cantab

If you're running a 32-bit version of KSP it can only use 4 GB of memory, however much your system has. This imposes limits on modding - you will not be able to run multiple memory-hungry mods together unless you take steps to reduce memory usage. If you're running a 64-bit version of KSP you won't have that problem. However only Linux has an official 64-bit version of KSP. For Windows there is an unofficial hack/patch that may or may not work well for you, and additionally many popular mods have been coded to not run on it because it's been so buggy. For OSX there is nothing, it's 32-bit only.

If KSP made an autosave after you quickloaded then it will have overwritten your previous autosave. If you have a backup you can restore from that. Some mods including Kerbal Alarm Clock back up saves for you, or else check whatever system backups you take. If you don't have a backup your remaining option is to attempt data recovery. I use PhotoRec. Download it and save it to an external drive, then run it and tell it to look for text files and save them to an external drive (not the drive in your computer or you risk overwriting the files you're trying to recover!). Your ship designs are stored in separate files and they will not have been overwritten. If data recovery fails you might opt to cheat to catch up on the lost progress as best as you can remember it, either using the game's cheat options accessed by Alt+F12 or with the Hyperedit mod.

It depends. A hundred mods together could be no problem, while one other mod by itself could render the game hopelessly unstable or underperforming.

KSP heavily relies on right-clicking, so you will need to sort that out.http://www.wikihow.com/Right-Click-on-a-Mac You might additionally need to change the throttle controls in KSP to something else, since the default Left Control/Left Shift probably interferes with Ctrl+Click.

Kerbol Plus is awesome, one of my favourite planet packs along with New Horizons. As I see it since the goal was to make NovaSilisko's plans a reality K+ can have a reasonably well-defined "done" point in terms of what planets and moons are present, and either way I think that two hours would be better spent testing and bug-fixing rather than adding new planets. And if you're in a situation where you can't adequately test things then I'd advise not pushing new updates.

Game performance testing. It's tedious, but needs doing to make the thing run as well as it can on my old computer.

The rocket flies fine straight up with RCS and SAS enabled from launch, aside from a couple of stages that burn out in the wrong order and a bit of SAS wobble in stage 8. Results won't be directly comparable to prior KSP versions both because of the extended physics range and the changes in part performance, however it looks to me like it's still useful for comparing the impact of setting changes or mods on your own install.

I've done it for a couple of mod planets. Wonder if there's a data logging mod?

The nodes simply face the wrong way, because Kethane was made when that didn't matter. There are three workarounds:* Place the part on backwards then use the rotate gizmo to bring it back to the correct position. * Enable the debug menu option for non-strict orientation checks. Note that this may make attaching thin parts like heatshields problematic, so turn it back off when you need to. * Edit the part .cfgs or make a Module Manager patch to correct the node orientations. (Such an edited cfg or MM patch should be fine to include in the compatibillity download too.)

You can right-click a tank in the VAB and change the resource amounts in it. You probably did that by accident, or forgot about it.

Adding larger fins at the bottom should help - you want the rear fins to be enough to more than compensate for the unhelpful wings on the shuttle. On a launcher your strongest control is often the engine gimbals so I advise lighting one or more gimballing engines at launch, don't launch on SRBs alone even if they have the thrust. The usual advice of never straying too far from the prograde marker applies too.

These results tally with what some people have been talking about - that bodies other than Kerbin have their atmospheres "chopped off" too low, making aerobraking needlessly hard. It may be that the edge of the atmosphere is now coded in the game as a definite value, regardless of surface pressure.

My approach is to set up a course correction, just after you enter Jool's SOI is good. Then you can trade pro/retrograde and radial/antiradial burns so that your Jool periapsis stays level with Laythe's orbit but the time you reach that periapsis at changes. It takes a bit of fiddling but you should eventually get a Laythe encounter.

1.0 change the atmospheres. In particular they no longer need to have a single scale height, it can vary with altitude.

Yeah...to be honest, launching people on top of a rocket you cannot put out has never seemed like the greatest idea.

With a command module crewed by a Kerbal who is not a tourist you will always have control unless you are in timewarp. The ship's controls do not require electricity to operate, and you should see the pitch/roll/yaw indicators in the bottom left and the throttle marker on the navball move even if the ship doesn't actually turn or fire any engines. Being in timewarp without realising it is really common, but that ought to stop you starting your burn in the first place. Note that tourists cannot control a ship, and non-tourists cannot control a ship from a module that isn't a command module for example the Science Lab. With only a probe core for control you will of course lose control if you run out of electricity. The engine fuel gauges show fuel only but a rocket engine also needs oxidizer, however if the engine is oxidizer-deprived it should show you that when you right click it. So the behaviour you describe definitely sounds like a game bug. I have had a similar bug before, when taking off from Tylo one of my engines stopped producing thrust for no obvious reason.

The Kerbal Space Centre counts their formal opening as Year 1, Day 1. That calendar probably isn't used by anyone but the space program. Not least because they're using Kerbin's sidereal day not its solar day like normal people would.

You can easily build lighter, yeah. For the probe itself I typically use an LV-909 with a 200 or 400 tank, that gives me plenty of delta-V to get just about anywhere, and on a light probe the 909 is punchy so there's no waiting around for long burns. This can easily be launched on a launcher that's a swivel-engined core and some SRBs or any other light launcher you have. But overengineering is fun itself.

Back in my day we didn't have none of this new-fangled drilling. If we wanted to move an asteroid we had to move the whole thing with the fuel we brought along. Grumble grumble get off my lawn.

Personally I associate "Tutorials" with longer pieces, things that I might follow while building or flying something. For example this satellite tutorial. Not a quick bit of advice.

I've got caught out by this so many times. Maybe it should be changed so that in map view [ and ] step between bodies, since in flight view they switch through nearby ships.

I feel it's clearly been rebalanced to aim it as a Shuttle OMS engine, especially with its big gimbal range. I will admit I rarely use it. It could be used to give extra thrust to a launcher stage, but I prefer to use SRBs for that.

Broke out the old Thrust SSK and tweaked it a bit. 641 m/s on Kerbin. Goes even faster on Laythe.

+1 to that. It leaves me feeling uncertain about the current state of KSP-AVC. Especially as this thread title hasn't even been changed to reflect the 1.0.4 release, though I see the AVC website is reporting mods being updated to 1.0.4 which suggests KSP-AVC is also fine.

Got trolled hard by game bugs.