ShunterAlhena

Awesome mod, much needed, thank you!! Quick bug report: the mod does not respect F2. This makes all windows disappear to make taking a screenshot easier, but this mod's window stays open. Really nothing major but a minor glitch probably worth correcting.

Pre-1.0 I used the "Atmospheric Efficiency" readout on Kerbal Engineer to guide my ascent. I kept it as close to 100% as possible, figuring that this held me at optimal ascent speed (just fast enough to minimize fuel wasted on gravity, just slow enough to minimize fuel wasted on aerodynamic drag). However if I do this in 1.0, I go so fast that I get REENTRY heating during ascent (which obviously means that fuel is wasted on drag). What are the optimal ascent speeds now?

Thanks for all the posts! So to sum up, the answer to my question ("Am I this inefficient?") is a resounding "Yes!", and the main suggestion is to go easy on the liquid fuel engines and use SRBs instead. Also one needs to forget about using one standard ship design for everything and use purpose-built vessels for each mission. I must say, this is a great change. Having to watch spending is not only much more realistic, it is more fun as well - just slapping my 32-engine "Elijah" launch system on everything from fuel modules to Munar landers made the game a bit stale. This will bring back a lot of the challenge!

Hi guys, I had a game fairly well progressed - I've landed rovers on Mun, visited Minmus and have an orbiting fuel depot around Kerbin. I've been planning my Duna mission when KSP 0.24 hit. I've been shocked by the prices. My standard Asparagus Mun craft costs about 150.000 to launch (and my untested Duna craft would be about 500.000). However the "visit the Mun" contract pays only about 75.000 when completed. Am I this horribly inefficient? What are your typical launch prices? Thanks

Hi guys, I created a rocket where I wanted the innermost ring to contain 8 boosters. However (using Rockomax parts) the most I could fit on would have been 6. So instead of attaching radial decouplers to the main rocket and attaching the boosters to the decouplers (the normal way), I've attached decouplers to the main rocket, girders to the decouplers (to get some extra spacing) and the boosters to the girders. However the rocket is unstable and so I also had to use struts to connect the boosters to the main rocket to make them less wobbly. The problem: normally when a decoupler between strutted-together parts is fired, the struts disconnect (disappear) and the affected stage falls apart beautifully. In this case, however, the girders between the decouplers and the boosters apparently prevent KSP from noticing that the struts should disconnect, and so they stay put - they are broken apart a split second later as the booster tries to fall away, but this puts a spin on the booster and it crashes into its brother boosters, making the entire ship tear itself apart in a magnificent display of fireworks. I've put hours of work into this project (3-ring Asparagus staged ship containing 32 boosters) and I'd really hate to abandon it. Did anyone else encounter this issue? Any thoughts or recommendations on solving it? Thanks!

Hi guys, I'm trying to wrap my head around ISP, delta-v, TWR etc. I think I have a pretty good grasp of these concepts, but still there are many questions I'm struggling with. 1. Do you agree that delta-v is the single most important characteristic of a rocket? If it has a high enough TWR to achieve 100% atmospheric efficiency during takeoff, then basically all that counts is its delta-v budget. A launch system with a larger delta-v will be able to carry a bigger payload farther, and that's what matters. 2. I've been reading on the forum that many think that the new ARM engines are very powerful. If it is so, then how is it possible that I get about the same delta-v budget (around 10000) for an asparagus-staged rocket with 2 rings of stages (18+1 engines altogether) made of old LV-N parts, and for an asparagus-staged rocket with the same topology built entirely of the new parts? Why isn't the new rocket "better" (higher delta-v), when it should be vastly more powerful? Thanks for helping me out - this stuff ain't trivial.

OK, I found what the problem was. I originally copied the KSP files to the C:\Program Files (x86)\ directory. In Windows 8 (and 7 and Vista) only Administrators may write this folder. This must have caused some problem for Kerbal Engineer (it might have been unable to create some file or directory it needs). I now granted Full Control rights to all Users to this folder and Kerbal Engineer works as advertised. Sweet! You might want to add this to the readme.

I tried the alternate single-threaded version and same thing: the parts are there, but no window appears when I attach them to the ship. I just bought KSP and this is a fresh install if that matters.

Hello guys, I'm running KSP 0.21.1 (non-Steam) on Windows 8. I downloaded the latest (0.6.1.1) Kerbal Engineer version, copied it to the KSP\GameData folder (so the DLL is now located at c:\Program Files (x86)\Kerbal Space Station\GameData\Engineer\Engineer.dll). When I start the game the Kerbal Engineer parts appear correctly, but when I attach them to my ships nothing happens (tried creating new ships, exiting/reentering the game etc). I understand that Kerbal Engineer should pop up a window, but that does not actually occur. Any suggestions?