• 7
Tex_NL

FAQ. Those that need it don't read it. Those that read it don't need it.

Question

Oops, did I just fizzle that? You bet your sweet tail I did. Since those that need it don't read it and those that read it don't need it this FAQ no longer serves any function.

It's going, going. GONE!

Edited by Tex_NL
  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 2

Q: Is Mechjeb cheating?
A: The object of the game is to enjoy it. If you enjoy the game more using mechjeb, do so. If you enjoy the game more by not using it, don't use it. Don't let anyone tell you what the "true" way of playing KSP is!

Q: I'd love to use mods, but that's not the way Squad intended it to be played, right?
A: Did you notice the weekly showcase of mods by Squad on Modding Monday? The mods are there to enhance the game as you see fit!

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1

In order to zoom in and out on a Mac laptop you need to go into settings and then input game and scroll down to the zoom section then just change the keyboard button. No one seems to answer this question adequately,but there you go. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Two excellent examples. I'll add them to the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Q: Why is it so hard to make a shuttle?

A: Because shuttles are really, really hard.  One of the hardest things to build in KSP.  There are all sorts of off-centre thrust issues to cope with, which change quite radically as the SRBs then main tank separate.  There are also lots of drag/lift problems with wings on a rocket.  Almost any other way to get to orbit can be designed, built and flown more easily and efficiently in KSP.

 

Q: Can you make a rocket as efficient as a SSTO?

A: Yes; build a rocket that uses a Single Stage to get To Orbit.  It is exactly as efficient as a SSTO.  It IS a SSTO.  Spaceplanes aren't efficient because they are spaceplanes, they are efficient because they use air-breathing engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

@Pecan
I removed some double spacing and did some minor grammar corrections and added yours to the list.

Keep those questions and answers coming guys and soon I'll have to start sorting them into categories. :rolleyes:

Edited by Tex_NL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
35 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:

@Pecan
I removed some double spacing and did some minor grammar corrections ...

If only I could stop the software double line-spacing all the time :-(

"SRBs" is a plural, not a possessive, so has no apostrophe.  Not sure about 'spaceplane' for my second Q but it's your list *grin*.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I would add that the other part that makes a space plane efficient is that you get all of it's parts refunded after landing (assuming it's a brilliant landing — not merely a good one you walk away from, but an exceptional one where you keep the plane in one piece!) as opposed to all those expensive rocket parts you dump in the ocean. Of course, if you land your SSTO rocket (in one piece) that argument is moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Good stuff!
An additional answer to:

Q: My rover rolls over on low gravity planets/moons.
A: Right-click all reaction wheels and toggle them off.

 

On the memory question, 3.8GB is really high. The windows version dies at about 3.3-3.4GB on average, and the OSX version at only about 3GB. And please don't recommend an unsupported hack as a workaround, too. :) Instead, why not suggest using -force-opengl on PC, which reduces RAM usage dramatically?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I disagree regarding mach effects, or at least define "low atmosphere" differently. I have a TWR starting at about 1.5 usually and gradually gravity turn my way to orbit Not only do I see mach effects, I see FLAMES most of the time :D Though for a beginner having troubles, I suppose keeping it slower can help flipping.

Q: Do I have to bring those science experiments back? I left them on the Mun and didn't get credit for reading them. If you have Astronaut Complex 2, you can get out of your ship. Once outside, get near the experiment and then right-click it, and remove the experiment. Then get back in the ship and the experiment will be stored. You can also run the experiment again. Doing this over and over can get you a lot more science on a mission than you were getting before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The question about rockets flipping could use a "long answer" in addition the existing short answer. For example this:

Drag pushes the rocket backward, while inertia keeps it going forward (along with thrust). The different parts of the rocket provide different amounts of drag and inertia: heavy parts provide more inertia while wings, airbrakes, and parachutes provide more drag. Since engines are heavy, their inertia will cause that part of the rocket to continue forward, while the drag on the rest of the rocket will pull it backward. Once the rocket tilts, this causes it to be forced into an orientation where the heavier end points forward - in this case, upside down. This is a real problem rockets have to deal with. The simplest solution is to add parts that provide a lot of drag (wings or airbrakes) at the back end near the engines. If this is not enough, even with careful flying, use the right-click menu to disable fuel in the tanks near the front until the tanks near the back are nearly empty, so as to keep the weight of the fuel near the front of the rocket and due to the above physical effects keep it pointed the right way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 9/12/2015 16:44:41, Tex_NL said:

Q: Even at over 100m/s my plane won't take off before the end of the runway.

