Martijn404

Thank you so much HarvesteR for the most brilliant game i could ever imagine. I still can't figure how KSP manages to let me fly from one whole world to another, when other games force a loading zone when going to the next room it's just amazing, and beautiful too. Never took so many ingame screenshots, from another approaching moon, crazy contraption or lazy sunrise. Never spend so many hours planning and preparing for a (nearly) perfect mission. Never stood away from the PC with my hands in the air celebrating, till my first KSP docking. All the best and I hope you find happiness in your next projects Oh... and just imagine.. I am quite certain that the first astronaut who will land on Mars, 10 or 20 years from now, will have started his space dream playing Kerbal Space Program. How's that for a recommendation?

I actually just did 2 missions to Dres and found that you save quite a bit of delta-V by getting a Jool gravity assist. Sure your initial burn is a bit larger, but using Jool you can 'circularize' your solar orbit quite a lot, making the subsequent Dres insertion burn much much easier! I think this route can save 1000m/s. Dres has a very nice Biome map too, compared to, say, Duna (which is very underwhelming. .. not a single unique geological feature).

Thanks NavyFish! For me as well, the docking port alignment indicator is one of the first things to reinstall after Kerbal is updated again, without it docking just becomes a mess. Been using it for (literally) years now!

thanks again, I was staring myself blind on whether I did apply the (^2/5) to the correct part, missing the big obvious "youre dividing by the wrong STARMASS" So now at least i know where these mysterious lines come from in the middle of the blue part of the porkchop plot in the Launch Window Planner... patched conics artifacts.

Thanks Red Iron Crown, I dont know why but now I see i had M1 and M2 wrong-way-round in my calcs apparantly triple-checking my formulas isnt enough... im embaressed now I will correct my original results. With regards to the mentioned effects though, I guess it is just the patched conics approximation that causes these sort of effects.

Im not sure whether the formula from the KSP wiki page about SoIs is correct, or used in game. edit: it is correct As I mentioned, I plugged in the numbers from this formula and came to a completely different result then the KSP SOI (6210km). I looked up where this formula came from, it's in Orbital Mechanics, equation (12.17), and that formula is for a definition "The points measured with respect to the gravitational centers where the ratio of perturbative to primary gravitational accelerations of the centers are equal. So this deals not with primary gravitational accelerations but with perturbations thereof. The section above that, "Sphere of Gravitation", seems to be much more applicable to what KSP terms a Sphere of Influence.

I have noticed for a while now that the Sphere of Influence around certain bodys felt wrong. In the case of going away from a heavy planet or moon, it is nearly impossible to "just" escape the body, as the escape speed of the body is so high, that once you are in the SoI of the parent, your orbit is highly modified. For instance, escaping Tylo from low orbit, in retrograde position puts you on or under Vall's orbit immediately, the in-between orbit cannot be achieved. Or another example, it takes only 100m/s from barely escaping Kerbin, all the way to a Duna transfer orbit. Or escaping Slate (Outer Planets Mod) prograde, immediately throws you out of the parent's SoI too, which can't be right. In short, it felt like the vessels "clings" to the body it is orbiting for way too long. Now I assumed that the SoI determines the equilibrium point where the gravitational pull of ie. Mun exceeds that of Kerbin, and therefore you go into another SoI. That means that the gravity pull at the SoI boundary from both bodys should be equal right? Well, no, Kerbin's gravity is more then double that of the Mun, at the Kerbin altitude of the Mun (12000km). Leaving Mun for Kerbin, you now see the effect stated in the beginning; I stay in Mun's SoI for too long, thereby giving the trajectory a sort of "dead zone" where you cannot have your resulting Pe end up. Anyway I verified a few other "common" ways of calculating an SoI from the M1 and M2 masses of both objects: The "SoI calculation" in the Kerbal Wiki came to 6120 2430 km (edit: this is indeed the value KSP uses in-game) The orbital L1 calculation (Hill Sphere) came to 2115km So I hope that someone can enlighten me what formula is used to determine SoI boundaries, so I can stop worrying about bugs in KSP in this matter. Or worrying about discontinuities in the Gravioli sensor when changing SOI's. (i can understand 20% discontinuity from the patched conics approximation, but not 400% as in some cases...) This also with the objective of having some guidelines for modders to take into account when placing heavy planets or moons close to others (looking at you, Slate )

