Search the Community

This one is very straight to the point: in science and adventure mode allow for upgrades to runway / launch pad to improve maximum supported vessel weight and height (keep using weight / height as a progression limit), but please remove the VAB / SPH limitations regarding the maximum number of parts. It is an outdated KSP1 idea for slowing progression and mostly applies to fuel tanks and wings. It does not make sense to artificially limit craft complexity even at lower tech levels and also consider that with the introduction of procedural wings and hopefully length-step-wise procedural tanks, most part duplicates are removed from design anyway. Also, vessel weight overlaps with the parts count if we consider number of boosters. Progression is also slowed down by the tech tree, by the wobbly rocket mechanic (lack of struts), by the craft diameter, by the need to discover celestial bodies, by the lack of a comms relay network and by the amount of resources available etc. The parts count limitation is no longer needed and could be replaced with a system of progression regarding number of assemblies in a workspace or number of stages (or whatever else, it's not my aim to propose an alternative). PS: And I don't like the fact that we have to modify our first stage / booster subassemblies when we unlock longer fuel tanks just to get the part count down because previously we used 12 short tanks instead of just 3. Fuel tanks should really be procedural length-step-wise and all lengths for a certain diameter should unlock on the same tech tree node. Please streamline this, we have enough to worry about in the game!

In my Orbit world [production], I currently have 283 flights in progress. The quicksaves are taking longer (naturally) and I have to monitor memory (only ~8GB) and restart KSP when memory usage heads toward swap territory (running KSP 1.3.1 on Linux Mint 18.2). Switching between vessels seems to be what grows memory -- not so much operating them. What I'd really like to know is: what's the practical upper limit to # of flights one can have (depending upon memory available) what's the biggest number anyone has running? I'm simply doing some forward planning here. Will I eventually need to ration flights? My (old) motherboard has its max memory already so, clearly, a new computer (yay!) is in the future. I note that the debris clean-up limit goes up to 10,000: can this mean that 10K vessels is actually a possibility??

Apologies if in the wrong area for this. i was wondering two things. Why don't the landing legs have deploy limit options? Additionally, I attempted to add a line into the landing gear cfg, but it appears it made no difference. So where would I add this it if possible at all? Also would it be possible to add in a min as well as a max deployment.

Well, turns out in RSS Venus Surface is well beyond 4000Kpa atmo pressure, so I can't land anything stock on it, without imploding at about 14km high. As far I can see everything has a 4000Kpa pressure limit. Any ideas? any mod that has parts with greater limits? I don't want to turn off this setting tho... I'm happy to read you!! AK

Hello everyone I'm currently playing on a modded version with both ETT and KSPI and noticed that the usual research limits hardly apply here. Some of what we know as basics of midgame research are unavailble because they cost more than 550, which is severe in a tech tree that puts the upper 60% of tech at 550-10k science cost. The research limit of 500 thus really cripples my progress. I have already tried looking around for a way to change the limits, but found non, so here's my question to the community: does anyone know any way to change the limits of buildings?

What happens when I rescue more Kerbals than my astronaut complex is rated to hold? I'm at my max of 12, and I have three or four rescue contracts underway... Do I get to keep them if I bring them down, or must I upgrade my facility to keep them? I don't want to lose valuable engineers/scientists this way. -Khorso

Ever since I updated to version 1.2, KSP seems to be a bit more laggy than before... Using a vanilla install (64 bit) I hardly ever get above the 30 FPS. This is kinda annoying. Are any of you guys experiencing the same issue? Is there a way to solve this? My set-up is: CPU: I5 4690 (3.5 GHz) RAM: 16gb DDR3 GPU GTX 970 OS: Win 10 Storage: SSHD

Many of you by know probably know what the Roche Limit is, if not, then here is a quick definition. The Roche Limit is the minimum distance from a parent body a satellite can orbit without being pulled apart by tidal forces. What this means is that if, for instance, the moon were to decay into an orbit within its Earth-Moon Roche Limit, it would be torn apart by Earth's gravity and be turned into rings (kinda like Saturn). For me, this is where the confusion starts. I've seen two different formulae regarding the Roche Limit and they are (in terms of mass): Rigid Satellite: d = 1.26Rm(MM/Mm)^1/3 Fluid Satellite: d ~= 2.44Rm(MM/Mm)^1/3 d = distance, Rm = radius of satellite, MM = mass of parent, Mm = mass of satellite Now, first of all, I realize that the Moon acts as a fluid satellite rather than a rigid one; no idea as to why though. The thing that interests me the most after running the numbers to discover that the Earth-Moon Roche Limit is ~18,500km is the question; what would the thickness of the ring be? My initial instinct would be that the inner limit of the ring would be defined by the first equation I provided while the outer limit would be defined by the second. Nevertheless,I'm sure that all you smarty-pants people will be able to figure this out, but also let me know if there is something that I'm missing or anything I got wrong. This is literally all I know about the Roche Limit .