Daveroski

Make them heavier and people who enjoy the use of ion engines will NOT be happy. D.

Bzzzzzzzt.. wrong again... because then it wouldn't be stock. But thanks for playing.

No... No it hasn't. I was going more for

I think that sometimes too much emphasis is placed on Manned Space flight and not enough on Unmanned. Indeed I would go so far s to say that unmanned space flight has been severely neglected. For example, I would like to have some changes made to the avionics hub that would make me want to use it more. I could make a more compact (shorter) and part-friendly craft if the CH-j3 had the functions of the small SAS built in. It would be perfect if it could also carry 5 units of mollyprop (Mono-propellant.) Currently once I have the tech to get a probe core with Targeting ability I rarely, if ever, use the CH-J3. If the developers gave some thought to probes and automated landers then perhaps we would get some RCS tanks that were about the size of the Place-Anywhere RCS Thruster. And some Place anywhere thrusters that were about 30% of that size with power reductions to match. I am aware that some of you feel that the CH-J3 is already overpowered and can make the need for pilots superfluous. However I do not see this as a fault of the CH-J3 more of the lack of abilities assigned to a pilot. For example if pilots were able to land a craft autonomously and the distance to target and success of the landing was governed by the pilots ability then the ace-pilot would be much in demand. (I know that there are those of you who feel that if a player can not land his own vehicle then he should be playing something else.) Rendezvous with target could be addressed in the same way. Pilots doing.. you know.. pilot-y (pilot-ish?) things. I digress.. This post is not about making pilots more like pilots (Still a good idea though) it's bout the functionality of the CH-j3. I have well over 5000 hours in game. Pinpoint landings and Rendezvous are all very routine for me. Many new players who love the idea of the game do struggle with things that many other veterans and I, find simple. So please try to keep in mind that all I am asking for is that the CH-j3 be made more useful. Regards. D.

It's the latest Steam update for my vanilla linux version. Standard game. I verified the files with steam. The DV details are there until I try to set that part for staging then it throws the exception and the DV detail for the vessel are no more. If I had been using mods, I would have been posting in the wrong forum. It happened on one craft. The Part was selected as the 'start' piece of the craft and so that made it the root. I used to chase down bugs to find the absolute cause and then report my findings on the bug-tracker. Screen-shots, saved games et-al but not any more.

Nul Ref Exptn. when Right clicking on Large Docking Ring and selecting the option to activate staging. It also makes the DV not work.

Nah.. @Deddly

Fly-by contracts should be just that. Fly by and transmit some data. How many probes have we managed to return to Earth from planetary fly-bys in Real Life? But the contract will not be over and the contracts will not progress until a craft has returned from a fly-by. It takes YEARS of game time. It should be Fly-By complete once a fly-by has left the sphere of influence of the planet or moon, Mun and Mimnus included. Once a craft has left the sphere of influence of the target the next contract , go into orbit, should be offered. Then Orbit and Return. I know that you still get milestones if you decide to just go into orbit but it spoils the contract flow and frankly I rather be paid for the contract AND the milestone. Regards, D.

Your games may be about engineering challenge. For most people I suspect it's more about exploration until they find that they can't get to Duna because Nothing in the game tells them how. So most of those who continue to play restrict themselves to the Kerbin System. Some of us are old hands. I know that many tricks that work on Kerbin don't always work on Bop or Eve. I've had to learn to land on top of upward facing docking ports simply because it's the easiest way for me to do many things. I have got my gravity turns down to a point where I rarely need to fire an engine for Jool orbital insertion. But yes. Even I think that @Klapaucius isn't saying anything that I haven't thought about myself. A simple real-world way of joining two vessels together on the surface of a different world would add joy to the game. There will always be other problems that requires engineering, like getting back into orbit from Tylo and Eve. People are different and get different things from the game. I never bother building Aircraft unless they can get into orbit and bring rescued Kerbals back home. If the game had what Klapaucius is talking about, it wouldn't hurt my style of play but would give him and I dare say many others joy. I'm all for that. Regards, D.

I will not pooh-pooh what you say as you clearly think you are right. So please demonstrate this with one of your rovers that works really well on Minmus carrying 4 kerbals in a hitch-hiker module. Go up and down some hills in it. Then tell me how wonderfully realistic the physics of KSP are. Real life designers, and I know what I'm talking about here, Use parts that are themselves made with the COM as appropriate as possible. All of KSP parts have the COM dead-center. With the exception of a couple of engines that people use to try to offset the unrealistic nature of that which is KSP. If you had paid attention or even queried my proposal when I could have reiterated "Within reason of course" Enough to make it more realistic, not unrealistic. You missed it though. You just jumped in thinking I was trying to make KSP 'Magic' and decided to put me in my place. That is why you are rude.

Not at all cheaty. Each part could have a mean distance for COM offset. When taken together the offset would be very noticeable and make a real difference in performance. Car chassis in many cases are designed to be a little heavier and the frame and material above it designed to be lighter to get the COM as close to the level of the chassis as possible. It isn't possible to do this in game which is why people who build rovers use aircraft engines to offset the COM. They know the game needs it and attempt to rectify the problem. Adding considerably more mass to move the COM an unrealistic amount. If all the physics of KSP worked as it should, (No offence Squad - you didn't write the engine and your attempts at fixing it are to be applauded.), then planes and landers wouldn't dance and it would't be necessary to shunt all remaining fuel in your re-entering Space Plane to the front to stop it doing somersaults. However some things can be done to improve things over all and this is, I think, one of them.

Wow you are really rude.