As a port to Unity 5 is necessary *eventually*, the question is when to take that pain, before release 1.0 or after. My opinion would be to seriously investigate the work to port it before release 1.0, spend even a few weeks (QA cycle) on it. Major consideration is that Unity 5 will likely break all mods and that would be a bad thing after 1.0. If it is much more work than that (and or undeterminable) release 1.0 on Unity 4 and make a KSP-2.0 on Unity 5 somewhere in 2016.

How about Kerbalizer integration? That would be about time, for 1.0 release! Customize your kerbals, in kerbal! edit: forget it, its about partnerships.. but still, Kerbalizer integration would be about time

Ohw how I wish the Rovers were better in KSP. There are hundreds of driving / racing games around, its just a very nice thing to do. But KSP is not a good driving game yet. It could be, and should be, for a few small changes: 1: Camera viewpoint connected to the car, not to the compass. I wanne see where i'm going. First-Person EVA might help there. 2: Better driving model. The tyre grip is so very wrong. The most basic traction circle does not seem to be implemented. 3: Better suspension model. Suspensions are shocks and springs, and both need to be changable for surface and gravity levels. I'm not asking for iRacing-like 4-dimensional tyre-grip formulae and dynamic tyre wear and heating here, but just the basics to make driving fun. Oh and why do wings never work in KSP to improve the tyre grip? Downforce should increase the grip of a tyre on the road, but in KSP the grip of the tyre doesnt seem to be affected.

I would suggest a mod that changes the spring and damper settings on the Rover wheels, so you can tune them to work in different kinds of gravity and different loads. Currently the suspension is way too stiff for low gravity worlds. It would be just a right-click menu box with options to soften or stiffen the suspension. That is something i have liked to see since the wheels were introduced

Thanks! For me, Steamgauges is usually one of the first things to download after a new version is out, Primarily just for the Radar Altimeter needle arcing gracefully across illegible numbers with irregularly spaced dividing lines, but the other ones are useful too Any thought of integrating the availability of certain gauges with R&D or building-tiers?

http://www.laboiteverte.fr/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/goddarfussecabane.jpg This is Robert Goddard ( I think); that seems like a pretty "temp" shed made of wood.

JPL/ Nasa published this map of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko To which i can only say "that looks like a map of biomes!"

I've sent and returned Kerbals to all celestial bodies with a surface to walk on. At least once in every version, since 0.18.2. All Jool moons in a single trip, Eve sealevel ascents, Moho returns, you name it, been there done that (no mods, no nukes even). Ohh I remember the wonder, coming up to a new planet or moon for the first time, searching and seeing a little light in the distance growing larger and revealing itself... How I miss that ever since. Time for some new planets!!

I got a bit closer to the root cause I guess: I noticed that it depends Where ON the decoupler you place your SRB! It seems that now, there is a point-force ejecting from the exact centre of the decoupler. Meaning that, if the decoupler is not aimed dead-center at the Center of Mass of the (empty) SRB, you will get a resulting TORQUE on the SRB that i have never noticed before 24.1. This torque makes the SRB spin inwards with either top or bottom, depending if you placed your SRB high or low on the decoupler. In the past I think the whole thing was a bit easier and you'd just get a translational force on the CoM of the SRB itself. Now it's like theres a billiard cue sticking out of the decoupler whacking your SRB.

I found that, on vertical launch, side-boosters that previously dropped nicely straight down now tumble top-inwards thereby destroying the rest of the rocket. This is the exact same rocket that launched fine yesterday. Same mechjeb settings for maximum reproducability.

