Vindelle_Sunveam

Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: win 10 | CPU: ryzen 3800x | GPU: 2070 super | RAM: 16 During the "Mun or bust" mission brief, one of the speech bubble reads which is not within the actual mission parameters at all. (Establish an orbit around the Mun with an Apoapsis less than 2400km and a Periapsis greater than 60km.) Included Attachments: .ipsImage { width: 900px !important; }

I switched from a splashed down vessel to a part that bounced off the water and witnessed it's greatness, breaking free from the pull of gravity.

Thanks for the answer, flagging as solved until further issues (let's hope not)

Sometimes there is no need for a "rationale" it's more of a "I like this game, let's continue playing it" without being bothered about mods. I have quite a bit of moddable games, and did use this feature on most of them (KSP included) but in the end, I always end up playing the games without mods because somehow, that's the way they feel the best to me. I played modded Elder Scroll campaigns and overhauls, mount and blade mods, even warcraft 3 game modes and it's great. In the end however, when you want access to the quintessence of a game, stock/vanilla/nata/without_conservatives/gluten_free/dermatologically_tested_on_greyscale_infected_newborns is the way to go.

Hello, I do not know if this is a known bug, but I've been able to reproduce it consistently. I use a octagonal probe core, put a 1.25m fairing on top of it, upside down, and right click. Then, I stack a girder segment underneath the probe core (the girder that's unlocked from the beginning of the game) and strap a mystery goo experiment on the side of it. After that, I place a 1.25m fairing at the base of the contraption, and make the fairing go to the other fairing base (like an interstage). From this point, I just have to grab the girger segment, put it back right where it was, and I cannot move any part in the VAB anymore. I cannot add any from the side menu either, but I can still right click on the objects and animate them, edit and delete fairings. Quitting and reentering the VAB does not solve the problem. In the debug console, there is this message that appears right after the statement of what have been done. It can appear just after the generation of a fairings drag cube, or just after the update of the part count.

Update : I played again today, and the situation was strange : the "landed" vessel was in deep space on an orbit similar of Kerbin's, around 5°ahead of the planrt it's supposed to be on. The kerbal was missing in action (as written in the log : no vessel assigned, yet not dead), and when I deleted the ship, (clicking on "terminate" in the tracking station) it seems that the Kerbal was set to Killed.

What happened : I had a vessel landed on kerbin, on a quite steep slope. I had the kerbal go all the way up the Mk1 Commandpod ladder, and fall of it to the ground. Where I thought it would stick to the grounf and stand back up, it did slide down quite fast (to the point it stretched a bit) and stopped at the end of this rare slippery slope. When I saw it stopped ragdolling, i pushed the W key to have it stand up, but then, the screen went black, UI was good, except for the altitude radar that displayes blank spaces. The debug menu told that .THe log is here : https://www.dropbox.com/s/14orkw7y8y4bbdf/KSP.log?dl=0 There is a lor of to scroll past because I was quite slow at reacting to whatever happened.Thanks for the hard work, I hope this will help make the game better.

Hi, I want to send a ship to Minmus, with a lab, a Hitchicker Container (for RP purposes) and a little ship. The problem is the lack of attitude control. this ship goes horizontal by itself (fine) at 4000m (not fine). I know there are useless pieces such as nose cones, but those left are the ones I cannot commit to scratch from the blueprints without feeling silly. It has to look decent. I realise I might want to cut some fuel on the lander, as well as scratch the RCS tank on it. Here is my tech tree : Full 45 points Tier, full 90 tier minus wings and 2.5m parts (skipper + poodle) Docking and Lab techs are the only 160 unlocked. Yes, control surfaces helped a lot ! Unfortunately, I just lack the oomph to get this in orbit while sticking to my design wills. when I unlock the Skipper, everything will be fine. Thank you !

Can you give a picture ? It will be easier than asking you a thousand questions.

Hey, if you are that afraid, you could at least share the anxious laugh with us. Streaming isn't that hard nowadays

For tge decoupler thing, I know, I read the .24.2 notes. Nonetheless, there was no mention of anything that could have affected aerodynamics. The rockets that look like they are tumbling out of control more easily are my usual basic mk1Pod+LF200+lv909+stackDecoupler+LF-800+LVT-45 rocket. This happens around 25km velocity vector at 20° east, 400m/s and LV45 throttled up at max, ship ponting at 45°.

@SkyRender I'd say it is your rocket fighting against the prismatic effect of rogue photons escaping the atmoshere at very shallow index of refraction (ie. Expanding the space because of... Err... Relalivity), you then need more deltaV to cross more space while drag stays the same at dawn and dusk @Martijn : I saw that. I had a mainsail destroyed because of that... Did not revert, just had to use the insertion stage earlier

Hi, with the .24, I feel like my rockets are more likely to feel the burden of atmospheric pressure and tumble out of control when having an eccessive angle of attach relative to the velocity vector. Anyone experienced this feeling ?

4millions on day 100, i didn't revert my failed testing rockets, so, yes... 4 mil with failed launches, kerbals under Mun's crust and financial penalties for failed contracts (oops, didn't test the nukes at the right moment... But got to eve !, well, still not at Eve TBH. Non optimal transfers take forever). Both Eve and Duna missions are still not arrived.

