The KSP 1.0 Grand Discussion Thread: Conquering Space Was Never This Easy!

[Heart Under the Mountain]

Conquering space got a whole lot harder. My entire fleet beyond Kerbin atmosphere (probes, orbital and land based stations, fuel bulkers, return ships, etc) is equipped with atomic engines. Since update the engines keep blowing up the parts connected to them. The engines then float off into space leaving my ships crippled. This radiating heat destroys connected parts even if the Atomic engine isn't at it's critical heat point. I've tried using the new heat shields on a couple ship builds, and this does seem to buy a little more time with their higher heat tolerance, but eventually their coolant runs out and they stop working.

Need more cooling options and some higher heat tolerant parts added to remedy this issue.

[Temeter]

Conquering space got a whole lot harder. My entire fleet beyond Kerbin atmosphere (probes, orbital and land based stations, fuel bulkers, return ships, etc) is equipped with atomic engines. Since update the engines keep blowing up the parts connected to them. The engines then float off into space leaving my ships crippled. This radiating heat destroys connected parts even if the Atomic engine isn't at it's critical heat point. I've tried using the new heat shields on a couple ship builds, and this does seem to buy a little more time with their higher heat tolerance, but eventually their coolant runs out and they stop working.

Need more cooling options and some higher heat tolerant parts added to remedy this issue.

It's not a huge issue, you just need to design your crafts to spread as much as possible heat. Don't necessarily neet wings as heatsinks, tanks can keep a huge amount of heat. Still a challenge, but one which is possible to solve.

Otherwise use this mod to dramatically lower LV-N heat:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/117890-LV-N-Temperature-Adjustment-Module-(29-4-15)

And here the thermal helper adds an easy to reach option for the debug menu's heat saturation/context menu, makes it easier to understand heat flow and shows temperatures:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/117893-1-0-regex-s-Useful-Mod-Emporium

[Commander Jebidiah]

Did Squad work eith the UK Space Agency on this release? I noticed a UKSA Flag in the Flag Folder.

[Potterus]

I wasn't a fan of the new aerodynamics at first due to a number of rockets spinning out of control during gravity turns, but when I unlocked basic plane parts at tier 3 and took a jet for a test flight I was bowled over - so much more fun than it used to be! Kudos Squad!

[Bekiekutmoar]

I haven't downloaded 1.0 yet due to busy real-life and because I never download a version immediately after initial release due to bugs to be ironed out (perfectly normal in my opinion, the first cars of a certain model aren't well known as reliable either).

But anyway, apart from bugs this update sounds pretty decent and logical; the more realistic aero-model would make getting to LKO with pre-1.0 engines too easy, so I'm all behind the severe nerfing of engines. Though I can throw my carefully designed Eve-Lander out of the window now. Cheap solar panels cannot be retracted again? Nice, adds extra challenge and thought to missions.

[Rokmonkey]

In what feels like complete contrast to the general forum consensus, I am very much enjoying KSP 1.0.

At first I was putting my head through the wall when my rockets were going nuts off the launchpad even though I'd played using FAR for years. I adapted and relearned new techniques that work for me, until I figured out the best way. It's like a whole new game. I did have to start putting in my old mods though, KER, KAC, Alternate Resource Panel, a lot of the informational and UI mods. Hell even career mode is great, I like it better than before, although I will admit that very beginning bit, right before doing a fly-by of the Mun was a bit of a slight grind, but I probably wasn't doing it right and if I went back now it wouldn't be there.

[monstah]

Well, I was used to FAR, so I know why my rockets flip out and can adress the situation.

I cannot, however, for THE LOVE OF GOD, launch anything without SAS. Some people say "my rockets fly themselves, I just pitch over 5 and let go of the keyboard", and I truly can't believe what they're saying! Sure, my lower stage might have some fins to keep it prograde, but as soon as it is decoupled, chaos reigns, unless I'm flying SAS and pitching down manually.

[Wjolcz]

Well, I was used to FAR, so I know why my rockets flip out and can adress the situation.

I cannot, however, for THE LOVE OF GOD, launch anything without SAS. Some people say "my rockets fly themselves, I just pitch over 5 and let go of the keyboard", and I truly can't believe what they're saying! Sure, my lower stage might have some fins to keep it prograde, but as soon as it is decoupled, chaos reigns, unless I'm flying SAS and pitching down manually.

Yep. Flying early career unmanned mission with stayputnik can be a nightmare sometimes.

