Origim

Hello, I am not sure if it is working as intended or not so I am posting this here instead of the bug section. I decided to do an 8.5% aggressive negotiation tactic. I didn't really need it (at all), but I wanted to play with the new features. What I thought it did: Takes 40 reputation or your commitment equivalent every time you launch your ship What I did not realize it does: Every single R&D purchase counts as a discount event. I had just come back from a long Duna mission and had 3,300 science to spend so I went to town purchasing all my unlocks (Hard mode). When I went to launch my next ship, I saw that my bar went from NEARLY FULL BLUE to NEARLY FULL RED. Instantly, just like that. Luckily, I had a quick save just before my Duna ship came back (I modified Hard mode to allow quick loads for game crash events and unforeseen events such as these). By repeating, I was able to verify it is indeed the R&D purchases that completely destroyed my reputation. What is worse, is that the reputation bar DOES NOT UPDATE while you are in the science building, so you cannot see that you are bleeding rep like crazy while buying your unlocks. In my opinion this needs to be changed. With how the science unlock mechanic works, this strategy is completely useless unless the rep loss is removed from R&D purchases.

Hello, I tried this a few times and from what I can notice at the moment, the "Entry purchase" of parts in R&D does not get charged to my balance. I'm getting them for free every time I research a node. Is that intended? I feel that because the icon next to the entry cost changed to the "funds" icon, there seems to be intent for entry purchases to be charged to your balance.

Is that... is that a Porkchop plotter for Kerbal? I must be dreaming right now, because I did not expect to be able to receive the exact answer I was looking for! Thank you very much.

Hi all, This is probably common sense, but for someone like me it took way too many Kerbal hours to start doing this technique. I've started to use too many mods and even with the best texture management techniques my game became unstable. However, I was able to recoup 700 mb of memory without altering my game experience at all: I downloaded a folder size scanner for windows (for some strange and weird reason, you can't sort folders by size in windows!) and first checked my gamedata folder for the heaviest mods. Within those mods, I then checked for the parts that consumed the most space -- I quickly found that a lot of those parts I never even used! After purging all of my mods, my game is now 700 mb lighter!

Hello everyone, I am wondering if anyone had to perform transfers that are not necessarily hohmann transfers. Specifically, I am wondering -- if I have 5,000 delta v, much more than is needed to get to Duna, when is my transfer window such that I use up all of that delta v getting to Duna (trading efficiency for a much shorter flight time)? If so, the set of derived equations for that would be extremely helpful. Thank you.

I am confused as to why Mechjeb = Autopilot. It seems to everyone it is an impossible concept to believe that you can use Mechjeb, but without any of the autopilot functions. Personally, I do not use any autopilot functions. I prefer Mechjeb's UI for the same display data as Kerbal engineer so I use Mechjeb. Mechjeb also comes with type-in tool for node planning -- dragging the handles is a very silly way of setting up orbital manuvers. This debate is so annoying I wish they would release Mechjeb Lite, which is Mechjeb without the autopilot modules. Then this debate would be solved.

A very good video and touches upon the same issues I've had and that people may not expect when first going for an asteroid. However, a puller configuration has a massive disadvantage in that if your engines are pointed at the rock, you will not be able to move at all (the thrust will wash over the rock and cancel out your ship's acceleration by pushing the rock in the opposite direction). For an example of that check out kurtjmac's difficulties in this video -- If you still decide to go ahead with it (perhaps by placing the engines far away from the ship) make sure to "free pivot" while thrusting. By freeing the pivot you would avoid the problems outlined under "Pendulum fallacy" and actually allow your craft to have passive means to seeking stability.

Haha, I did hear that the joints will be better in the next update. However, that just means heavier payloads with this trick! And in response to the other poster -- I was demonstrating per-joint performance increase. I could've used the boosters for my strut mounting points, but instead I was trying to establish what could be done with a single 2.5 m radius structure. Minimalist designs (of which mine isn't) might benefit from this trick.

Hello all, I am using the interstellar mod (don't worry, the solution is stock compatible), so between all the reactors, I started to have massively heavy ships that needed lifting to orbit. My latest is a 230 ton outpost that I wanted to lift all at once. One problem however... how does one stick a 230 ton orbital stage on top of a single 2.5 rockomax decoupler without it crushing into pieces? The solution? The gray 4x4 pad between every 2.5 m joint, reinforced with struts! I theorized that because the part has 80 m/s crash tolerance, it must have insanely strong joints. I seem to have been right. The conclusion - 230 ton payload loaded and held reliably, on top of a single rockomax decoupler, sandwiched between gray plates interconnected with struts. No joint reinforcement mods, no quantum struts, just an arrangement of gray pads and struts! Below is a close up image of the reinforcement (yes that is a lot of struts, but lighter rockets will only need the pad) Don't worry about the huge fairings. That's another trick for another time (I encase my entire 16 way asparagus setup in fairings for unprecedented aerodynamics with the FAR mod). I decoupled them to show the loaded upper stage. Loaded ship: Closeup: Edit - Liftoff! For those curious what the fairings look like

Hello all, I've been having issues with a spacecraft that, for aesthetic purposes, had to thin out at the bottom. When it loaded, the "give" in the decouplers/docking ports would cause a shock load on the fully fueled ship, and it fell apart like candy. However, I realized.. I could remove all fuel from the upper stage, attach ground tanks that get decoupled before launch, and fuel AFTER the ship loads... this dramatically reduces shock load, see image below. It does not break apart at all with this set up. What I propose, is that ships "receive" fuel gradually, over 3 seconds, after they are loaded. This should reduce the springy shock load action immediately after load (root cause is that the ships load with "nominal" spring height, and after physics activate, they seek a new equilibrium, which puts a large shock load on the ship). http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=238708512