Claw

Excellent. Thank you for the log reports. I am reworking this module and including some other great finds by other forum members. So a fix to this AOOR might not be immediate, but that's because I'm working to make a bigger fix. Thanks again! ~Claw

I am working on this tonight. If I make any significant progress, I will try to post an update. (Also, thanks. I am enjoying the new avatar also. ) Incidentally, this post was also brought to my attention (yours, fireblade274). I believe these bug is related, and I'm linking here so I can find it later: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/126526 Cheers, ~Claw

Well, I tend to agree with sal about your save file. I am seeing this in your log before all of the other FlightIntegrator NREs. /home/builduser/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/LinuxStandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 56) dT is NaN! tA: 1.83939456939697, E: 0, M: 0, T: NaN (Filename: Which says to me that something is wrong with the vessel itself, or some specific sequence of events you are doing before hand. Does the game still crash if you start up a new save and fiddle with different craft? The save file and/or pictures would help us see more of what's going on. Cheers, ~Claw

I know a lot of people who still enjoy this style of play. Welcome to the forums! Cheers, ~Claw

Profile Pictures and Avatars are two separate things. Motokid's directions work perfectly for profile pictures. But you gave directions for profile pictures which is why you don't see it when posting. To see the image when posting, you need to edit the Avatar. So, the directions are pretty much the same. In the top right click "Settings". On the left is "Edit Profile Picture" and "Edit Avatar" (the options are right next to each other). The Profile picture only appears on your profile, and the Avatar only appears next to your posts. Also, welcome from your lurker status! Cheers, ~Claw

Yes, results have changed a bit for two main reasons. - The biggest impact is the reduced thrust from jet engines (which most stock boats use). Obviously lower thrust is going to result in lower top speeds. - The second reason is that drag is a function of craft shape now. So the big, wide boats don't work so well anymore since there's more aerodynamic drag. The basic premise of boats still works. You need floats to keep the main portion of the craft out of the water, but you don't want them floating too high or they will create their own wakes (and drag on the water). Here's an example of a land-mobile boat I made for a challenge. It's pretty bare bones because I was fighting a variety of time issues while trying to complete the challenge. Of the designs I had like this (all single engine), the highest speed I reached was around 98 m/s. You can also read more about how I reached this design here. Cheers, ~Claw

You are not crazy, it is by design for the Jet Engine. The purpose was to move the CoM forward for planes. The CoM on most engines in real life is actually inside the fuselage oe compressor area. The KSP engines aren't quite like that in size, so the CoM is artificially moved to place the CoM inside the forward connecting part. Unfortunately this has some detrimental side effects, especially for VTOL craft. And I have no idea if it'll change... Also, welcome to the forums! Cheers, -Claw

Sorry, I think this thread has been neglected since this bug now mainly triggers when add-ons are removed. If you could provide some details, we might be able to help. Also, welcome to the forums. Cheers, -Claw

Thanks for continuing work on this. I am not ignoring you (I promise). Feel free to keep posting your findings. When I am able to get to this, I am sure your posts will be helpful! Cheers, -Claw

It's definitely a known thing that I don't think has been resolved. I have some additional theories about wobbly orbits, but it sounds like your harmonic changes are pointing at CoM issues still. Cheers, -Claw

I'd agree there's a good chance the offset Center of Mass could be causing you problems. It might not have been happening earlier because you've reached a fuel state where the CoM has shifted enough that the engine gimbal and torque wheel can't compensate anymore. Now that some fuel is burned off, the CoM might be moved enough that firing the engines causes too much torque. Cheers, -Claw

My comment was in regard to another post, but two threads have now been merged. The words I posted are not for the general case, but were specifically addressing the other setup. Sorry for the confusion. Cheers, -Claw

The reason the ships freeze is because they fail to pack when going on-rails (which is what happens for non physical time warp). So when coming out of warp, some parts are packed and some aren't. That means they are subject to different physics rules, which causes things to stick, and ships to tear apart in space. (Which I think is what you are saying above.) The piece I haven't figured out is what specifically causing the pack to fail. That's the key. And if your steps above work for me, then that will greatly speed the discovery process along. Cheers, -Claw

