Hyomoto

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah! Everything is awesome! EDIT: To piggy back off the comments below, Kerbal Stuff still lists 1.1.3 as the latest one even though the description is updated.

Gah! Too hype! Not to insult blackrack (or Squad) at all, but isn't ANY of this enough to convince Squad it's TOTALLY WORTH IT to work on these things?

Dermeister: It sounds to me like you are following the rules of thumb for a good ascent path, the best thing I can recommend is putting your turn off until 13km or later if your rocket is having trouble. There are other things that may contribute, but in your case it might be that the top of your rocket is too light. It might not contribute to the rocket's stability very much, coupled with a huge TWR coupled with a low payload can flip you as well. You can try throttling back and see if that makes a difference, or put the smaller fins on your upper stage and see if that helps. Starwaster: As I'm sure you probably already know, the latest stock patches mod treats gimbals like flight control surfaces should help with any excessive gimbal and reduce sharp movements by a lot. Have you tried that, and did it work out for you? nuFAR also boosts the gimbal ranges.

Yeah, the good ol' back to the main menu to change a setting issue. I see now, so basically you added a keyboard shortcut to toggle it. That makes much more sense.

I'm sure this was asked before, maybe even by me, but isn't there a option for this in the settings menu? If I remember correctly it's on the same page as the DOF settings?

When it comes to any sort of ascent profile, you can think of basically the air is going one way, you want to go another. So let's say your ship is travelling perfectly vertical, the air isn't moving relative to the planet but it is moving relative to you, in the opposite direction. When you pitch over you are pushing your nose into the downstream which creates a force against the rocket which will want to rotate it around the center of mass. Any significant deviation is going to cause you problems without some sort of counter balance for stability. For example, if your center of mass is dead center on your rocket, you'll have equal force pressing against both sides of the rocket during the turn, creating stability. Adding things like fins increases the surface area, and therefore drag, of the end on which you place them, which also promotes stability when used right. There is another issue to keep in mind. If your rocket is flipping end over end on a vertical ascent, it might be that you are simply going to fast. Air can only get out of the way so fast before drag begins to climb more rapidly than acceleration, and at the tipping point you are basically trying to push your rocket through a solid wall of air. That extreme drag at one end means the top will essentially weigh more than the bottom and the resulting action is the rocket flipping. If you put these two ideas together it should be pretty easy to solve any ascent issues. When in doubt, add fins or perform your 'gravity turn' later. Once you get above 23km or so the atmosphere rapidly becomes to thin for even drastic changes in direction to affect your vessel.

That's because if you ask people what they want, typically they say things they already have. Humanity is, on average, bad at change. Couple those two and you have people who must be drug into the future only to discover, hey, it wasn't nearly as horrible here as I thought! However, I don't think that nuFAR is more fun just because it's more accurate. I've been a FAR user since slightly after it became available, but the reason it was so mandatory is because the stock aerodynamics were so far departed from any semblence of reality they weren't fun at all. I respect FAR, and honestly I'll probably dabble with it again, but with the accuracy of the system it creates new problems in KSP. Suddenly I need all these highly aerodynamic parts, I need these procedural wings, because stack building just isn't the best way to design a plane. I think Ferram has included some wiggle room for this reason and I might be wrong, I might really enjoy nuFAR when I pick it up, but since stock does for me now what FAR did for me previously, it deserves at least spending time with it to try it out and it's most certainly nowhere near as terrible as many people want to describe it.

I can say they are no longer very useful. Dollar per tonne they just don't do it anymore and you can check their deltaV stats to back it up. Isn't the point of the SRB to be a cheap lifting option? Right now it's always cheaper to just build liquid boosters both in weight and cost. I think they still have a TWR advantage, but that's three strikes against and only one for.

The issue is, because it cannot read the texture in question it either always spawns cloud particles or never does. I forget which.

I don't exactly feel the need to use FAR since the stock aerodynamics do behave in expected and believable ways now. Many behaviors FAR allowed for now exist in stock, albeit to a more forgiving degree. I played with AJE + DRE + FAR before 1.0, but stock emulates those behaviors on it's own and has many of the same results. I can no longer fly up to 20km with a simple turbojet engine, the forces of drag can flip my rocket. While I'm not the only one waiting on a 1.0.3 patch to fix some additional stock goofiness, for the time being I'll stick with stock. I'll probably dabble with these mods when they all update one day, but KSP isn't a hardcore simulator and trying to inject that into it is a large undertaking. Right now I'm far more interested in Scatterer than nuFAR because, for me at least, whether or not my ailerons stall 100% correctly isn't as interesting as having an atmosphere to fly in.