[HW_Hack]

Haven't played in a couple months ........... now its stuck in Checking for Updates ....... flashing over and over ........ not even sure a download is happening ...... is this normal for 32b Linux ??? Anyone out there man ............

[Alshain]

I cannot, however, for THE LOVE OF GOD, launch anything without SAS. Some people say "my rockets fly themselves, I just pitch over 5 and let go of the keyboard", and I truly can't believe what they're saying! Sure, my lower stage might have some fins to keep it prograde, but as soon as it is decoupled, chaos reigns, unless I'm flying SAS and pitching down manually.

Without analog controls, I agree, you must fly with SAS. If you have a gamepad or flight stick it is much more possible to fly without SAS.

[Rokmonkey]

Well, I was used to FAR, so I know why my rockets flip out and can adress the situation.

I cannot, however, for THE LOVE OF GOD, launch anything without SAS. Some people say "my rockets fly themselves, I just pitch over 5 and let go of the keyboard", and I truly can't believe what they're saying! Sure, my lower stage might have some fins to keep it prograde, but as soon as it is decoupled, chaos reigns, unless I'm flying SAS and pitching down manually.

I just read a youtube comment that may help both you, I and everyone else with the Flipping rockets. The cause of course is that the CoM is moving backwards and maybe even behind the CoL (They really need to change that to the correct CoP) when the fuel drains and your later stages are far too light. Now, we use fins to pull the CoL down far, but instead try putting in an Upper stage to boost out of the upper atmosphere. That way when the fuel drains the top of the rocket is till heavy, basically making your payload much heavier. Does that wording make sense? Smaller first stage, augmented by an upper stage instead of one big first stage. That way the CoM will always be up front.

As the fuel drains out of a single stage rocket you are left with a heavy engine at the back, and a heavy payload at the front. If the masses are close or of the right size based on everything else about the rocket (dimensions, lifting/drag surfaces etc.) The CoM moves behind the CoL!

[Spartwo]

Da da dadada

Nukes are fixed.

[RocketPilot573]

is the patcher working? I get an error about "malformed data from the server."

[KasperVld]

If the patcher isn't working for you, please download the update from the website

[Darnok]

I just read a youtube comment that may help both you, I and everyone else with the Flipping rockets. The cause of course is that the CoM is moving backwards and maybe even behind the CoL (They really need to change that to the correct CoP) when the fuel drains and your later stages are far too light. Now, we use fins to pull the CoL down far, but instead try putting in an Upper stage to boost out of the upper atmosphere. That way when the fuel drains the top of the rocket is till heavy, basically making your payload much heavier. Does that wording make sense? Smaller first stage, augmented by an upper stage instead of one big first stage. That way the CoM will always be up front.

As the fuel drains out of a single stage rocket you are left with a heavy engine at the back, and a heavy payload at the front. If the masses are close or of the right size based on everything else about the rocket (dimensions, lifting/drag surfaces etc.) The CoM moves behind the CoL!

So that is why first large rocket were made as 3 stages.

If the patcher isn't working for you, please download the update from the website

Where I can read about changes?

[HafCoJoe]

If the patcher isn't working for you, please download the update from the website

Is it wierd if I always download without the patcher?

[RocketPilot573]

I know this probably is just an accident, but kinda funny.

[Red Iron Crown]

Is it wierd if I always download without the patcher?

Nope. The patcher has given me nothing but trouble, it's complete download every time.

[RocketPilot573]

Nope. The patcher has given me nothing but trouble, it's complete download every time.

Same here, but I expected it to work for a little bug fix patch.

[scharlesc]

Frankly this game stinks now. I don;t have a single rocket all of which worked beautifully in .9 that does not tip early immediately of as I ascend. The yaw controls do not work properly neither does SAS. It does not respond to the controls and I cannot stop the tipping. Very frustrating. If they don;t fix this I'm sadly finished with Kerbal. I watched Manley's video and frankly I can;t understand how he was able to control his rocket. None of mine are presently controllable. Also the extensive space station I built can no longer be flown since when I go to mission control and highlight it and the fly button never lights. they ruined this game frankly.

[monstah]

Without analog controls, I agree, you must fly with SAS. If you have a gamepad or flight stick it is much more possible to fly without SAS.

You're so right, and this never even occured to me. I keep tapping S gently (I was never a hardcore flight sim player, so I always invert W/S in my setups for these games), but a flight stick must be SO much better. I'm thinking of building one of those crazy Arduino contraptions I saw in another topic around here, with switches and indicators and such.

