cantab

I expect my craft to load and basically work in 1.1. Engines thrust, wheels drive, parachutes open, that kind of thing. I'll give a little leeway for things like reaction wheels maybe being taken out of probe cores. And of course the NotAntennaRange thing, but that's expected to be on a difficulty option anyway. I don't expect them to perform identically. If an interplanetary probe built as an orbiter takes a delta-V drop that means it can't close its orbit, or a formerly-stable aeroplane becomes unflyable, that will be no surprise and won't bother me too much. I expect my save to load, preferably but not necessarily without me having to tinker with it. In the unlikely event it doesn't, then after raging at Squad I'll get to jumpstarting a new science save to be as close a match as is reasonable. I'm certainly not going through the cookie-cutter early stages of it again.

KerbalX if you want your craft to be "public", for example it's something you've basically done and feel is good enough to let others fly. Any one-click-hosting site if it's something semi-private, for example a ship in development you want some help with.

Known bug, I advise save editing to fix, you should be able to find how to do it if you search on the forums.

I would be worried about the aerodynamics of that on Laythe. I had trouble on Serran, a mod planet that's similar but a bit smaller, with an unaerodynamic ascent vehicle that flipped out of control. (This one: https://flic.kr/p/xdRVMo , sorry for zoomed out picture.) Then again I use FAR, stock might be more forgiving even in 1.0.4

They should have the same orbital period as I understand it. No idea if the exact orbits have been adjusted at any point.

I look forward to it, I've been mostly staying away from the Kerbol Plus bodies for the time being. Though I do have landers for Vix, Valit, and Kralaus on their way. (But no need to rush the release, my install has a lot of planets and moons for me to go to.)

Well to an extent there is a difference. "Expansion pack" generally implies something substantial, with a price tag that's at least a good fraction of the original cost of the game, and you're definitely only going to see one expansion pack released at a time. "DLC" implies something small, with a small price tag, and you'll often see lots of separate DLC items released at once or in quick succession and the aggregate cost can be high.To give a KSP example, a new gas giant with a dozen moons would be an expansion. A new moon for Jool, a dwarf planet between Duna and Jool, an additional space centre you can use, they would all be DLCs. The topic of this thread, despite the title, is firmly an expansion.

Landed the Akinesis 1 probe rover on Asclepius, my first visit to that planet. The most perilous step in the mission is still to come though - getting the rover off its landing base without rolling it.

Simple but incredibly frustrating bug to report. Increasing or decreasing the level of patched conics projections resets the manoeuvre node. It should not, since unlike the actual node editing tools changing the patched conics isn't changing the node itself.

Yeah, that's the test rocket I use. There are two big confounding factors with comparing 0.90 with 1.0.4 though. Firstly the rocket will fly differently because of the aerodynamic and engine changes. FAR has changed a lot too since 0.90. Secondly the extended physics range in 1.0.4 is a big part of the extra lag.

Hit Kerbin with an asteroid, I think

I'm not 100% sure, but I voted 0.90. I certainly don't remember it having objectionable performance, and it added nice features over 0.25. 1.0.x as many have said is a performance disaster, which is one of the main reasons I rate it as the worst release since I bought the game on 0.23. It's doubly frustrating because I blame the heating and aero. I use FAR so the aero is irrelevant, and the heating system is so fundamentally broken I just go around with the heatproof cheat on, meaning my processor is doing totally, utterly, useless work when it could be doing the stuff that matters. 1.0.x holds the dubious distinction of hosting my laggiest ever launch. 1100 parts on the pad, 700 in orbit, two hours to get there in a near-stock install. That's not my launchpad part count record either, though it may be the record on an orbital ship. EDIT: The pessimistic side of me says that unless Squad do adequate optimization, 1.1 might only perform as well as 0.90. The improvements brought by Unity 5.2 and PhysX 3.3 could easily be eaten up by the CPU-hogging code from 1.0.x.

Does anyone know if there's a data logger mod for things like pressure, altitude, and so on? My main want is to make atmosphere curves for the planets that I can use to inform later visits to them. Mod planets so the KSP wiki won't help. I can do it by taking periodic screenshots but better data would be welcome.

And now Squad are going to think that Realism Overhaul is a good thing to copy

The save files are plain text, so you can usually tinker with them to make them work in the newest KSP, if for some reason it doesn't work "out of the box".

If it's possible to put a vehicle on the runway or Launchpad empty and have the clamps fill it with fuel, and it's possible to recover all of that vessel for 100%, then you do indeed have launches for free. In career it's also possible to circumvent the mass limits on the low level pad and runway. Though you can do that in stock once you have wheels and either the claw or docking ports.

Agreed. Any civilization with the technology and resources to terraform a planet will be able to keep the atmosphere "topped up" against slow losses. Lack of a magnetic field is a non-issue. Thermal escape of the atmosphere is only an issue when it's at real breakneck pace.

Venus has clouds of sulphuric acid. There's your hydrogen, once you process it appropriately.

Physics warp makes the craft more flexible. That in turn affects the aerodynamic trim which can make the plane want to climb or descend when you go from 1x to 2x, 2x or 1x, or any other change of speed. SAS doesn't do a very good job of compensating for this effect. The best solution I have is to try something better than the stock SAS. Mechjeb's SmartASS might help, or else use an autopilot and program your desired flight in it.

This glitch is known when you return to the Space Centre view after going very far from the Sun. It's also occurred when using planet mods. It seems like the world origin is not reset correctly, causing a lack of floating point precision. But I've never heard it arising because of an EVA before now.

Use the heatproof cheat or do a gravitational capture. To set up a gravitational capture place a manoeuvre on your way to Jool, and trade prograde/retrograde and radial/antiradial which lets you adjust your time of arrival at Jool while keeping your Jool periapsis the same. Cross the orbit of Tylo or Laythe when they're in the right place and there's your encounter for a potential capture. I always advise Precise Node for any gravity assist work.

Nice work. Alternatively, you can attach parts to launch clamps, so you can easily rig up a fuel tank and fuel lines and do it that way, no modding needed.

Based on a statement regarding joint performance in the new PhysX, I'm predicting a 20-50% performance boost for single vessels in KSP. Not insignificant, but not enormous either.

Yeah, I've had VAB block from time to time. What can help is to just start work on what I call a "sketch" - a rough design where I'm not worrying about the fine details, and just want an idea of how feasible my plans are, will everything fit, how much fuel will I need, and so on. Once I have such a sketch I can go forward with the more serious aspects of the design.

I think what I'd go for is a chemical-engined lander that's up to most landings, and then dock-on lower stages for it to support Laythe and Tylo (and maybe Moho). For Laythe that could even be a plane that the lander docks into.