Well, I pulled out my mechanical keyboard for this one! Normally I'd take more time to make my argument here but hopefully this is just some food for thought. The first three nodes of the tech tree are token nodes, you are going to unlock them because you either need those pieces or the ones behind them to get the science you need to unlock the parts you want. That makes the tech tree particularly wasteful, and unlike something like Civilization, it's not like we're taking a particularly novel path. The early nodes are especially unrelated and have little to do with what lies beyond themâ€â€how parachutes lead to thermometers or antenna is anyone's guess! And the later nodes, while they do follow a path of expanding your options or providing larger pieces, it doesn't exactly scream freedom. If the first thing you want to research is a titanic SRB, why do you have to research engines and fuel tanks you don't care about first? So here's sort of how I look at it, I've started to think the issue with unlocks is the price of the nodes themselves. Imagine, for example, every node costs 25 science to unlock. As things are right now, if I want to invest in planes I have to spend quite a lot of time in space and on other planets to achieve the science I need for my goal. However, in order to get the science from those other places I have to invest in unrelated areas of the tech tree. So what happens is I can either abandon my dreams and take the 'most ideal path' through the tech tree, or I can deal with the grind. The same could be said for anything, whether it be solar panels, ladders, or 3m engines. You have to grind through nodes you don't care about, wasting science you don't want to use, to perform missions you may not particularly care about to buy parts you need to gather more science to finally win a war of attrition and get to the things you care about. At that point I'm not really managing my own program anymore, I'm being stonewalled. So, tone down the science rewards across the galaxy (after all, why is a rock on Pol so much more scientifically valuable than a rock from Duna?) and stabilize the costs of each node. Let the player go as far down a path as they want, rather than arbitrarily holding back progress. In search of new science we WILL go to other places, we just shouldn't be force to prioritize the place because where we want to go isn't valuable enough. Really, all the current system encourages you to do is to ignore what you want to do and strike out as far and as fast as possible in hopes of a reasonable pay day. And honestly, that's kind of weak for a game about creativity. I think it's because career mode has been misinterpreted as beginner friendly, start with a few pieces and work your way up. But what sense does that make to a new player? After all, in creative you have all the pieces and no limitations or penalties, that's the best place to wrap your head around what the heck everything does. In career we're forced to put up a token launch or trawl the KSC for scraps instead of building rockets, which may be fine for a veteran but how does that expand a beginner's approach? Does that help them get to space or does it teach them to grind for science? When you don't know how to make it into orbit, a limit on their options to contend with a budget and reputation is anything but helpful. It's silly and misguided, and it leads to ideas like 'launch a rocket straight up, watch it fall, unlock another part and do it again.' Boring. I want to try to figure out how to test a decoupler and parachute in the same mission I rescue a stranded Kerbal from orbit and place a satellite on a collision course with the sun. That's the stuff of players with hundreds of hours, a new player just wants to land on the Mun. If you throw out the newbie mistakes of career, the grind for science can still exist as a gatekeeper and motivator. It can still be a metric of progress but without stifling progress arbitrarily so the player can run a few token 'training' missions. Searching the KSC for every bit of science should be a mark of dedication, interest and ingenuity, not a requirement for people who are interested in Eve. While the token nodes and flights will always exist to some extent, the idea is to cut them down later in the tree so once the player does them they can get started on what really interests them.

We are, we really, really are!

Well, you could draw a red line to the last good connection or like you said connection in range but lack line of sight, but since they are just showing a lack of connection, I agree with smunisto where you could simply indicate receivers that have no connection with an icon instead. The green lines could indicate a two-way connection where both transmitters are within range of each other where yellow would indicate a one way connection. Could be useful for data that travels in one way, such as requiring a connection to (or two-way connection) for probes, but returning science being okay as a one way transmission.

That's the way I remember it too, thanks for answering. Can you confirm whether or not it is still doing that? I might have to take this over to support then, it's possible it's a bug or I have something conflicting.

Are engines supposed to light up the environment? I seem to remember, perhaps incorrectly, that they did. Now they do not. I didn't want to post this in support if they aren't supposed to, so this is just a general question as to whether or not they are meant to or not. Anyone can feel free to answer this yes or no.

Question: can I just use the dll for disabling the temperature gauges or do I have to also install your parent dll? If so, what's the odds of getting one that just disables it with the installation of a single file?

So far my most -interesting- mission was sending Jeb to the Mun to perform a series of visual and temperature investigations around the Mun. I took on about four contracts for these, and over the course of about eight days he had completed twelve observations. Unfortunately due to a bad calculation there wasn't enough fuel to return to Kerbin so I had him land and complete two addition contracts, reporting science from the Mun and placing a flag. Unfortunately I forgot that the Mun is tidally locked to Kerbin, and I landed without a line of sight back to Kerbin so he wasn't able to make the transmission. The solution? Build a one time rocket to blast up about 250km above Kerbin to serve as a relay point to send that science back. Thanks to his efforts I was able to upgrade the VAB and the tracking station. A mission is currently underway to go and retrieve him.

