twich22

So the most efficient type of burn is a suicide burn, which means you burn at full blast and by the time you reach a velocity of 0 you are at the ground. Its difficult to get right and the consequence of slight miscalculation means crashing into the planet. The longer you spend "falling" the more delta V you burn, thats gravity. So if you slow down the whole way, you spend more time falling, gravity has more time to pull on you, you spend more delta V getting to the surface. Similarly, if you can stop quickly, then you can wait until the last second to start your burn. If it takes you 5 mintues to stop, its gonna be a problem no matter what. So a higher Thrust to weight ratio will help you out immensely. Thats only for vertical velocity. You also have to think about horizontal velocity. On low gravity planets its easy enough to just stop your horizontal velocity all together because its not that high, and then all you have to do is manage your vertical velocity. But on a big planet like tylo this is much more difficult because your horizontal velocity is quite high and it takes a while to stop. So you need to do a bit of a combination You want to kill as much horizontal velocity as possible on your initial burn so that you are going to cross over the path of your target and then crash into the plant. then as you approach your target you can kill the rest of your horizontal velocity so that you will fall directly onto your target. meanwhile you want to fall fast enough that you dont eat up all your delta V on a slow decent, but slow enough that you can still stop in time to not crash into the planet. I know thats not super helpful but hopefully you will figure it out!

also having this problem. Perhaps there is a cloaked planet/station out there somewhere. or a black hole? although if it were a black hole i dont think the kerbolar system would be in such good shape.

thats awesome. how many pieces did you send this up in?

For duna you need to approach the atmosphere at a shallow angle so you can aerobrake all the way to the ground, have parachutes for high atmosphere braking and low atmosphere, set them to deploy at any pressure and high altitude and have backups in case you need them, and you need a landing craft to give you thrust to slow you down enough to land safely as dunas atmosphere is too thin to slow you enough to land safely with just parachutes (although beware of overheating during aerobraking, you can avoid this by spinning your craft or bringing heat shields). For making large craft, the easiest way to do it is to assemble them in space with docking ports. sending up two 100 ton craft and putting them together in space is much easier than sending one 200 ton craft. Something that can make this even easier is sending up a craft that is dry, without fuel in it. That makes it super light. Once its in space, you can send up fuel ships to fuel it up again. now you have a big ship that would have been very difficult to launch in one go, but was easy to do with multiple trips. Sounds like you are doing all the right things! Keep at it!!

Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 11 Pro | CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 5800H with Radeon Graphics | GPU: AMD Ryzen 7 5800H with Radeon Graphics | RAM: 16 As the title suggests, if your AP does not reach beyond the orbit of a planet you are trying to have an encounter with, or if you are trying to pass behind the planet, the UI will not show the encounter lines. For example, if a moon is orbiting a planet at 1,000,000 km, and you want to approach the planet with an orbit with an AP of 999,999 the UI will not recognize that you will actually pass through the sphere of influence of the moon until you are nearly passing into the sphere of influence of the moon. To recreate, plot a maneuver node to make an encounter with the Mun. You will notice that the encounter lines will only show if your AP crosses beyond the orbit of the mun. if it drops below the orbit of the mun, the encounter lines will disappear. However, if you actually proceed on the course, you will still end up on an encounter with the mun.

Came back after the science update following a hiatus due to how unplayable the game was and I am impressed with the improvement! Well done! The game is now both playable and enjoyable. It feels like true KSP now and I think that its a great starting point. Sure there is a lot of room to grow but at least now there is a stable game that players can both enjoy and help to improve along the way. Cant wait to see what this game becomes.

Excellent work on the patch. I think the team has come a long way since release and is now at Mach 1 and on the right trajectory. Patch 0.1.3.0 is exactly what it should have been. People are always going to want more, but what is important is that the things this patch fixed were the most fundamental parts of the game. The game is now performant to an extent that almost anyone, with any level of computer, especially beginners who have never played KSP, can run the game and enjoy it. This is obviously critically important. It also fixed a bunch of game breaking bugs, again critically important. This patch did all the right things and none of the wrong things. All that needs to happen now is iterate n times and we will have a great game. Looking forward to getting back into the game.

Hopefully the implications of this bug extend beyond just aerodynamics. I have run into numerous bugs that have to do with part orientation and parts thinking they are oriented one way when they are not supposed to be. I suspect all these bugs are stemming from the same root cause.

