Claw

Okay, I didn't say much earlier because I didn't have the time to take proper pictures. Personally, I think you guys are applying a little too much real world physics to KSP. Remember, it's still a simulation. It's subject to finite slices of time and developer coded orders of preference when it comes to physics. (Unlike the real world, where everything happens at the same time on an infinitesimal timeline). So (based on what I know about decouplers) I think what's happening is that the physics for the struts and the decouplers are not being applied at the same time. So the end result is some asymmetric push/pull on the connections. Yes, some level of angles and torque applies, but I think this particular oddity is due to the physics application when the parts are in line. For example, as you'll see in the slides below, I can direct connect the SRBs (surface mount) them to the core fuel tank, then apply a strut at the bottom. This is basically the same design, just less bendy without the decoupler in the way. The rocket flies straight as an arrow. You can substitute other less bendy parts in here and the "turning" effect is less than with a regular decoupler. For the second two pictures, I put the decoupler back but included two struts between each booster and the core fuel tanks. One strut at the top and one at the bottom. If there were true torque, the parts would still twist around the horizontal axis that runs along the SRB/core fuel tank plane. I know that in the pictures the struts are angled, but I tested them flat and angled both directions. I think having two connection points between the SRB and core fuel tank prevents some of the oddities of when physics is applied on each frame. And just to really bake your noodle, give this method a try. This is why I say perhaps too much real physics thought is being applied to this simulation oddity. (Yes, that is just one strut on each SRB.) Just my √0.02 Cheers, ~Claw

Hmm. I have a feeling there's more going on in your save file. You may have to tinker more with the parent docking port too. Are you able to upload it anywhere? If it's not all stock, I would appreciate a screen shot of the craft and some kind of annotation of which is the broken port (if it's not obvious). You can simply right-click on it or highlight it before taking the screenshot. ~Claw

Hi ManofYak, If you don't mind providing just a bit more info, such as which Operating System you are using, if you could post log files, and maybe even post a quicksave? This thread will help you locate some of that info: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92230-Stock-Support-Bug-Reporting-Guide Welcome to the forums! ~Claw

This question is also in the FAQ stickied in this forum. However, there is no need to yell at people for posting a question. That is, after all, a big part of why the forums exist. The game needs some work, pure and simple. If you have a good idea, post it in the suggestions forum. Cheers, and happy kerbaling. -Claw

Yep, most of the old threads have been archived. Your problem sounds familiar, but I'm not a linux user myself. Have you tried checking here? - http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92231-The-Linux-Thread

The [bug] tag has been changed to a moderator selection only due to misunderstanding of it's intended purpose. This is indeed looking like it might be a bug, but I think further investigation will make that clearer. Using this post usually speeds up the process. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92230-Stock-Support-Bug-Reporting-Guide?p=1380978&viewfull=1#post1380978 Cheers, ~Claw

Yes, the launcher seems a bit... dated? I'm not sure when it's due for sprucing up, although I think it was tweaked not that long ago. It still seems to be having problems. Launching KSP directly usually works a lot better. Personally I also like not having auto updates and such, since I like to keep the versions isolated from each other. Seems to cause less havoc when a new version comes out. Cheers, ~Claw

Hi Chrisflynnfreerun, For help with game problems, I'm going to point you at this forum: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/forums/76-Support-%28unmodded-installs%29 And specifically check this thread. It will tell you what kinds of information we need in order to help you out. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92230-Stock-Support-Bug-Reporting-Guide Thanks, and welcome to the forums! ~Claw

Hi XrainMT, I'm going to guess that you are either running out of battery power or you do not have any torque modules installed. Without either of those, your craft is generally uncontrollable in space. Beyond that, we would need to see either pictures or a .craft file in order to help you better. Welcome to the forums! ~Claw

Can you perhaps upload some log files? http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92230-Stock-Support-Bug-Reporting-Guide Cheers, ~Claw

MeCripp, looks like you copied the link text instead of the link itself. Endl, Can you be a bit more clear about what you mean with "i cant get this to fly right with mechjeb"? If you are trying to get it to fly like a plane, there isn't nearly enough wing area and I would guess your CoT/CoM/CoL relationships are all out of alignment. Or is this some kind of sub component that you're attaching to a larger lifter? I think we need a few more details about the intended use. Cheers, ~Claw

It's unfortunate that you consider the offerings of alternatives around your questions as worthless. I suppose if all you were looking for was... Then (as you've defined "fixed") no. Ask and ye shall receive. Further discussions can take place on Micha's suggestion thread. Cheers, ~Claw

Or activate the engine by using Right-Click-Activate. Then stage is later to complete the test. Seems there's all kinds of ways to get the job done.

Yes, I will echo what Kasuha said. Make sure you read the contract. It specifies how to "complete." Additionally, the "test engine X" contracts don't usually require you to have fuel onboard or that it actually runs. Just that you stage or right-click test it. Cheers, -Claw

Hi trickser, We just recently (a little over a week ago) reorganized part of the forums. Google is pointing you toward an old post that has been put into the archives. (And I think the particular post you are trying to view wouldn't help with your situation anyway...) What I recommend is that you check out this forum: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/forums/76-Support-%28unmodded-installs%29 If you're using a modded version of the game, then you'll want to go here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/forums/77-Support-%28modded-installs%29 That's the best place to put in requests for help about the game. You'll also want to check out this sticky thread to see what kind of information we need to help you. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92230-Stock-Support-Bug-Reporting-Guide Rather than trying to ask questions or trouble shoot the problem in this thread, I'm going to leave this information here so you can find it. Then I recommend you post your question (with some screenshots or other needed info) into the support forums. If we try to answer your question in here, it's likely to get forgotten about. Welcome to the forums! ~Claw