Yes, it's that simple. Cheers, -Claw

Well, please don't take my posting to mean "don't bring this up." I would say it is working as intended (so not a bug), but it is valid feedback that I happen to agree with. It's might be working, but isn't necessarily achieving the most useful results. Simply (as you point out) makes it harder to deal with, and not easier. Cheers, ~Claw

It ought to be. I'll double check. Well, I posted in your report thread (which you probably won't like the answer). I /can/ fix this, but it's not a decoupler bug so much as the way the fuel flow mode works for jet engines. Cheers, ~Claw

Well, I hate to inform you guys but this is actually by design rather than a bug. With 1.0 came a change in the fuel flow mode for jet engines and rapiers (i.e. "air breathers") in that they basically pull fuel from all over. And a product of that fuel flow method is that, not only do they pull fuel from all over, but fuel attached behind lower stages (i.e. behind a decoupler) is consumed first. That means what you are demonstrating in this thread is the way it's designed to function (suck fuel from things that are scheduled to be jettisoned). Why was this done? Well, it's part of the master plan to make controlling the Center of Mass easier. Except (in my opinion) it causes way more problems and doesn't help with CoM control much at all, unless you have a very (very) simple design. In my opinion, one of the most common uses for a space plan (which typically uses jets) is to deliver probes or payloads to space. This fuel flow mode ensures that any payload connected in the bay via a decoupler will be consumed first, which is (in all likely hood) the opposite of what is desired. So the problem is that I can build a "fix" for this, except it's actually working exactly as designed. It's actually not the decoupler's fault, it's how the fuel flow mode works for the engine. So I'm stuck in sort of an odd spot on this "fix." Cheers (or not...) ~Claw

Ctrl+Z can be very buggy. Please use with caution. Personally I find the best way to get to hidden parts is to keep practicing with the camera. Also, using shift+click to move the whole ship a little can help see into those small parts if you have problems with the fine placement of the camera. I also recommend saving right before you pull off something if you are having difficulty. It can save some headache if you accidentally pull off too much. Cheers, -Claw

I agree with slashy. If the goal is to get an empty tank to orbit, then use that fuel if at all possible, and reduce tankage elsewhere. An SLS tank with a Rhino on it can SSTO even with other parts added on. Then you can jettison the engine section on orbit. I would build the engine section to contain all the extra stuff not needed by the tank so you can minimize debris. (Maybe even include a small amount of fuel or monopro to deorbit.) If you are asking in the general "did I over design this rocket" sort of way, it really depends on the follow on goals. I can't tell if that's what you are asking though, but there are certainly a lot of tips in that area too. Cheers, -Claw

I'd say for the most part I agree with micha. It's going to depend on the burn, but generally following the maneuver node will work best. On longer burns though, it will start to drift a lot as the orbit changes and the ship is further from the node. Sometimes it's best to reset the node, but if that isn't practical I'll usually stop chasing the maneuver node at that point and keep what I have. Also watch the SAS when using the maneuver node hold mode. Sometimes it spasms (with small vehicles), and when the maneuver node drifts off (especially at the end of the burn), it might start flopping about while chasing the marker. Cheers, -Claw

Pictures always help in this case, but the most obvious thing first is the order of placement that you are using. Dual jet engines have some quirky behavior, a lot of which is due to the intake air distribution. KSP handles air by spreading it out through the whole ship. However, the order of placement matters because of how the underlying code works. So if you place all of the intakes then both engines, the second engine placed will only get the leftovers that the first engine didn't use. Generally, if possible, it works better if you can split the intake placement in between engine attachment. So place intake-intake-engine-intake-intake-engine. Cheers, -Claw

Thanks for those steps. I'll have to give them a try (hopefully tomorrow night). Also, welcome to the forums! Cheers, ~Claw

F5 saves, F9 loads. You can also hold the MOD key (ALT in windows) and press F5 to name the save. Then ALT+F9 to load from your list of saves.

Definitely baked. Although I consider frenched fries to be a different kind of awesome themselves. Welcome to the forums! Cheers, ~Claw

Have you tried restarting KSP? Often that will help fix something like this. If that doesn't do it, then please cause it to happen again, then upload your logs. Cheers, ~Claw