Search the Community

I cannot find any issues related to this, so I thought I would ask. Steam version, downloaded and reinstalled multiple times over the years. Always worked fine, until recently. Game loads up just fine; no hangups on the load screen at all. Main menu works, in addition to the other settings and such. Loading up the Space Center works as well, with no issues until I enter the Hangar/VAB or the Launchpad/Runway. Hangar/VAB: Cannot see the vehicle being built, at all. I can still select parts, and every menu and button works, yet all I see is a black screen Unless I mouse-over where the vehicle would be to see the highlighted part, I cannot physically see the vehicle. Launchpad/VAB: UI and instrumentation load up. Much like the Hangar/VAB, unable to see the vehicle itself, nor the scenery of the game. I can still launch the vehicle, and all the control are just as responsive, yet again: I cannot see the vehicle. It should be noted, that I can still view the orbital map mode, and the tracking station still works. I have tried to validate files and have reinstalled multiple times, but to no avail. No mods or anything. Kinda sucks, but has anyone had any luck or experience? Specs: Windows 10 (64-bit), i5-3230M CPU @ 2.60GHz, 8 GB RAM, GeForce GTX 660M. UPDATE: No progress made, but sometimes I have observed that when i revert a flight back to launch, for a brief moment I am able to see the craft and scenery before, once again, it goes black.

So I've seen these optimal engine charts for helping select the best (set of) engines for a mission/craft, based to the TWR and Delta-V requirements, and (tried to) use them extensively to design long range missions and the like. Until I noticed that these are all horrifically out of date! https://meithan.net/KSP/engines/: for KSP1.1.1 https://imgur.com/a/OS6bk: for KSP0.23.5 So I am looking for some up-to-date charts, some tips on an at-home version of meithan's chart, or failing that, contact information for meithan so I can help update his web-app.

A small MM script that by default defuels all parts. The idea behind it that you must build refueling infrastructure to fuel any launched craft. So your Space Program will need mining, refining, transportation and refueling infrastructure to work. Release v0.7! The - it should probably have been in a folder from start release Download Licence Thanks to @artwhaley for the help with the script Visit my dev thread for my other mods

Hey guys, my idea here is to add parts to construct actual planet bases, with a life support system. I know you can get both of these things in mods, (In fact I'm running a mod that gives me planetary base parts) but I think they should add a life support system and base parts to make them stock. One because it would add so much more to the game, two because I know for some people mods can slow their game down, and I think something like this should be in the game anyway. Plus as I found out with an earlier idea, that the game developers try to keep the game realistic (Which I totally understand) and this would not really be detracting from the realism of the game, in fact a life support system would make it more realistic (if people new to the game found having to add a life support system to their ships to hard for them the game developers could make the life support system an option when a person is creating a new game) Any comments?

Parts would have minimum temperatures, and some would passively radiate heat. When minimum temperatures are reached, the parts wouldn't explode or anything. They would merely stop functioning. However, based on a setting in the difficulty options, if a command module or spacesuit reached minimum temperatures, the kerbals could be at risk of freezing to death. Different kerbals would have different time limits for staying below minimum temperature, basically like gee tolerance. Something else that should be added would be parts specifically meant for heating the spacecraft. Drills, converters, fuel cells, RTGs and active engines would passively generate heat. Liquid fuel tanks and idle liquid fuel engines would have an incredibly low minimum temperature. Landing legs and airbrakes, as well as xenon tanks and ion engines would have a fairly low minimum temperature. Wings (whose aerodynamics would simply not work quite right when too cold), command modules and passenger modules would have a medium minimum temperature. Probes, batteries, solar cells and reaction wheels would have a high minimum temperatures. Finally, surface temperatures. Planets would all have ground temperatures, including the ones without atmospheres. However, part temperatures would be affected by the ground much more slowly than by the atmosphere. Therefore, you could probably last on Eeloo or Minmus for days without a heating system. You wouldn't have to worry too much about Jool's moons, as they are heated by tidal forces. With Duna you would probably want a heating system, seeing as it has an atmosphere. Also, unlike atmospheric temperature, surface temperature would change depending on whether it was day or night.

Ksp is kinda getting repetitive. You know, launch, orbit, escape kerbin, and so on. So I'm looking for any mods that could help spice things up a bit. Things like RSS and solar system rescale mods. Things that add a whole new way of doing things. Things that add another aspect. If you know any good mods to shake things up post them here!