Its a problem with the game. It has to do with the weight and size of the parts, loading into physics, and unbalanced part attachment strength, and probably some other issues, as well as the mass of a craft loading onto the runway, wobbly parts, kraken type bugs, etc etc. The best solution might be to make a bunch of smaller wings instead of large wings. These will be less likely to fall off and should still give you the same lift overall. Alternatives are to use a lot of struts to strengthen the attachment of the wings so they dont fall off. Whether you think this should be the case or not is not relevant. Another thing you could try would be to turn on unbreakable joints before loading the craft onto the runway. Then, once the plane is loaded onto the runway, turn it off again and proceed as normal. Your wings will probably still fall off when you try to lift off the ground or the forces become to strong but maybe not. Finally, some parts are better for attaching things to than others. They have stronger attachments. You could play around attaching wings to different parts to see which ones hold them the strongest.

I am on steam so I am not sure if it is the same, but my files are in run>%appdata%>Local low>Intercept>KSP2> Saves>Player>Workspaces

Your talking about on the ground right. Like a train on the moon? But not a train in open space.

I am trying to envision how a space train would work, physically, but I am having trouble. Can anyone enlighten me?

Bottom line: you need struts. If that ship on the loading screen were flight worthy then it has struts. The struts are likely hidden on the surface that is contacting the main rocket. There is no other way to “securely” attach multi-part radial assembly’s without using multiple docking ports, which right now are bugged and don’t work right. The only other alternative would be to have no gimbal enabled on any of the radial rockets to minimize instability and to fly straight vertically through the atmosphere, but even then I’m not sure it would work.

For my large unstable craft I always use launch clamps to hold them steady for when they load into physics, otherwise bad things happen.

We went through it with KSP 1 and it ended up being great. We will just have to do the same with KSP 2. Cant wait for the next update!

I’ve just been posting all my own bug reports. It’s such a CF right now. The devs will figure it out, I am guessing they have a tracking system.

Broken parts/broken builds lead to broken skips. Broken ships lead to gamebreaking errors/krakens. For example, struts bug out on your build. you now have a kraken ship. Docking ports dont connect right or disengage right, you now have a kraken kruiser. Symmetry errors cause a part to flip or rotate or clip with another part: Kraken. Weird bugs with fairings or landing gear: Kraken. Structural instability: Kraken. SAS bugs: Kraken. etc etc. All these things have to do with either fatal flaws in a particular part or class of parts (docking ports), or a fatal flaw with the way these parts are put together in the VAB, or a fatal flaw with the UI of the VAB that causes bugs, or some variety of these things. The point is that these bugs will persist as long as these errors persist. That is all.

I think it did exactly what it was supposed to do. It was a test flight. They tested what they needed to. They achieved all their goals. And they safely ended the test.

The spin is intentional in order to provide centripetal force to allow for easy separation of stages. i used to do the same thing way back in very early KSP where you had to build wedding cake style lower stages. In order to get them to separate from my craft easily without blowing my ship up I would go into a roll along the long axis before separating, causing my boosters to fly outward away from my craft. Space x is using the same concept here. Pretty cool to see it in real life.

Yes, in patch 2 the large landing gear toggle function does not work in action groups. Work around is to use the extend and retract landing gear options instead.

Especially with complex craft, multiple engines, multiple directions of thrust, and multiple fuel tanks, depending on how the stages are set up and what engines are active and various other factors, the calculated delta-V can be 0 for a ship despite still having an active engine burning fuel. But you cant create maneuver nodes. The work around is to alter your ship or stages in order to get the delta-V to recalculate.

Have you tried turning the decoupling force all the way down on them. That is potentially your problem. Too much force all centered on the root part.

To replicate: Create a simple symmetric object. for example a small fuel tank with a radially attached small fuel tank in 4 x symmetry. Place some struts between the fuel tanks in 4 x symmetry. Save the craft. Now merge the saved craft into the same workspace. place one craft on top of the other. Launch. You will see that the struts are not connecting to their appropriate locations. Alternatively, once you have the saved craft, if you merge the saved craft twice onto any other new craft, the struts will similarly break.

To replicate: Place a long Small fuel tank. Radially attach a short small fuel tank to the long one in 3x symmetry mode. For visual enhancement, attach struts in 3x symmetry between the radial tanks and the central tank. copy the entire assembly. Drag the assembly rapidly across multiple attachment nodes. Place the new copied assembly atop the first assembly. Look to see if any of the radially attached tanks on the copied assembly have rotated along their axis to now be in a new orientation (they will have), along with the previously attached struts.

To replicate: Place small fuel tank. Radially attach another small fuel tank to the side of the first in 3x symmetry mode. use the "3" function to change the anchored part from the central tank to one of the radially attached tanks. Pick up the entire craft and observe that the mirrored tanks disappear. Profit.