Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


4 Neutral

Profile Information

  • About me
    Bottle Rocketeer
  1. That's not what's happening. Sometimes I'll have the markers very close, then I add a maneuver node (with zero delta V) and the makers jump to the current position of object. There are definitely bugs with these markers.
  2. This is a problem I have seen from time to time but recently it is getting severe. The problem is the approach markers will jump to a completely erroneous position when changing the maneuver node slightly or sometimes when I go to space port and then reload the vessel the markers are out of whack. Sometimes as I'm doing a manual burn to fine tune my approach the marker will show decreasing distance and then all of a sudden jump to a position on the opposite side of the orbit. It's very frustrating and makes getting encounters to planets with eccentric orbits very difficult. Before I get into all the mods I'm running and everything, I'm wondering if anyone else has seen similar behavior. Is this a known problem. I've searched the forums and reddit and haven't found anything quite like what I'm seeing. Mostly just conversations about "always show closest approach" setting. Any thoughts?
  3. OK, I reinstalled the WarpPlugin folder, and I also noticed I was missing the 000_Toolbar folder. Put that in and it works fine now. Thanks guys.
  4. I am using KSP-I for the first time. I can't seem to get any of the reactors to work. I am using these mods: MechJeb,Tweak Scale, SCANsat, RealChute, WaypointManager, Sounding Rockets, Modular Rocket Systems, and Adjustable Landing Gear. Whenever I put a reactor on a vessel I get no heat. I've tried with and without generator, heat-sinks, and thermal rockets. Nothing seems to work. I don't get the thermal manager window in the VAB that I have seen reference to in some tutorials. It looks like many people are using the mod fine with 1.05. Is there something that I am missing? I also don't get the reactor shutdown/ startup option in EVA. I've used an engineer, scientist, and pilot. Any ideas to try and help me figure this out would be appreciated.
  5. OK, That's got to be it. In my swapping in and out it's the one that I think is causing the problems. I will see how it works.
  6. OK, I've installed a few more mods than I have been using for a while. I think it's a pretty basic set, I see that many other mods require allot of the ones I've installed and sometimes more, so it shouldn't be more than KSP can handle. My game keeps crashing. I can't run the game for more than 5 min. I have allot more memory than KSP can use (16 Gb) as it's only running in 32 bit mode it can only access 2Gb. If I have problems than theoretically anyone who runs this many mods would not be able to play. Considering there are other mods that require this many or more, it leads me to believe that people can run this many without major problems. Crashing every time within 5 min, would not give anyone a chance to test their own mod. Here are the mods I've installed: MechJeb ISA Mapsat 4r2 B9 R4-0 NovaPunch 2.03a KAS 0.4.5 BioMass ThrottleControlledAvionics I had MechJeb and BioMass running fine. Is there something I'm missing? Are others running a similar amount of mods without crashing? Do I have incompatible mods in my list? Any help would be appreciated. Thank you in advance (I am always amazed at how quickly people respond on these forums)
  7. It was all ships, even the ones from tutorials and scenarios. Anyway, I fixed it. I uninstalled copied my saves folder, then deleted the entire directory, reinstalled, and put back my saves folder. It's fixed now. I don't know how or why this happened, but the crash obviously corrupted some sort of configuration file.
  8. OK, I was playing and my computer crashed. Not Kerbal, but my whole system. I got a chassis intrusion failure from my motherboard which reset the whole system. I don't know why my motherboard is doing this, I never hooked up the chassis intrusion jumper to anything. Anyway, Since the crash all of my vehicles won't hold rotation. Using MechJeb's Smart A.S.S or standard SAS or even having both off. every vehicle goes into a wild spin on all axis. I tried uninstalling and re-installing, then reinstalling mech-jeb. There is obviously a registry entry, or game file that is not removed by the uninstall that has been affected. Anyone have any suggestions for how to fix this?
