degrees above the prograde marker. In two very distant orbits, the target marker is around 20 degrees *below* the prograde marker. So it's really quite close. As for going to a lower orbit, I won't even touch that. It obviously goes crazy pretty fast below Eve.

This has a lot of possible applications. Most of my rocket designs have at least one stage where the control direction needs to change. Planes, drones, rovers, etc. It would be nice if Control Point: Forward could be added directly to the staging interface instead of having to go through PAWs.

Fun challenge. The base game doesn't give you much reason to care about cost. I made this easy 6 part rocket. I'm not going to check, but I bet a lot of entries look similar. Cost is 2575 minus 990 recovered. I burned up the fuel tank on reentry which seems like bad form, but it was necessary to manuever over KSC. Today I learned that you can steer through atmosphere incredibly well with just a MK1 capsule. I hadn't realized the drag physics modelling was that comprehensive. After that I made a second attempt with some added complexity. I didn't see anything about docking with and landing with a stranded vessel, so I thought I would try being the first. It could technically be considered not a single mission, so whether or not it's valid or how scoring works I wouldn't know. I accepted a contract to rescue Halfield in an 81x93km orbit. It wasn't easy but I reached him and docked with 1 ox remaining. I used that to burn down to a periapsis of 65km. Bounced a couple times and then entered smoothly. Launch cost was 4338, funds recovered were 1238 from me and 1179 from Hal's cockpit. I had thought this might be a neat rescue vehicle for future operations, but the delta-v margin is too much trouble.

#1 has been a problem with the console version for years now, but it is avoidable. What you need to do is allow time for the game to save before hitting launch. I usually hit save vehicle, wait ten seconds, then launch. This way it will always load the correct vehicle. #2 Some lag is unavoidable. My oldest campaign is the one that lags the most, but I was able to clear it up somewhat by eliminating old probes and stations and things I no longer needed. I think asteroid scanners also slow things down since they constantly generate new asteroids. #3 Yes, burn time and d-v calculations are not perfect. You may have a weird stage structure, or engines facing in a weird direction, or thrust limiter set down low. Lots of things can affect it. Also burn time doesn't account for lag - it counts down according to the game clock, which isn't always in real time, as seen in the upper left. #4 There have been some updates to the physics, but I don't know much beyond that. Atmospheric flight is hard in the current version, that's for sure.

I'm not familiar with this bug in particular. Have you tried recovering them from outside the VAB? You should be able to see and click them from the KSC main screen. Otherwise go to the tracking station and recover from there. Hopefully you didn't somehow ruin that save. If it came down to it, maybe you could fire all astronauts in the astronaut center and hire some new ones. For cursor problems, try going into the settings and changing the control preset. Back out so it saves the setting. Then you can go in and change it to radial again immediately. This is what I normally do to regain cursor control.

I haven't had this problem with the science containers. Make sure when you're in the VAB that you save and give it time to finish saving before hitting launch. If you save your design and immediately launch, the game will load the existing autosaved ship instead of the one you just modified.

There will definitely be a console version. I'm not aware of any Take Two games that don't make it to consoles. Even their series that are tough to play on a controller like Civilization and XCOM reach consoles eventually. Problem is sometimes the console port comes years behind the PC release.

I learned early on that the most efficient time to burn toward the Mun is when it passes over my prograde marker in LKO. I then learned that the same timing applied to Minmus, and the same timing also applies to when Duna passes in front of Earth's prograde. I found that to get to Eve I should wait until Earth was in front of what would be Eve's prograde. This took some amount of trial and error to figure out, but I was quite proud of myself for doing so. I took it to be a principle of orbital mechanics and used it for hundreds of hours after. It served me well. I did have some difficulties lining up intercepts for more distant planets, but I assumed that was because my timing was off in some way, like because of the elliptical and inclined orbits some planets have. That was until I tried timing a launch for Moho last week and failed repeatedly to get an intercept anywhere nearby. Every other planet had at least skewed close to this imagined relationship I had between planets, where to reach a planet in higher orbit I waited until it was "in front of" me, and to reach a planet in lower orbit I waited until it was "behind" me. Moho defies this relationship by being 108 degrees "in front of" Kerbin despite being in a much lower orbit. I had to look this up online and reschedule my launch. Now that I know what the actual transfer windows look like, I'm left wondering. Is this principle I came up with just a coincidence resulting from how far apart these bodies are from Kerbin? Or was I nearing on some actual method? Or could there be any other way to eyeball transfer windows? Mind you I play on PS4, so TWP was never an option anyway. And does the real solar system exhibit similar launch windows to Mars and Venus?