Claw

No, there was no KSP update recently (i.e., no change since 1.0.4 came out). I would love to say it's uncommon, but I've seen quite a few times where KSP suddenly starts crashing, and a video driver update causes problems. Try rolling back your driver a version and see if that helps. Cheers, -Claw

Great! And that's not coming from one of mine. I'd say a science mod is a good guess. Although it could be a mod interaction issue also. Narrowing it down by removing mods could be helpful, but I would copy KSP first and fiddle in the copy (to not break your primary). Thanks for the feedback. That's pretty easy to do. I can arrange that. Cheers, -Claw

I'm not seeing this on my system, but I am intrigued. I do recall seeing lag similar to what is in the video, but I can't produce that lag on demand through launching a rocket or sending a kerbal EVA. Perhaps you can provide a few more details so we can try to narrow some of this down. Can you guys tell us what version of KSP you are running? And tell us a bit about your systems (processor, video card, ram, etc...) Also, are you on a laptop or desktop? Cheers, ~Claw

Before you guys hijack the thread further with debates... The way KSP models fuel tanks is indeed the fact that the fuel mass is distributed equally within the fuel tank. The CoM of a given fuel tank does not shift downward as fuel drains. This is a separate issue from where the CoM of the craft moves, which will be dependent upon the craft configuration. That being said, the above posted picture, repeated here, is the truth of the matter with the lego style fuel tanks in KSP. An even better way to demonstrate this is to do the same thing without the engine attached, since having an attached engine changes the results. Plop down a single FL-T800 and tweak the fuel up and down. Then compare to a stack of FL-T100s emptying from top to bottom, and where the CoM is lowest. This is a typical cause of early rocket instability (in KSP), and why fins are often needed. There are many ways around this (some of which are already stated), but I request that you guys focus on helping the new player with his or her specific problem, rather than getting into technical debates inside a request for help. (There's this forum, Development Discussion, and even Science Labs for technical discussion.) Cheers, ~Claw

The drag numbers in the part.cfg file is meaningless in the new aero. Also, we might need to take this elsewhere, so we don't hijack the thread. I think what would help us answer your question is if you can show some pictures or, even better, provide craft files and a description of what exactly feels different. Or at least be a little more specific about which FAT and what measure of performance you are using. That would allow us to answer your specific question without diving into the wrong technical details. Cheers, -Claw

In that case, I'll move this where it might get better attention. Cheers, -Claw

In that case, it it still producing the errors (but no crash)? You can open the debug dialogue to watch (MOD+F12). Also, sal is much more the expert on Linux, so there might be more to it. I just know this bug has hit other Linux users and also shows up in Windows. It's just that the windows error doesn't cause a crash, and the error often stops (for that craft) after launch and revert. But the 32 vs 64-bit thing at least explains to me why it's only some folks. Cheers, -Claw

Yeah, sorry. The lif equation I mentioned is the one that Nich posted. KSP looks up Cl and Cd values, then uses the standard lift equation (rearranged) to calculate lift. I'll be interested in seeing a graph if you make one. Because lift isn't actually a V^2 lift model, due to the Cl(Mach) curves. So you might have to make a curve for Cl(Alpha) and keep Mach constant, then do the same for Cl(Mach). Or create an indes od Cl(Alpha) curves at different Mach values. As RIC said, the actual wing shape doesn't matter for lift generation. KSP uses a simplified model which does one basic thing: makes planes built and flown in usual situations fly like you would expect. So if you build a long wing glider and fly it around slow, it flies like a glider. If you build a supersonic jet, it flies like a supersonic jet when zipping around at high speeds. This system is quite simple and works well for most cases that (as RIC said) rely on notional flight for a game focused on space. The pitfall to this system is that you can get "unrealistic" behavior in the sense that it's possible to build a fighter looking plane with enough lift that it still glides pertty well at low speeds. Or build a glider that you can get up to Mach 2 with enough thrust. There are also other things that come into play, like Moments of Inertia and other physics bits that affect how some big wings might make a plane respond vs. a differently shaped wing of similar lift rating. Such as long wings at high speeds are also vulnerable to wing twisting and roll reversal. So, in that sense, wing shape still matters. Cheers, -Claw

You'll have to upload the picture somewhere (like imgur.com). Imgur will let you drag the picture file from the folder directly into the web browser, then click Upload. After it uploads, copy the link from that page and paste it here. Cheers, -Claw

This is a known issue for some Linux users. (It's actually a problem in windows too, but only log spams and doesn't crash.) There is no stock fix or workaround for this right now, except the obvious "don't use parachutes." You might be able to flush this out by launching a craft without a parachute, then revert to the editor and add one on. I doubt this will work, but I don't have linux to verify. If you aren't opposed to add-ons, you can download my StockBugFix add-on which fixes this issue. Specifically, you are looking for ModuleParachuteFix. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/97285 Cheers, -Claw

On this subject, I had bugged Fengist previously about using my own StockBugFixes in conjunction with this challenge. He successfully convinced me that the only real way about it is "stock is stock, and if you add things to the GameData folder or fiddle with the physics settings, it's not pure stock anymore." There are simply too many add-ons to keep up with. While I definitely find it frustrating watching my kerbals ragdoll in their seats, and my wheels to break if I click on them, I have also come to agree with Fengist that there's really no way to keep a list of mods that are "okay to qualify as stock." As such, I even uninstalled my own add-ons for this challenge. Although I'm a nearly all stock player to begin with, so I suppose I don't feel like I'm missing much. I know he's trying to be generous and let people have their fun, but personally I agree that if you want that coveted Stock title, it comes with a certain level of pain. (Believe me...I forgot how often kerbals ragdoll while in seats, even in a boat on the water...) Just my personal two cents, but this is Fengist's challenge so he's definitely the king on this subject for Elcano. Cheers, -Claw - - - Updated - - - Nice job. That looks pretty sweet (I've not built an airship like that before). Looking forward to seeing your journey.