Another possible answer : If your center of lift is too far behind your center of mass, the control surfaces' effectiveness will be greatly reduced, to a point where their input won't be enough to keep the aircraft at the desired attitude (not specific to takeoff). Possible solutions are repositioning the lift surfaces to adjust the CoL's location, increase the control surfaces' deflection angle or size, or addition of canards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 12/9/2015, 2:44:41, Tex_NL said:

Q: My plane violently veers off the runway. Why?
A1: Your landing gear is misaligned. Make sure you don't have any toe-in or toe-out.
A2: You are wheelbarrowing. Too much lift too far behind the centre of mass (CoM). The tail of your plane is lifted off the ground before the nose and it starts to fall over making it steer either left or right.

Missing an "f" in off there.

Also, A2 explains the issue I've frequently run into, and never did fully resolve.  I knew about all the others, except for that.  Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
9 hours ago, Kerbart said:

I would add that the other part that makes a space plane efficient is that you get all of it's parts refunded after landing (assuming it's a brilliant landing — not merely a good one you walk away from, but an exceptional one where you keep the plane in one piece!) as opposed to all those expensive rocket parts you dump in the ocean. Of course, if you land your SSTO rocket (in one piece) that argument is moot.

Indeed, there are a few reasons for using SSTO rockets but the major ones are i) simplest way to orbit, ii) 98% refund for easy parachute-assisted landing 'near' KSC or - possibly - 100% on the runway (or landing-pad, but that's particularly difficult).  I wouldn't bother to launch a SSTO rocket if I didn't expect to get it back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

@Pecan I added the 'spaceplane' part to your question in order to clearly differentiate between SSTO spaceplanes and SSTO rockets. Often people just says SSTO when they actually mean SSTO spaceplane.
(You can avoid double line-spacing with Shift-Enter)

@Kerbart Good point. I'll add it.

@NathanKell Thanks. You might be correct about not referring to  the hacked 64bits version. Your -force-opengl suggestion would indeed be better.
I'll add your rover answer too.

Edited by Tex_NL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Started sorting the Q&A's and added yet a few more.

@5thHorseman My apologies. I missed your a contribution in the update. It has now been added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Q: what is the official name of the kerbal currency?

A: it's called Funds as in "the rocket costs 100,000 funds"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Q: what is the official name of the kerbal currency?

A: it's called Funds as in "the rocket costs 100,000 funds"

Good one. Added it to "KSP in general".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Q: I don't understand why the game doesn't include [feature x]. It would be so much better with it!
A: There is an entire sub forum dedicated to suggestions. However, make sure your request is not included in the list of features already suggested, or on the do not suggest list. Keep in mind that being on the do not suggest list doesn't mean it won't be implemented; female Kerbals were on that list, for instance. It just means that Squad is aware of these requests but cannot guarantee such a request would be implemented or even entertained. Also, while stock might not offer your feature, it's very likely that there's a mod for it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Q: I don't understand why the game doesn't include [feature x]. It would be so much better with it!
A: There is an entire sub forum dedicated to suggestions. However, make sure your request is not included in the list of features already suggested, or on the do not suggest list. Keep in mind that being on the do not suggest list doesn't mean it won't be implemented; female Kerbals were on that list, for instance. It just means that Squad is aware of these requests but cannot guarantee such a request would be implemented or even entertained. Also, while stock might not offer your feature, it's very likely that there's a mod for it!

Browsing through today's topics I found at least half a dozen threads that could have inspired this addition. I might slightly edit it a bit but I am definitely adding this one to the list. Not right now as I have more urgent real life things to take care of but it WILL be added.

Edit: It has been added.

Edited by Tex_NL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Suggestion:

Q: Why don't my SSTO spaceplanes get into orbit?

A: You might not have enough fuel, or too much weight, only 1 tank of jet fuel per 2 ramjets/RAPIERs is necessary. In terms of speed, you want to fly at a 10-25 degree angle until you reach about 800m/s and are at 10km, then tilt up to 30 degrees until you are at 25 km. You should then accelerate until you reach 1km/s (1,000m/s)-1.2km/s, before pitching to 25-35 degrees again. This should kick you into orbital velocity, from then on it is up to you to circularise at the desired altitude.

Feel free to edit my answer, hope this helps your guide. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Excellent idea Tex!   " How come I can't go to all the planets and moons and come back to kerban with one ship?!?"

Edited by SpacedCowboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Q: My computer has X cores, yet KSP runs at a low framerate. What's going on?

A: Until the 1.1 update comes out, KSP physics are still single threaded. This means that you can only use one out of the X cores you have. More cores will end up meaning you are using a smaller fraction of your processing power. 

Hopefully somewhat useful.

Edited by Sanic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.