  9. Thanks for all the responses from everyone. A few replies resonated and I think I understand. When you fire pro-grade to increase your orbit you are actually pushing your orbit on the opposite side away from the planet. Another way of thinking about it is if you are at your periapsis (as was said above) you are at the bottom of falling towards the planet and are moving away from it due to your speed. When you fire pro grade you are increasing that speed on your ascent so you will get to a higher apoapsis. This combined with the fact that velocity increases as you get closer to the planet, for the same reason that an object on a string being spun around will increase in velocity as the string gets shorter wrapping around the object. I think I finally have wrapped my head around it. So this brings up a new question. When you are re entering an orbit from escape velocity. Is it more efficient to aim for a higher orbit and and retro. Actually as I type this I think I can answer, tell me if I'm correct. If you aim for a low orbit (high velocity) you have less velocity to lose. If you try and capture from a high altitude the orbit velocity is very low and you will have much more velocity to lose. So you should aim for a low orbit to get captured.
  10. OK, I'm not saying it isn't true I am just trying to understand better. I don't see how your speed is faster in a lower orbit. It is a faster rotational speed around the planet but your actual speed, or orbital speed around the sun is slower in a lower orbit, it has to be because you increase your speed (fire rockets pro-grade) to get into a higher orbit. So how can your speed be faster in a lower orbit. Also when you are in a higher orbit you need to slow down (retro) to get into a lower orbit. This is the thing that's screwing with my brain.
  11. OK, from what I read on the Wikipedia link I think I get it. It's kind of like when you slingshot past Mun, where you don't have escape velocity before passing but you do after. You are kind of starting the slingshot in a close orbit?
  12. OK, I was watching one of the youtube videos for SKP by Scott Manly http://youtu.be/jiB2ywSM6i0. He stated that the burns for transfer orbits were more efficient when starting from a low initial orbit. Is this correct, because it doesn't make sense to me? Any type of transfer orbit requires increasing your orbital velocity to a point where it escapes. The transfer part comes from timing that escape, correct? To go from a small orbit to a large orbit you need to increase your orbital velocity as well, and if you are making a symmetric orbit (2 burns) timing isn't a factor because you can still do your escape burn at any time on that new orbit. In other words your velocity increase to get a bigger orbit is put towards your escape burn and not wasted. The reason I am wondering is because when using nuclear motors, trying to escape from a low orbit and firing before the node to balance your burn you actually need to burn in towards the planet, which when it has an atmosphere can prevent an escape at all. Am I missing something?
  13. OK, I've never seen this before. I modfied my 5 stage flower to a 7 stage flower by ALT clicking my external pod, changing to 6 and re-attaching, Then I re ran all the yellow hoses. Now when I launch my tanks run out of oxidizer right away, and the engines shut off due to lack of oxidizer but there is still fuel available. Anyone run into this before and know how to fix it? Edit: NVM, I figured it out. I must have inadvertently right clicked on the tank before copying it and accidentally adjusted the oxidizer level. Fixed it.
  14. I don't think they would need to have all the overhead you speak of Dogface. First off Debris wouldn't change. What happens to debris now when it's left spinning? Whatever it is, there would be no reason to change anything with debris. Now for ships, stations etc, if the SAS had an option to match rotation to surface, for one, the game engine could just assume that it was very good at matching the rotation, so no corrections are required. A flag could be set indicating that the object has it's rotation matched to surface. Whenever an object is loaded or switched to and it has the 'locked to surface' flag set, then it would simply align the objets rotation with the surface before it's loaded. No need to continuously do calculations. In fact this could reduce calculations from what they are now.
  15. This seems strange that there is no way to do this, even without Mechjeb. SAS should be able to lock on surface get your rotation matched and once matched it would stay that way forever. Obviously IRL most satellites have their rotation matched with their orbit. I'm sure it requires the occasional adjustment to keep it perfect, and so that a microscopic mismatch of rotation doesn't accumulate.
  • Create New...