Hey all, been thinking about this idea awhile. That is why not make the water biomes more interesting. The idea is that the KSP developers should add stock parts to build small science submersibles, and then make the terrain under water more interesting. This would add a lot more things to do in the game. Though some people might say that submersibles have nothing to do space and planet exploration, I disagree. My reasoning is that to planets (besides Kerbin) are at least 50% water (I know Laythe is more) Without anyway to explore under the water, Eve and Laythe are mostly barren planets as there is nothing to do on the water except float. And hey if it means that you can explore the ocean on Kerbin, that's just a bonus. Thoughts?

MKS is a complex mod - it has a lot of resources, and a lot of moving parts. And while it’s pretty awesome once it’s up and running, it can also be intimidating to a newer player. So I’ve been carefully considering the best way to overcome this hurdle without sacrificing the spirit of the mod, and after a lot of discussion and feedback, have decided to build out a lighter, friendlier version of MKS. Thus, I am happy to introduce MKS-Lite! It will give you a taste of a lot of the MKS subsystems, but uses a much simpler resource set and more forgiving mechanics. The best part is that when you’re ready to move onto the main MKS system and it’s more involved processes, almost all of the knowledge you learn in MKS-L will transfer directly over. You can get a feel for the specifics over on the Wiki. You can grab a release over on GitHub here: https://github.com/BobPalmer/MKS-LITE/releases Configuration files and code are licensed under the GPL v3 license. Assets, including Models (*.mu) and Textures *.png/*.dds) are All Rights Reserved. If you wish to use any of these assets in your project, just ask nicely note that this is currently in BETA, so while it is pretty stable, I still anticipate some bugs I am also especially looking for feedback on the documentation, since this is intended to be a much simpler version, and I need to make sure the docs work for newer players. Note: This is not really suitable for use with core UKS because of balance issues (in the next release, the full UKS mod will explicitly hide MKS-L if present). Enjoy!

At first: Sorry for my bad english (..) Dear KSP Community, I'm new to KSP and making my steps in the Carrier Mode (Normal Difficulty, newest Steam version, no mods) There are a lot of Contracts where it is displayed, that you get as example 6 Science Points for completion. Why? Do i have to do something special to get these Contract Science Points? Do i have to complete these Contracts in the first attempt? (I use revert flight when i crash) Thanks for you help

Hey all I was playing my KSP and in the middle of capturing an asteroid, when I had this idea. Why not make it possible to land on Jool? I was thinking that they should keep the green gas cloud totally around it to impossible to see anything but green, until it disappears like 150M from the surface and then give Jool a planet surface that always looks like it is night time. I thought this would be fun challenge to, not only make Jool a Kerbal destination, but to also make a cool challenge for someone to try and land on a planet where you can't see the ground until you've almost landed. Any thoughts?

I see a lot of cool KSP-in-action videos posted in these forums. Could someone give me some pointers on how to make a video like that? I'm specifically interested in recording my attempt at one of the KSP challenges. Thanks!

This little plugin hides the nodes of the KSP Technology Tree that you are not able to research yet. NOTE ON FURTHER UPDATES: Since there's an actively maintained mod Hide Empty Tech Tree Nodes that enables the same feature among the others, this mod's update and maintenance has been paused. Without rendering the fog itself of course. Supported KSP version: 1.1.x License: MIT (included) Sources: included Description: For some reason KSP developers decided to expose the entire technology tree at Research And Development facility since KSP 1.0. That spoils all the technologies that you will ever be able to research. This mod is for those who liked the 0.90 way of the tech tree rendering: you could only see techs that you are able to research or have already researched. That kept the intrigue of development through out the game. There is also a tiny config file to affect the way how the technologies are hidden in the tree. Download from SpaceDock Usage: Just extract the contents of the zip into your GameData directory. By default the mod hides techs that are unresearchable yet and leaves the researchable ones visible (just like it was in KSP 0.90). Configuration: One more thing you may complain about a stock tech tree design is that the technologies are becoming available to research when any of their parent technologies are researched. For example, to research Stability you need either Basic Rocketry OR Engineering 101. As if for invention of automobile it was sufficient to invent only a wheel or only an engine. You can change that in several ways: 1. (Supported by the stock game and is not related to Fog Of Tech): For stock tree edit the KSP_Folder\GameData\Squad\Resources\TechTree.cfg and change every value of AnyParentToUnlock property from True to False. That means you'll need to research all of the parent technologies in order to research the particular one. 2. You can just set parentTechsToShow=ALL in Fog Of Tech's configuration file. That will make the plugin just hide all the techs that haven't all of their parents researched without the need to edit stock tech tree. The other possible value is ANY: with the default tech tree effect is the same to the default plugin action. But if there is a tech that requires all of its parents to be researched then it will be shown immediately after you research any tech that leads to it despite it is still unresearchable (see the title screenshot: Flight Control has been modified to be such node there). Compatibility: Since the mod affects only the way of tech tree rendering it should be compatible with the most of custom tech tree mods.