Hi JuBarcho, I'm also a fan of building space planes, and I'm hoping SP+ integrates nicely in 0.25. Keep practicing on those VTOLs and you'll get it. Try using rocket VTOLs first, then move to jets (the jets can react a bit slow, so it can be hard to save a bad situation). Welcome to the forums! ~Claw

Hi Logston1, You can abuse the website if you wish, but your post is a bit lacking in any information that would make it possible to help you. Yes, the game has some problems with orbital lines disappearing under certain circumstances. But since it's unclear when or how they are disappearing for you, I'll point you toward some of the stickies in this section. List of fixes for most common issues, broken up by Operating System: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92228-Known-Issues-Self-Help If you can't find the help you need there, then please read this thread. It will tell you what we need in order to help you. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92230-Stock-Support-Bug-Reporting-Guide Welcome to the forums! ~Claw

I believe you can rotate the kerbals using the mouse. The problem is that they hit "the gimbals" and only pitch so far. I find myself doing similar things (such as changing the orientation of the ship pre-EVA) or fiddling with the view to keep from crashing helmet first into the ship's hatch. I haven't really found an elegant solution myself, but I haven't been doing a lot of EVAs lately either... ~Claw

Geschosskopf gives some great advice. I will add on and simply say, go try it! I was a bit slow to try flying multiple mission like that myself until I finally just tried it one day. I learned a lot more about what Geschosskopf is telling you by putting my hands on the problem and seeing how it works. I definitely failed some of the missions because I didn't deconflict the arrival or science times from each other. The big one that took a while to sort out (especially coming back from Mun or Minmus with several ships) is allowing enough time between missions during the aero brake and atmospheric recovery portions. Sometimes that can take a lot of in-game time and you don't want the second ship needing to aerobrake while the first ship is still landing. I also keep a basic list of destinations, objectives, and abilities (equipment/fuel) for each mission so that I don't get confused while hopping around. (Nothing like inserting the wrong probe into the wrong place...) I'd say when I was using Kerbal Alarm, I managed up to 14 simultaneous Munar missions (with manned, unmanned, flybys, orbitals, and landers). That was definitely my max and I certainly can't handle that many without the help of something like Alarm. Go give it a try, and Good Luck! ~Claw

Hey Mykill Metal, Sorry for the delayed response. I tried digging through your save file but it's a bit more difficult because (as I discovered) you are using mods. Not that using them is a bad thing, but I don't know what mods you're using and don't have them installed myself. The names you list help out, but without pictures to envision what your ship looks like, it's hard for me to dig through the save file. From what I see, it's unclear to me if the docking ports are supposed to be attached together, or to something else. They look like they are attached to a central node of docking ports. I'm not sure if you've edited this file already, but they also appear to be attached to the same parent docking port, so that's probably why your ports came undocked strangely. If you have an unedited copy of your save, I would need to see that. Also, because you have mods installed I need to at least see pictures since I can't look at your ship in-game (it makes it a LOT easier to dig through save files). Cheers, ~Claw

If they are surface mounted, my fixes will not work as posted. As I'm sitting here thinking about it, you probably aren't going to get away with a simple edit to convert the surface to node attachment. You'll need to add lines to the docking ports to attach them, since surface attachments don't create an anchor point on the parent part. I also don't know which end is the default node attach, and which end is the surface attach for the I-beam. That can cause problems (as it sounds like you've found). That's because your I-beams are not nodally attached. The game is trying to "fix" what it sees as a broken save file since you told the docking port has something PreAttached, but yet there's nothing attached to its node. At this point, I think it would take less time to build and launch a new ship than to fiddle with the save file (unless you want to learn more about how they are structured). You're not stealing any thunder. We are all here to help out! Roscoe's post was the basis for mine. His is just a bit outdated with recent game changes. Cheers, ~Claw

I would recommend against deleting the I-beams from your save file. Your I-beams will be gone, but you probably won't like the resulting crashes and exploding ships. You can take a look at this thread. You can pick the correct section, depending on exactly how things are broken: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/78863-FIX-Dock-Undocking-Bug-in-0-23-5 Let me know if it's not making sense. Also, make sure you aren't connecting the I-beams to the surface of the docking port, instead of the node. Cheers, Claw EDIT: I see I was ninja'd. The above link to Roscoe's post is similar to the link I posted. I might be a bit biased, but I think my link fills in some of the details missing from Roscoe's post.

If this is all stock, can you upload the save file? (persistence.sfs or quicksave.sfs). I've been seeing this every once in a while too. Although I haven't figured out the cause yet. Welcome to the forums! ~Claw

If your docked item has fine rotation control (such as RCS or torque) by itself, you can undock it, rotate it slightly before it gets too far away, then quicksave/quickload. This resets the docking ports and the magnets will pull it back together. As the magnets pull it together, you can also fiddle with the controls to get it connected very (very) close. (at least in my experience) You can see an example below. Yes, MechJeb is in the picture. No, MJ did not do the docking. I have also built "guides" out of modular girders or cubic struts. They can help with alignment, but can also cause weird problems (clipping and kickback) when docking if you don't handle them nicely. Cheers, ~Claw

Hey mgershovich, We might need a bit more information. Please check out the thread below. It's hard to guess what might be causing it and it helps us out if you can give some more details. (Pictures and a log file might be the best here.) http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92230-Stock-Support-Bug-Reporting-Guide I'm going to guess that you're using something like a science lab or a hitchiker can. Those things don't show the Kerbal's pictures in the bottom right of the screen. So they can sometimes look empty. Click on the hatch to see who's inside. Welcome to the forums! ~Claw