Claw

Very true. Sometimes it's easy to get caught up in "what is most optimal" when choosing parts or making designs. I also like structural intakes for looks on some designs too, even though they aren't "the best" in terms of mass to intake area.

0.4 m/s is plenty slow. For rescues, getting within a couple m/s is plenty close enough. In either case, congrats! -Claw

To me, it doesn't really sound like you need to restart the mission. Sounds like you're just working your way through learning the rendezvous process. You'll get it, I have no doubt. Cheers, ~Claw

There is certainly no end to the amount of help people are willing to offer. Hopefully you find what you are looking for. Welcome to the forums! Cheers, ~Claw

Nice emotes. haha No worries about lurking, but it's also good to hear from the "quiet ones." (I just made that up...) Welcome to the chattier side of the forums! Cheers, ~Claw

It's always good to see people return. Welcome back to the forums! Cheers, ~Claw

Nice. It's fun to see unusual ways to introduce yourself. Welcome to the forums! Cheers, ~Claw

Holy geebus GP. Welcome to the forums?

haha, I see we have a potential programmer...welcome to the forums!

Intakes are pretty straight forward. There is no inherent difference between the types of intakes, only difference in their respective area. So more area = more IntakeAir for a given speed/altitude. The second thing to consider is the angle of the intake with respect to airflow. Once an intake's "forward" direction is more than about 30 degrees from the air flow, it's efficiency drops off quite a bit. However, even when placed 180 degrees to the airflow, an intake will still produce intake air. The actual position of the intake does not matter either. The IntakeAir resource flows anywhere on the vessel without regard to crossflow capability or any connecting parts (just like monopro and electricity). So yes, more intake area is going to be more effective than less intake area, regardless of which intakes are providing that air. And if you orient intakes off of prograde, their efficiency will be reduced. You can place them "anywhere," but no necessarily in "any direction" without having an effect. Cheers, ~Claw

Excellent! I'm glad you got it sorted out. And you are very welcome. Cheers, ~Claw

Ahh, once you are getting close to him, take a look at your NavBall. The velocity will switch from "Orbit" to "Target". You will also see a couple pink markers on the NavBall itself. What you'll need to do is burn retrograde to slow yourself down as you approach. What is happening is that your rescue craft is now in an elliptical orbit, while the target is in a circular orbit. So right where they meet, you basically need to match your rescue vehicle's orbit with the target (turn it from elliptical to circular). If/when you watch a video, keep an eye on the NavBall symbols while the person executes the final burn. Also, in anticipation of your next problem, once you get your rescue ship close... Use the ] or [ key to switch control from your rescue ship to the kerbal. Then you can press "R" to activate the kerbal's jet pack and fly over to the rescue ship to climb on board (hopefully you left some room for him...) Cheers, ~Claw Here, I found a picture that might help. Unfortunately, the pink retro-target marker is not visible. It's the pink one that looks like a Y. In this picture, the retro-target marker is under the far right white arrow.

Fixed, and good luck on your mission... Welcome to the forums! Cheers, ~Claw

That's not too bad, considering the ships look to be about 50% of an orbit apart. If you get impatient, you can always make your rescue craft's orbit more elliptical (but keep the AP/PE both above or below the target's orbit). It's just easier to explain via text on a forum board to try from a circular orbit. It's easier to make adjustments to the location of the maneuver node, but can take a little longer to get a rendezvous. Elliptical orbits are a bit more tricky with the maneuver node, because the amount of dV needed to initiate the rendezvous will also be dependent on where you start it. In any case, it sounds like you are well on your way. Cheers, ~Claw

Yes indeed. Althogh it didn't sound like hartmde was asking for help launching (as JTpopcorn pointed out), but was asking for help getting a station into orbit, then working through a regular career game. In which case, hyper edit would only help getting starter parts to space, and would still require the player to spend funds to get it going. Even if hyperedit was used, the save file would still require some editing/tweaking to accomplish hartmde's goals. Cheers, ~Claw

Possibly, but it sounds unlikely. Generally through windows, identifying a single core to run on means it'll only run on that one core. Your post is slightly confusing to me. Do you have a dual processor, dual core machine? If it's just a usual Intel or AMD dual core, then specifying one core will keep it attached to just that one core. (Although I will also say that the need for single core affinity seems to have mostly gone away.) It's kind of hard to guess what the problem might be without the logs. If you have the ability to, please upload them. You can use a place like dropbox, mediafire, google docs, or even paste it into pastebin. Usually when something interferes with KSP loading, it is things like antivirus, or because people it is being run from somewhere like "Program Files" or the Desktop. Some of those usual problems are outlines within the general post I directed you to earlier. Cheers, ~Claw

Try running the game directly from KSP.exe (instead of through steam) and see if that works for you. If it's a graphics problem, you can try fiddling with the graphics settings. Try using the switch -force-opengl, or try -popupwindow. Each does different things, but may (or may not) help your computer with graphics problems. I found a lot of my issues went away completely with the -popwindow command. Also, try disabling the NVIDIA GeForce experience. I personally don't have any issues with it, but some people have had problems with that and KSP. Welcome to the forums! Cheers, ~Claw

Hey guys. Given the incredible amount of lag time I've had with this thread, please repost if you're still having problems. I'd like to help, but I also don't want to spend time on people's saves if you've already moved on. Sorry for the delays, I've been on a trip. Cheers, ~Claw - - - Updated - - - I see two things... Jeding is showing "Available" when he should be "Assigned" (down in the Roster section) Corkin Kerman is missing from the Roster section. You'll need to add an entry using the instructions in the first post. Cheers, ~Claw