Just a curious question, will the game support the vr such as oculus or HTC in the future? It is a really cool idea for us to seat inside a vessel, pretend we are kerbals and get ready for the suicide mission.

Hello, let me start off with saying I am really enjoying this game so much. I have had so many fun adventures in this game, and this game is captivating me so much. Now off to the topic - I recently sent a payload with my part 1 of my mun outpost. However, halfway through I realised the morons at VAB forgot to add landing struts . So I needed to improvise my moon landing. Things went relatively well but with all the chaos I somehow couldn't uncouple my couplers. Now I am on the moon but my couplers are still coupled. How would I go to decouple these manually? A screenshot might explain things better : https://gyazo.com/7bd45453427b6de97817d0497a362163 Any help would be greatly appreciated.

A tribute video to Kerbal Space Program

Picture poor Jebediah sitting inside a MK1 capsule atop an overly complex rocket (aren`t they always?) waiting on the launchpad. He is smiling despite knowing that he is being sent to Duna on a one way mission (or at least until the Space Program decides to send another vessel to collect him) all on his own, within a space suit, within a tiny capsule and with no other entertainment than a minute window that will show nothing but cold cold space for the whole 200+ days of journey. Once within Duna`s sphere of influence Jebediah can look forward to a couple of days of achieving orbit, landing and performing a couple of experiments on the surface. After that, nothingness... nowhere to go, nothing to do, no one to speak to... alone in the planet, the omega kerbal. So, you guys get what is bugging me: we have great mods to deal with the lack of life support gameplay, great mods to give us more realistic aerodynamics and soon communications networks in 1.2 all fine and dandy... Kerbals however seem to have 0 mental health needs, they will happily be put into a capsule for months on end... You might say it is an acceptable break from reality, but I for one make sure that any mission that is going to go longer than 1 month HAS to have at least two kerbals in it and a some kind of crew cabin (usually the hitchikers storage container). It is not neccesary for the game mechanics, but it makes me feel like I am at least giving my little kerbalnauts the chance of leaving the cockpit and taking a shower, sitting down, just plain go somewhere else. Still, even that might be "less than enough" for missions that count their duration in years instead of months... what to do then? Well, send a robot instead! And I am not talking about those crude drone core`s than can pilot a ship and even land it, I´m talking about humanoid robots that can do everything (well, almost) a Kerbal can do without the mental breakdown that should come from being in an enclosed capsule with no company or entertainment for years. Hell, you can even send them to distant planets to set up surface bases, get them going, and then send the actual kerbals. Robots would not consume life support (great advantage) but would have no specialisation or leveling in career (big disadvantage), they wouldn´t be able to send crew or EVA reports, but they would be able to take surface samples and take experiment results from sensors just fine. They would be unlocked in career mode with one of the later drone techs. I would love to build a mod that offers precisely that as I think it would add an interesting role-playing edge to the game that, as of now, is lacking. I worked as a 3D designer for a few years so I offer myself to build the models (the idea is to use the current mesh, textures and animations from Kerbals and make some changes to make robots out of them, piece of cake!), I am however painfully ignorant when it comes to building mods and what it entails, I would need help (plenty of it) in that department. Any takers?

I have a late 2007 iMac running OS X Lion, or 10.7.5. It has 4 gbs of ram. I have ksp's graphics and everything else on the lowest quality. How can I make it run better because it runs like crap.

I was watching MythBusters the other day and came across... http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-database/laptop-lift-off/ The original video - https://www.youtube.com/embed/_12L_Dme8Vc Basically (if these links don't work) the bees can't lift the laptop because of a few reasons but a major one being Newtons 3rd law. If the bee is pushing air down it can fly up, but if the air is hitting a large surface it pushes the surface down, and if the surface is attached to what ever is trying to fly up, it won't fly. I asked myself, is KSP's physics realistic and good enough to prove this law, I set up a rig as the following (sorry for no images) 1. Simple probe core 2. Fuel tank 3. Rocket engine strong enough to lift the whole thing 4. 2 long metal girders which hold a large flat surface made up of structural sheets of metal I ensured that the metal sheets were far enough from the engine to be able to see the flame, I proceeded to offset the metal sheets to ensure there were no gaps. I went to launch it and to my surprise it did not generate thrust, I tested numerously to see if it was a glitch in the launch pad, I remade the rig with the metal sheets separated a little. This caused the metal sheets to wobble (closing and opening its gap) each time it opened the thrust fluctuated from 0 to almost normal engine thrust. After seeing the results I flipped the girders upwards (lots of air resistance) yet it was able to lift off (this entire experiment was also done with hacked gravity which made no effect on the 0 thrust). I am really proud of Squad for having these very realistic physics in the game which I can imagine to be a pain (Results from newest release 1.1.2ish I think) Serious JOB WELL DONE! (I don't think physics were this good in the past KSP versions though)