As posted above, the firing kerbal bug was fixed. Also, based on your linked post, it's definitely a different bug. It definitely sounds like a mod interaction issue, and (unfortunately) one I'm not familiar with. Those look more like StockPlus options, since they are not fixing bugs. Are you proposing adding a link to the OP, or actual inclusion into the BugFix download? I tend to try not to replicate or undercut other peoples work. Cheers, -Claw

The big thing will likely be wheels. Beyond that, it doesn't (yet) sound like anything else will break saves or craft. What's still unclear is how the addition of a comm network will effect existing missions. Cheers, ~Claw

Version 1.0.4c.2 - Fixes the LaunchClampFix NREs in the editor - Added a (Plus) feature that disables airbrake movement/deployment in space (similar to the flight controls) - Added another overheat case This could be arranged, but I think TweakableEverything has this too. Excellent! It's only a partial fix, but glad to hear it's helping some people. Yes, someone reported this. I saw where I messed up, but didn't realize how prolific it was. So thank you for uploading a log file (or explaining the magnitude of the problem). It is now fixed in 1.0.4c.2. Cheers, ~Claw

That is probably just the aero effects, rather than actual drag. Although you can check by bringing up the ALT+F12 menu and going to the Physics tab. You can turn on the aero overlay and the "aero data in action menus" (adds info to the right-click menu) options and see what that's showing you. Cheers, ~Claw

It looks like you've accomplished the "root part" and "merge" steps correctly, although it's hard to tell if the green sphere is on the lander's docking port. But, I see the attachment is off. Have you tried holding the Mod key (Alt in windows) to limit the connection to node only? That might help it snap to the right spot. - - - Updated - - - It was to control craft tree structure rebuilding, though in practice it seems to be irrelevant (especially from a player perspective). So, for that reason, I recommend first-clicking the part adjacent to the desired new root (not the new root), then second-click on the new root. I don't know if it truly matters, but it seems like I've encountered fewer problems this way.

Chute opening times are not tweakable in stock. You'd have to edit the .cfg to change the times. And yes, any craft built before 1.0.4 will likely have old values, because those are saved specifically for that craft. The game has no idea if the value was set special by you, or if it's a hold-over from the previous version. Cheers, -Claw

A bare kerbal isn't going to survive a reentry. There are lots of ways to do it, but if you deliver another tank of fuel, might as well bring a pod with. In the past, I've also built a scoop type device with a seat or capsule hatch at the bottom. The seat is handy because it doesn't require contact. So you could hide a seat inside a cargo bay also, rather than a claw (if the bugginess is a concern). Cheers, -Claw

That seems to be more my experience. Although yeah, if they survive the heat (from whatever altitude) landing on the helmet is the best for safety. Cheers, -Claw

Depends on what you mean by "these." The curves for lift is split in two parts. One curve is essentially Coefficient of Lift (Cl) vs. AoA, and the other is a Cl vs. Mach curve. Those values are then used in the lift equation (multiplied by the lift rating) to come up with a lift force for that wing section. The same method is used for determining drag, which also uses the lift rating to scale the final drag force. Drag has it's own Coefficient of Drag (Cd) vs. AoA and Cd vs. Mach curves. All four of thse curves are Unity float curves, and are available in one of the .cfg files, although I forget the name off hand and can't look atm. Hopefully that helps. Cheers, -Claw

Okay. I will have the overheat checks trigger upon docking also. I'm going to guess off hand that it will not work, but I can do that for the next release and see if it helps you out. Thank you! And you are quite welcome. Cheers, ~Claw - - - Updated - - - You know, I feel like a bit of an idiot with my last comment about this. ModuleDockingNode was something I was working on, so there isn't actually a release yet. That's why there's no documentation or .dll. For some reason when I first read this, my brain was thinking ModuleGrappleNode.

Well, I have had kerbals vaporize in orbit around Laythe, just barely dipping into the atmosphere while on EVA. So it might be best to just go try it out at Duna and see. Engine heat tests might be skewed, since the exhaust doesn't seem to heat up parts like it used to. Cheers, ~Claw

Thanks! And lets say I have some plans. My Laythe post says that Julella and Obemy are my Elcano crew, and that they were on another mission... (Also, picture assembly is a pain.) Thank you very much, good sir. Cheers, ~Claw

The SAS was probably wobbling enough that it sent the vibrations out of synch with the control position. The big contributor to this is the fact that there are no cross-struts (that I can see) after you ditch the engine and tank. So the whole ring is unstable cross-axial (across the flat plane of the ring). I'm happy for you that turning off SAS fixes it. Sometimes the rigid bodies will still feedback on themselves. So you probably have plenty of structure perpendicular to the station axis, just needs some cross-axis. Looks pretty sweet too. Cheers, -Claw

No need to feel that way. KSP has a steep learning curve. To me, that learning curve was most of the fun. I still remember slamming into the Mun over and over, and at the time I didn't even know you could save. So I would fly the whole thing over just to practice that 15 seconds of terror, watching my kerbals get vaporized. Heh...good times. Keep at it!