Claw

It's a direct hit...you sank my battle ship! Mayday, mayday. Send in @sal_vager with a lifeboat!

Well, there is no rule against it. It's more about the adventure of doing the trip. I will say that a some of the challenge is in making the design, but the heart of the challenge is doing the trip. I do encourage you to give the designing/testing process a try, but I don't want it to stop you from doing the circumnavigation. So long as your mission meets the other rules, I'm not opposed to borrowing someone else's rover.

I look forward to it.

SoonTM

Twice the lift, so long as you're not stuffing them into a fairing or closed cargo bay. Stock KSP isn't much bothered by clipping into pretty much anything, but they do get shielded by the fairings and cargo bays.

Ah, then that's the issue. This mod and RealChute is incompatible. They don't break each other, but RealChute replaces the stock chutes with it's own modules. This add-on augments the stock module (which isn't there when RealChutes is installed). If FAR is relying on RealChutes, then (by extension) the Parachute Modules in this add-on is no longer compatible with FAR either.

I assume you put them on with symmetry? And there's a deflection angle tweak now too, so try right-clicking to see if that's there (and that it isn't zero). If that doesn't help, please start up the game fresh and get to this point, then upload your log file somewhere I can take a look to see if there's an error.

Try using the imgur button (far right of the format toolbar, looks like an "i" on a black background). Then paste the five letter identifier.

Sounds like KSP was saving right when you closed it. If so, that means one of the saves are now corrupt. Similar to above, except I recommend moving (not deleting) the save directory first to verify that is the problem. Start first with the folder for the save you were playing. You also don't have to restart KSP, just leave it at the start menu. KSP might also give you an error in the debug log, which you can bring up in the debug menu with either ALT+F2 or ALT+F12 (windows). That might tell you which file fails, but I can't remember for sure off hand. Once you confirm thw save, then replace the persistence.sfs with a quicksave as recommended above. I also recommend keeping copies of the save incase you hit another issue and the save gets further messed up.

Thanks, I appreciate that! I keep flip-flopping back and forth between continuing StockPlus, and letting it go. So knowing that people enjoy the little StockPlus additions is good to hear.

All users are allowed to express their opinions in a respectful way, regardless of status. Internal dialog is also important, and you are free to disagree with a moderator even though he/she is a moderator. Again, it's all about respectfulness. And if a moderator is abusing their authority, users are free to report them to other moderators. Be aware, however, that attacking people in baseless manner (moderator or not) is not acceptable. Regardless of all that, Squad is acutely aware of the frustration felt by all players no matter the circumstances of disagreement. In the instance of this thread, Squad is already aware of the frustration and discontent expressed by non-Steam users about the state of pre-release.

I would recommend going here for pre-release info:

This post is about experimentals. For folks on the experimentals team, there is already a process for that sorted out in the experimentals documentation.

I don't know specifically why (that was all decided well before I discovered the game). It is possible to increase the step size (as is done when using physical warp). It really depends on how you define performance (which is sort of what the original post is getting at). But in some ways, yes...Increasing the size of the timestep can increase performance because you have to do less calculations per second of game time. However, that also increases the force on the vessel parts, joints, etc. So increasing the physics time step is not without it's drawbacks. If you've ever had an airplane fold in half while using phys warp, then you'll know what I'm talking about. Yeah. A lot of games (at least historically) tied time passage to the computer's ability to produce graphical frames. So if it took longer to build a graphics frame, the gameplay still moved along at some rate. That's why "moar FPS is better." But since KSP is physics driven, moar FPS isn't always a pure measure of performance.

This bug doesn't exist anymore in stock KSP (for kerbals anyway). You might have to be a little more specific about your issue (what you're seeing), or perhaps start a new thread so we can help you properly.

No, it can't, nor can a physics frame interrupt a gameplay frame. And while the game tracks how much time has passed, it generally doesn't matter which frame it's on except for some specific cases like physics hold (where physics onset is delayed until elements of the game are loaded). That's a good question. Off the top of my head I believe it does carry over fractional numbers...but really I would need to go check to see if the game does indeed carry over. So don't quote me on that one just yet.

I don't know why 0.03 is the lowest setting, but the lowest setting practical setting is 0.02. There's no reason to go below this, because the game is already fixed at a physics timestep of 0.02. So the game would calculate physics and check to see that 0.02 (or some smaller amount of time) has passed. So having 0.01 or 0.00000001 wouldn't matter because at least 0.02 seconds have passed. A setting of 0.02 (or less) basically means you are telling KSP you want to see a gameplay frame after each physics frame no matter what. So if the game is running really slowly, you'll still see a gameplay frame for every physics frame, unlike a setting of 0.04 where you would see a gameplay frame per every 2 physics frames. Or a setting of 0.12 where you'd see one gameplay frame for every 6 physics frames.

Thanks! They took a lot longer than I expected, but (I think) came out pretty well considering that's the first badge of any kind that I've made. At least I had a good example to start from.

I haven't seen it, but I will have to go look. Hopefully someday soon I'll finish my combined Jool5 / Elcano mission. (It's close, but delayed for...reasons...) (Also, side note, the water badges for Kerbin and Jool are now posted! Along with the new Master Mariner badge.)

@Speeding Mullet Nice job on Minmus, and that rover is pretty fancy. I love seeing the detail work people put in on these things. Good luck! Every time I do one of these, I ask myself "what am I thinking?" But when it's done, it was a neat trip. I've also managed to update all the land based badges. I am still working on the prop and wreath badges. I think Minmus is my favorite looking badge so far. Here you go, @Speeding Mullet --------->

Nice job! That's quite a fantastic rover design.

There are five badges back up... (hooray!) More to come as I get a bit of time, but now that I have the template done the rest should be easier. (Still have to work on the prop badges.)

I'm not sure, though I'd also like to get to the bottom of that one (it annoys the heck out of me too).

Okay. I know I still have to update the front page with the most recent addition, but I spent time today and made a thing. It's not exactly like it was, but now I can get the badges back up.

Some of that is unavoidable due to how KSP calculates orbits. It's especially bad if you have a ship that's maneuvering and is susceptible to wobble. Also, there's a "barrier" of sorts at 100km around Kerbin. If a ship is in orbit below that altitude, the orbit will tend to wobble more than when it's above 100km. Other planets have similar phenomena, but LKO is usually where it gets noticed most.