So recently I've started going to other planets in ksp but I haven't been able to get a good periapsis for aerobreaking and always fly off into solar orbit or crash. I was hoping someone could provide a cheat sheet for a good place to put the periapsis for a capture. Ps: I know aerodynamics affect it so just give a range like between 10-20km

Greetings, I've started the clean install with 1.1 and I've got a question - is there a way I can relocate the app launcher bar when in flight mode? Can I move it to the bottom edge of the screen, for example, can it be positioned horizontally, for example? Or is it fixed?

Trying to get the hang of powered vertical landings. Playing Demo. I built a small test craft with eight pre-extended, suspension-locked landing legs and a couple of liquid-fueled engines, put RCS thrusters with plenty of propellant on the capsule up top, and stuck Jeb in it. I launch, navigate to a smooth landing area, and throttle the engines down until I start to drop, then tell Jeb to use RCS to maintain retrograde alignment. Then I just play with the throttle to try and stick the landing. I've gotten a couple of landings, but it's hit or miss (well, I never miss; I just hit too hard). I know how to sit down and calculate out exactly what I need for a true suicide burn, but for landings on the fly, what's the best way to eyeball my altitude and speed to pull it off smoothly?

I *want* to enjoy progressing through career mode, even though my ultimate goal is always simply to unlock all the parts. I crave a reason to slog through the tech tree instead of loading up a sandbox game. Sometimes I think that KSP could offer players like me more satisfaction. In general I would describe these two suggestions as ways to "individualize" each career mode playthrough, so each iteration of the Space Program is more unique. First suggestion: give the player random starting Kerbals, and makes Kerbal stats & roles more important. The idea is to make the player more attached to the employees of their space program. Currently they feel very interchangeable and impersonal. It would be great if (for example), when given a certain contract the player would naturally think "X would be perfect for that mission, but Y isn't really suited for it." To achieve this, give Kerbals randomized personal goals similar to contracts. Fulfill them in order to level up the Kerbals (instead of the old way of leveling up). Jeb wants to be the first Kerbal on Minmus, Bill wants to collect atmospheric data from Eve, etc. Could also include negative goals, such as: Jeb hates flying alone (if you send him alone he won't level up), Bob wants to talk to his kids (he won't level up without an antenna on the craft), etc. Achieving a goal would level up the Kerbal and unlock another goal to be pursued for the next level. (Bonus idea: generate contracts for specific Kerbals based on their achievements: "Have Jeb take tourists to the site of his historic Minmus landing" etc.) My other suggestion is the gradual improvement of parts based on their use in the game. The more often a part is used, the better use your program can make of it. The idea is that these would be very minor improvements to things like mass, Isp, fuel capacity, drag, etc, and they would be randomized so that each playthrough would offer different bonuses. Maybe implement it this way: each part has three phases of use: Phase 1 - Experimental, is a short period in which the part is not being used to its full potential and has randomized deficiencies. A small number of missions that are recovered with the part on board could move it onto Phase 2 - Mass Production, during which the part has "stock" values. It would take a good amount of use and recovery to move onto Phase 3 - Fine Tuned, when the parts are given randomized bonuses. I believe that the career game could feel much more rewarding with something like this implemented. TLDR: the bolded stuff. Maybe it's too ambitious or against the spirit of the game. Maybe it's an awesome idea. I'm just throwing it out there, let me know what you think.

So... it's gotten to the point now where I just sit in the SPH/VAB and stare at the empty craft in front of me going: "What the hell do I build now?" I've been to pretty much every planet and moon, and built so many things... I've just ran into a complete builder's block. This builders block is also the main reason why I've been a bit of a hiatus from KSP. Any ideas or suggestions? I might look at doing progression updates using videos and image albums, perhaps look out for me in the mission control segment soon (totally not self-advertising myself here) Cheers~