It didn't change my designs. If anything, I realised that I was a very cheap constructor. My first Mun lander was 25K, and the one I like is 32K. I didn't know about the "send science from" that asks you to leave sattelites around every celestial body, so my Eve lithobraking probe is not equipped with a small thing that I shall meave into orbit before impacting. I currently am redesigning my Duna probe to support an Ike lander and sat, plus a Duna sat. I still use massive lifters, as I'm swimming in funds. As I do not like spamming missions, I still have difficulties with science.

Please, just be kind. KSP is known for it's difficulty cliff, just like Mount and Blade. You need to remember that, as an experienced player, you did not only climb that cliff, but are now orbiting over it.

The xenon is used for lithobraking. And I forgot to make the launch screenshot, so it is no more. This will be corrected. Sorry.

We have another thread dedicated to this topic right here : http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/83508-Don-t-completely-discard-mass-of-physics-insignificant-parts

Well, actually, I think that struts should at least have a mass scaling. So a 1m strut would weigh 0.005T, and a 5m one, 0.025T. I know this would be a minor, almost negligibe change, but it would just feel sensible. I know about suspention of disbelief, but I don't feel like using it there. I like that it counts as a single part, and a function that calculates mass over lengh wouldn't raise the part count as in the "fixed lengh struts" you propose, while needing the player to think about what they are doing with the space tape. And of course, even with the new joints, fixed lengh struts would be wobbly as Kerb, reducing their purpose to ashes. I'm not against procedural parts as a principle, I just want them to fit better into the game. As far as it goes, it is not well implemented, wether is is the stock procedural pipes or the modded stuff. I know this is a lot of work to make very sensible procedural parts, but IMO, it is essential work to be made if we want a game that doesn't feel like it is a myriad of gameplay concepts that weren't thought to be together in the first place. As for now, this is obviously not the case when it comes to procedural parts integration into the building phase, they work very well in flight (as said, part count, robust because no joints). I agree with you on the subject that we should ask for the parts we desire without restriction. The devs are smart enough to know what will be good for the game. I also disagree on the zombie parts. I wouldn't mind these either, as well as I don't mind parts that I don't use but are in the game, but I think that players should have no say as to wether squad should keep parts in the game or not. If they decide, after an update, that a part has no place in the game anymore, it is their right and privilege to throw it into oblivion. For those who really want to play with the old part, there will be mods. And yes*1000 for a stock cumulative tweaking system.

Well, as long as the game is balanced towards players who always make custom built rockets, it should be good. Players who put a lot of effort in Standardized Launcher Classes get a bonus that makes them happy, and everybody else plays without any penalty. OTOH, Standardizing is bound to make some sacrifices when it comes to efficiency. Some payloads may sit right in between 2 launcher designs, and none will make for a good launch vehicle.

I agree, I've been focusing too much on a symptom of what bothers me. Your witty critisism was good at getting me out of my blinkers.

Red Iron Crown, you may have misread He just wants to prevent the subassembly discount from being broken. Like adding a line of code which stipulates how many times the subassembly has been used on a launched rocket, and if less than one, no discount.

Well, I went a bit lyric, that's all, the point being : As far as my experience with procedural parts goes (which is limited to fairings) I think that the procedurally generated ones are something that doensn't fits my tastes at all. I've seen terribly large payload fairings, as the payload was very badly arranged inside of it, to the point it felt a bit dumb. With fixed fairings, such as the KW ones, the player, at least, have a limit on cargo girth, which makes him think about how he is going to design it. My impression is that would also give players more of an incentive for orbital construction,; because even if they fit a whole station in a ridiculously high fairing, they still would have to rearrange the parts in orbit if they wish their station not to be a giant tubelike structure. AFAIK, this wouldn't prevent the WhackJobs from doing their work too, as they would also have to circumvent the same rules as everyone, like they already do, but in their own fashion. Edit : I do not think the engines fairing models are procedurally generated, since even the Mainsail and the Skipper have distinct designs where there could be a simple rescaling from one to another.

As far as new parts will go, I hope we will not have procedural ones. I like using mods with parts when I think they lack in the game, but after using procedural fairings, I can tell that for me, these conceptually endless parts take quite a bit off the design challenge. I'm a Lego guy and the limited aspect of the parts is what kept me awoke at night in the VAB. I like limitations and wouldn't play KSP if it became a "psychedelic dream rocket builder" in which parts can be whatever you wish. Thinking with only what's in the box doesn't prevent from thinking outside of it.

Discussing the world cup : I agree with Red Iron Crown : I bought the game a feuw days after the last people that will get all DLCs for free (shame on me, I am so late) and would not even be mad at squad for aborting developpement. I'd be very upset, but would also recognize it is fair game. I read the TOS AND bought the game afterwards, so I accepted the deal. On the other hand, KSP is so mod friendly that I'm not even worried about the community dying after wards. Even more on topic : As surely said before : we don't say that it is ok to have bugs because it is in "alpha", but we aknowledge that it is in "alpha" because it is far from being complete.