I just read a youtube comment that may help both you, I and everyone else with the Flipping rockets. The cause of course is that the CoM is moving backwards and maybe even behind the CoL (They really need to change that to the correct CoP) when the fuel drains and your later stages are far too light. Now, we use fins to pull the CoL down far, but instead try putting in an Upper stage to boost out of the upper atmosphere. That way when the fuel drains the top of the rocket is till heavy, basically making your payload much heavier. Does that wording make sense? Smaller first stage, augmented by an upper stage instead of one big first stage. That way the CoM will always be up front.

As the fuel drains out of a single stage rocket you are left with a heavy engine at the back, and a heavy payload at the front. If the masses are close or of the right size based on everything else about the rocket (dimensions, lifting/drag surfaces etc.) The CoM moves behind the CoL!

It does make sense, but I don't think that's my case.

First try (still aiming for around 4000-ish m/s which was oldFAR + my sloppy ascent margin) was a Thumper 1st + Hammer 2nd (those nicknames do come in handy!), with a Terrier on payload. It's a simple temperature + orbit science contract probe, the payload should circularize itself. My problem came as soon as the Hammer kicked in, and putting fins on it seems silly and dangerous on launch.

Then I read the topic where people say they're able to go up in as little as 1800m/s in new stock aero, so after experimenting with the dV I switch the Terrier's fuel tank for a slightly larger one and drop the Hammer entirely, and still have margin for my sloppy skills. Now my second stage (which is now also the last) fires up higher, at around 25000, since I can lower the thrust on the first stage a little and let it burn longer.

Some posts say air is pretty thin up there already, but I still flip a lot. This second setup does maintain control for a while (the Hammer one just went bonkers, no matter what TWR I tried), but as soon as it's 2 deg off prograde it's already a nightmare to keep it stable.

But as Alshain said, maybe flight stick? Also, need to work on my ascent profile.

With SAS on I have no trouble putting things up, although I'm nowhere near 1800m/s efficiency. I just wanted to be able to launch a few hands-off rockets, on FAR I did fairly better.

[BudgetHedgehog]

I don;t have a single rocket all of which worked beautifully in .9 that does not tip early immediately of as I ascend.

Yeah, that's what a completely wrong errordynamics model will do - you need to relearn everything about aerodynamics that stock 0.90 and before taught you. Pretty much every single craft built before 1.0 will have aerodynamic issues (unless you used FAR etc) because there simply was no reward to making it aerodynamic. Of course, I don't care if you quit the game, but if you want to learn, you just need to make your rocket look like a rocket. Streamlined, tall, thin and with no major sticky out bits, it's that simple. No university degree in aerodynamics required.

Also, if you don't understand how Scott controlled his vessel, that doesn't mean they ruined the game, it means that you don't know how to control vessels (to be blunt). I used FAR from 0.23 onwards and the new stock aero is completely intuitive and fun to fly in and I've had zero issues that I didn't understand the cause of (I've had a few flips, but I know that's because my AoA was too high).

Squad didn't ruin the game, they fixed it. A bit later than I'd have liked, but fixed it all the same. Don't like it? Keep playing with 0.90 soup.

[basic.syntax]

The yaw controls do not work properly neither does SAS. It does not respond to the controls and I cannot stop the tipping. Very frustrating.

It was a hard game in .90, and the changes may make it seem a lot harder in 1.0. SAS may seem to jerk you around or overcompensate b/c of increased gimbal range on rocket engines; this can be adjusted in flight when it becomes a problem, by right-clicking on the engine and decreasing the gimbal range percentage.

Flying is harder due to drag effects pulling on you. Make gradual turns, sharp ones can get you in trouble. If you've been flying at max thrust, try going slower. Take a look at this advice thread, the aerodynamics stuff may help, and many other questions and answers are scattered through it.

[LameLefty]

Okay, can someone 'plain it to me? Bearing in mind I've been playing with FAR for a year and have an undergraduate degree in aerospace engineering:

1.Build a sounding rocket - Mk. 1 capsule, parachute, heat shield, antenna.

2. Launch it to ~100km apogee and get Science!â„¢, satisfy early contracts, etc.

3. Destroy parachute by re-entry heating even though capsule itself is fine ... (...???)

4. Plummet to horrible death.

Is this by design?

[BudgetHedgehog]

3. Destroy parachute by re-entry heating even though capsule itself is fine ... (...???)

Don't deploy the chute so early. Wait until all the re-entry flames have disappeared to deploy it.

(presuming KSP 1.0.2)