If I were a designer.. (and I am. ) I would design vehicles while keeping the COM in mind in their development. What I'm proposing is another widget. Now I know we already have widgets for Rotating and Repositioning an item. What I would like to see is a widget that will allow me to adjust the COM in any item I use for building. As though each item currently has a weight or lump of mass already in its design only now we get to move it. Within reason of course but I would like to be able to go so far as to be able to move the COM on a rover below the wheels. There is precedent for the COM being outside the object. Indeed this is often used to offset the COM in various builds. Usually rovers. Suppose I have built a vehicle. I click the COM display button and see the ball showing the COM of the vehicle. Then I click the COM widget and have the option to move it in much the same way a moving an object works now. I just feel that my Rovers, Bases Lander and even Space Planes would be much more stable if this were a facet of the game. I also feel that I would be even more inclined to build Rovers and Bases if such extra stability were available.

Wellll... If you say you did, I'm sure you did... but many people on here are of the firm belief that if there is no pic... well.. it didn't happen. Not me of course.. I believe you. Really I do.. Just saying...

If anyone else experiences the same or indeed any problem I suggest that you verify the installation. Just because it doesn't crash when you load it up doesn't mean it's right in the head. After verifying the installation it seems to be working as advertised. I will continue my vanilla career with the updated version of KSP.

Test loaded a lander. Went to change DV settings. Kerbin set as default. Shows Button + Down arrow to change location. Pressing this button either does nothing or just closes the menu. I can not select different bodies.

I'm on Mint. Mine is called KSP.x86_64 No extension.

Engineering Challenge too high? Have you ever gone to Duna? Basically all it is is a rocket designed for Mimnus with a lander designed for The Mun. It can even be launched form an equatorial orbit and achieve intercept without a later correction. You think that is challenging? I only play in career and I have to work out my own transfer windows. There is LOADS of time. Usually about three or four times more than I need.

If I add a fairing, the material seems to be z-fighting until I select a material. Any. Even the default. Then it behaves itself.

I started playing a vanilla game again. Just to get a feel for it as a noob would. The first thing I thought was lacking was a "circularise at Ap/Pe/Here " button/gizmo. Could be something researchable around the time of your first Mun Landing. Your trajectory is known. A course plotted to circularise on that trajectory should be doable. Could be accessible after your pilot gets his second star. Make it only accessible in space so that it won't try to plot a course in an atmosphere. The new burn-time info is getting there.. but I would like my pilot to be useful. How about once he reached a certain xp he can actually perform the burn? Ok.. so I have been to the Mun. The contracts guys asks if I'd like to build a base on Ike but I haven't even done a flyby of Mimnus yet. So that could use some work. I have rescued a few kerbals in orbit and it occurs to me that I could use an inclination readout on anything in orbit and a way to accurately set my inclination. Is there any way to tell the inclination of Mimnus in game? Now here is the biggie... I have built stations around the Mun, Mimnus and of course Kerbin. Now it's time to start looking at Duna and the other planets. You listening Devs? As far a the vanilla game goes, how does it let me know when to try for Duna? Am I really supposed to just launch a vessel into interplanetary space and then plot it's course to Duna? Is that how we do it on Earth? (Kidding) The game has NOTHING by way of information on how to get to all those other worlds you have made. Advancing a node one orbit at a time doesn't help. Without getting information externally or using a mod... how? Trial an error? Best Guess? Perhaps I'm supposed to keep a ship in orbit and every so often try to plot a course to Duna? I suspect that this is why most people stop playing after Mimnus. There is nothing in-game to help with transfer windows. Why not make the encyclopedia useful and have the next transfer widow for each world in the information on that world? I have got well over 6000 hours in game. I know how to play with what's available. I'm pretty smart. I could figure out roughly where Mars will be at a given time. However. It is much easier to ask a few of the Millions of astronomers who already have the information. This information should be available In-Game. The game simply isn't playable by most people without it. Ok.. done ranting.. my urine is starting to cool again. Thanks for your time.

I bet you are really pleased that now only one guy has to leave the ship and plant a flag so that everyone in the ship gets the 'planted a flag' qualification.

Yes but you still have to wait a couple of years for the 'DIY Kit' to arrive from home before you can star making it. That defeats the objective to me, I'd sooner just send the completed item from home than spend ages looking for resources, mining the resourced storing the resources only to have to wait a couple of years for this 'kit' to arrive.

A pointless and ridiculous effort on the author's part. If someone wants to cheat all they have to do is use the cheat menu and give themselves more money or science. If someone goes through the effort of setting up a system to produce parts for resale, they at least have done some work to print them. Meanwhile those of us who play games about self sufficient colonies end up having unnecessary weights added. I enjoy setting up a complex but eventually self-sufficient base but now there are few options in the genre. MKS was fun but now I can set up a colony gather resources and then have to wait a few years for a package to arrive from Kerbin before I can build anything. Made a mistake in the build? Want to upgrade something? Wait another few years for another package from Kerbin. All the effort to gather resources and still having to wait for delivery... It's easier just to send the whole thing and not bother with the resources and complex base. However I want a base.. I want complexity... I just don't want the whole 'still depending on Kerbin' rubbish. And why? Because some donkey suggests that some people may get enjoyment out it in ways that weren't intended. Some of us were enjoying it the way it was intended but now it's become too silly to bother with.

First, I'm not sure I would want to produce the opposite effect - at least not without dinner and drinks. Second. As soon as I realised that the bug wasn't repeating I came right back and edited my post so that you wouldn't waste any time trying to find a fault I could no longer reliably reproduce. Third.. Not going there.. that would be discussing religion and that's against the rules.