Honest and truly, this is the most important aspect to keep in mind. It really just depends on what you want to get out of the game. It looks like you've been playing the game for a while. Usually people start to settle into what kinds of mods best suit their play style. Physics enhancements, visual enhancements, science reworks, etc... If you find that you tend to play in deep space a lot, something that affects atmospheric behavior may not be all that useful. If you tend to build a lot of airplanes or spaceplanes (or think you're going to get into them), it can certainly change how the game feels for you. Bear in mind that you can also make a copy of your entire KSP install, and put FAR on that second KSP install. That would allow you to cleanly revert if it turns out you don't like it. That might make make the prospect of a test drive a little less concerning. Cheers, ~Claw

Yeah, I kind of agree. If your AP is above his orbit, but your PE is below his orbit, it's quite possible that it would take a very, very long time for the two to meet up again. What I would recommend is that you raise your PE to at least Helmut's orbit, and likely above it. Often, I find it's easiest (not always most economical) for the rescue craft to have a circular orbit above or below the target. That way you can place a maneuver node that lowers the PE to match the target's orbit. Then increment the maneuver node an orbit at a time (by collapsing the maneuver node, and clicking the little icons at the lower left/right). Eventually the rendezvous flags will get close. Then you can grab the maneuver node and slide it back and forth till the flags line up. Sometimes in the process of sliding the flags, the maneuver node will not maintain it's orbit increment. In that case, timewarp forward a few orbits till you catch up to your maneuver node. Just make sure you don't warp past the next rendezvous window. (Paying attention to "ahead" or "behind" as WanderingKid said.) About your electrical charge...If you only have a manned pod (not a probe core) then your craft will only consume electricity when you are turning the ship. If you need to turn, you can save electricity by turning off SAS. Add a bit of yaw/pitch/roll to start the turn, then let the craft rotate on it's own till you get to the desired orientation. Toggle SAS back on and it will come to a stop. In this way, you can really limit the amount of electricity used per maneuver. If you have a probe core installed, then the craft is going to slowly drain regardless, and you'll have to speed up the rescue. Good luck... Cheers, ~Claw

Yes, the problem is not isolated to KJR. It also happens in stock, although the exact reason is unknown. I think there was just a bug in KJR that triggered it more often, or maybe caused it directly itself. In any case, this guide still works for 0.90. One way to find the port is to turn off the crossfeed and search the save file (as outlined in the instructions). You can also set the docking port to "control from here" and use the control id to search for the correct docking port. Sorry for the delayed response. I was out on an extended trip. If you can give this guide a try, it should hopefully help you out. Cheers, ~Claw

I did explain my plan with a note when this all started: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/112068-Contracts-and-Administration-Strategies?p=1765125&viewfull=1#post1765125 I wanted to promote discussion in what is, quite frankly, an under utilized resource. I stepped away from the "sticky of the month" format because this particular sub-forum changes and morphs a lot. Four weeks on the same topic doesn't really fit. The flip side is that when I do post in threads like that, people also take that as a cue of official endorsement. Heck, even posting it as a sticky looks like an official endorsement. Also, the discussion in this sub-forum is different because it is primarily aimed at devs more than fellow players However, I do understand your point. One small line in one post that's been buried does not inform everyone (or even anyone). Also, I was just returning home after a three month trip, and so was not able to address concerns earlier due to travel. Not because I was making some attempt to ignore the problem, if there was any concern about that. Believe it or not, there is no hidden agenda here. I'm not mad, or hurt, or angry at anyone. It is just sometimes difficult to make everyone happy. Sometimes we try things on the forum, but not because we have some conspiracy in mind. We often struggle with deciding on any change at all, because we know that someone will interpret meaning where none is intended, no matter how big or small. And by "we," I am talking about the forum moderators, who are not squad employees but fellow KSP players like yourself. Also, the process of informing becomes a challenge in itself, because some people look at every word and try to decipher some hidden clue. This often leads to posts that are very sterile and bland, which likely leaves people unsatisfied (but I suppose that's a bigger issue, beyond the scope of this sticky discussion). That probably all sounds like whining, but I'm just trying to explain some of the background. I'm hesitant to post even this, because it isn't as bland and as sterile as I normally post. For all the reasons stated above. Fair enough. I thought the informing had been done a month ago, but clearly I was incorrect. I will also edit the "Sticky Threads" sticky. I don't wish to name shame, only be explicit in the concerns I addressed and which threads I was talking about. No hidden agenda, no angry stabs back at you. Just showing the concerns, and why I unstuck everything. You are a good poster John FX, and I don't believe you need any name shaming. So again, I apologize for any concerns I caused you previously in regard to stickies, and for any perceived or real "name shaming" I might have committed. Cheers, ~Claw

I also have a fix available, if you tend to quickload in the atmosphere often. You can find it here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/97285-0-25-Stock-Bug-Fix-Modules Cheers, -Claw

Well, name changes and such are governed by a few rules. You can see the docking rules here, and naming convention generally follows suit. I think there are a few occasions where the names will revert strangely, but if your station is actually labeled as a station, it should remain the parent when docking anything of lower priority. If docking "base" or "station" craft, then the name will still change. Cheers, ~Claw

Yes, this is definitely more technically accurate (and more efficient). If the orbit is really wide, either works. But you are indeed correct. Cheers, ~Claw