Around 60.000, without repeating the same tests multiple times. Take note that some mods do add science-functions so its possible to go over that number. In my current save I have about 57.000 collected. Of this I had 16k from the Kerbin system and 20k from the Jool system. The other systems give from 2k (Dres) to 7k (Eve and Gilly).

Lol me too! How unusual is that...

I guess Harvester is currently working on the tremendous challenge of making sure that Asteroids keep a consistent course under timewarp, when changing SOI's. As they work kinda like normal ships, having them cross SOI boundaries causes the paths to be recalculated on the next 'tick' when in the new SOI. Making that nice Dinosaur-killing rock miss Kerbin by thousands of kilometers instead. Having to kill timewarp for every SOI-changing Asteroid KAC- style will be a no-go (they can be hundreds!), so uhm .. I guess you would have to come up with something smart!! I trust Harvester will get it right

Before using MechJeb, I've done countless ascents, landed on all planets and moons (including Tylo), docked ships, and executed hundreds of manouver nodes. I've even eyeballed transfers to all planets with a protractor on the screen and found my way there without so much as a single manouver node or setting a planet as a target. Finding a SOI was trial and error and orientation was done by stars. (Try that sometimes, find your way to Dres without left-clicking anywhere in Mapview!) Now I'm so happy I can use Mechjeb for the routine stuff (mainly Ascent, and Execute Next Node), and without it i would have quit KSP a long time ago. Repetitive tasks are no fun and feel like work. I honestly get strains in my hands from executing the nodes dozens of times a night. Let me just enjoy KSP for the things that I want to do, not for the things that can better be done automated. Thank you

And I thought this thread was about interactions between Civilization (V) and Kerbal Space Program. I can see a few: - Play Civilization on Kerbin map (there is one!) - Civilization techtree allowes Kerbal components (Explosives for SRB's; Electronics for Solar panels etc) - When you've completed Apollo project, the location of your Civilization game's cities, landscape etc become visible from Kerbin's orbit - You can only land in Friendly territory on Kerbin, or near naval vessels... else your landed Kerbals are considered captured by evil enemies and taken hostage - Bringing back Eve surface samples to Kerbin is a requirement for Space victory!

I find myself still using this plugin to check some statistics that are unavailable in the stock Science Archives, like for instance the total amount of Science fished out from a moon or planet. Maybe Synapse can find a way to mod certain statistics into the Science Archives using some of the code?

Managed an ascent from Eve from 400m altitude, with a 120 tonne lander (aerospikes) with a 0.8t lander can on top. It barely made it to a 115x120km orbit before running dry. The entire thing was launched as a single 1600 tonne rocket, to bring the lander to Eve as well as a tiny fueldump to rendez-vous with for the return home. That was in 0.21; now the landinglegs dont stand a chance anymore, and i can't figure out how to mod the CFG parameters to get them to work.

It works like this: Year 5, day 352: Leave Kerbin on a trajectory to Eve Year 6, day 045: Eve Periapsis, correct course for Moho encounter Year 6, day 073: Moho Encounter, What is important is that you arrive at your Gravity-assist partner (Eve) on the exact time that the launchwindow from Eve to Moho is open. You might have to compromise your Kerbin to Eve flight to be a little suboptimal, but what you save in dV is enormous; in my case around 2000dV. By hitting Eve on the correct side, the orbit changed to one hitting Moho's orbit on Sun-Periapsis, AND the Sun-Apoapsis of that orbit was lowered to that of Eve itself. This makes the speed with which you encounter Moho lower, saving on circularization dV. I found this particular Grav-Assist window using the Launch Planner website, by first finding all Eve> Moho transfer windows and then finding one with a reasonable "train connection" from Kerbin too. You can have a look at the NASA flightplan for MESSENGER or Cassini for an example, This Works In Kerbal Space Program!