You know, Silanda, I used to think that but now I'm sort of the opposite. I think Sandbox is the best place for newbies. I mean, anyone who was here for early access probably got their start playing sandbox before career mode was implemented. In that, career was never really meant to be a springboard to the rest of the game because most of the people playing it were people who were already really familiar with how to play! The restrictions were and are what usually seems to be what people like about career mode, no one ever says the like how it eases you into the game! Which makes sense, career mode does nothing to teach you the basic skills you need to be 'good' at KSP. Managing your finances is not how you learn how to dock. Trial and error play that role. So while you have less parts to tinker with, and that seems more beginner friendly, at the same time you have to worry about your funding, reputation and gathering science to get new parts to keep the ball rolling. That's an awful way to introduce the person to the game. Sure, contracts give a sort of vague direction for the player but an open sky is an equally-if-not-better starting point for a new player. For that I think a good KSP tutorial mode would what many of us had to begin with, the rocket parts and a space bar. Career mode is more apt for people who have a good grounding in the game already, at least that is what I've come to believe.

I play on whatever the settings are for 'hard' minus the save and revert (thanks bugs!) restrictions, and I can say the first portion is a bit grindy but at the same time that's the point of career. Many people have been vocal about being able to launch one mission and unlock enough science to open up half the tree, most career players probably enjoy this like Caelib said. If you hate the 'grind' you could always give yourself a boost to science out of the gate, improve your science returns or maybe just play science instead of career. On hard, my biggest restriction has been needing the cash to unlock parts as well as upgrade facilities to actually plan missions to places to get science, rather than science itself. Then again, I like playing Kerbal Space Program, the missions are more to give me an excuse to do something, so I don't see them as a 'grind' anyways. Sure, I'm going to the Mun to get science, but also because planning a mission to the Mun is fun. As for strategy, Kerbin is a grindy place for science because you either have to launch a lot of missions or you have to run long missions with planes (being limited to 4x warp and all). So the first 'wellspring' for science is going to be the Mun. There are great contracts for the Mun because there is no atmosphere. Put yourself into a polar orbit and take survey contracts. With simple altitude and attitude adjustments you'll pass over every location and from that you can really rake in the funds as well as get a bonus to your science since crew reports and temperature readings can both be transmitted. If you have EVA unlocked, you can also get a lot of EVA biome reports as well. It gives a great reason to keep someone in orbit and to run a legitimate multi-day mission. This is why I like contracts, they give an incentive to go to a place and do something, rather than just land, take a reading and blast off again. After a while you can start combining missions. Keep one Kerbal in orbit to handle survey contracts, and lands someone else on the ground to take samples and possible do surface surveys as well. Man, I love KSP, you've just fired up my engines to go play it some more!

Did you guys honestly not read each other's posts? First off, yours was actually quite legible MisterFister. I'm not sure about the run-on sentences comment, it was a thoughtful and specific response. Secondly, goldenpsp clearly said what he thinks was missing information: he believes the stock system isn't a magic button one-and-done approach as you described. He said while it is true it lets you know whether or not the resource is there, you still have to consider the landing vehicle depending on the location you are trying to land to take a surface sample.

Interestingly the effect is also applied during high G maneuvers. I think it's unintentional but it's actually kind of cool, the camera shakes, your plane wobbles a bit and you get horrible noise and sparking. It's a good mental note to stop doing that.

There are plenty of us who know what KSP is, thank you for providing a shirt WITHOUT a logo for those of us who are wearing what we like because we like it, not because we want to advertise what we like to everyone else! Not to diminish anyone's desire for a logo'd shirt, just to express my gratitude for one that is not!

Shoot, I wish I'd seen your post. Try quicksaving/loading. It seems the emissives aren't updating for parts correctly.

Man, the poor heating system, it just can't catch a break! Anyways, I noticed some parts on my jet had overheated due to a particularly long atmospheric flight. So I landed, and let them cool off. However, the emissives don't seem to be working as intended. First off, they don't show up until to 50% mark at which point they just start glowing. After letting them cool down, however, they were still glowing bright red. According to the F10, they were not overheated at all. So I did a quicksave/quickload and voila, the parts were no longer glowing. I can't say if it happens to EVERY part, but in this case it was the goo canister and the first two non-retractable landing gears. ASUS G550JK Core i7-4710HQ @ 2.50GHz 8GB DDR3 @ 800Mhz nVidia GeForce GTX 850M w/ 2GB DDR5 @ 1000Mhz

They are clearly playing around with the heat mechanics as they seem to have adjusted greatly between 1.0 and 1.0.2. I have questions as well on this topic. Previously you are correct, coming in too fast was a recipe for disaster, but now it works more like FAR does where you are slowed down the deeper into the atmosphere you go. Because of this, heating doesn't seem to be as big of a deal as it was before because heat is pretty generous in general. As an alternate though, I love flying planes. Now I have issues where my planes overheat just from the friction of flying through the atmosphere for long periods of time. It might be a byproduct of using physics warp, I haven't tested that out, but now I have questions about cooling. Once I land the craft, you'd think sitting it idle for a while would be enough to cool it a bit but that isn't what seems to happen. So I go back to my original sentence, it seems the heat mechanics are more in-development than finished mostly because feedback about them is very limited. The overheat bars only show up once they hit 50% so it's hard to see how they are heating/cooling based on the world around them.