SessoSaidSo

Very disappointing. Squad has fallen very low, offering exclusives to certain platforms while ignoring the platform that made the game what it is. I was quite excited for that feature when it was announced.

Do PC players now have access to the console exclusives, like the Mun Launch Site?

Guess again. Delete Kopernicus.

Re-quoting so you see this again. This is an official fix from Squad.

I have always suspected the Kerbals of being the Krork. We know the true origin of the orcs! We unleashed the WAAAAAAAAGH!

1.4.2 broke the 1.4.1 update

Same problem. Actually trying to open any difficulty settings with this mod in 1.4.2 bricks the game and requires a client restart.

KSP will often lock up and freeze for 3 or 4 seconds, sometimes the screen will go black or green. I run multiple monitors, and running Youtube or Netflix appears to exacerbate the issue. Now I have run some stress tests on my GPU and they have come back fine, and I don't experience this particular issue on any other game. I am posting in the unmodded section since this is a problem that occurs in a clean vanilla save and in a modded save with the same frequency. I am curious if anyone else encounters this. I am running KSP 64-bit mode on a GTX 980 TI with a i7-5820k, drivers are fully updated.

This place is saaaaaaavaaaage.

Naw. I am trying to rescale the 2.5m fairing by creating a new part with a new .cfg

Basically I want to create a 3m fairing. I have messed around with modifying .cfg files, however, I am unable to conjure the part to show up in the game. Can someone explain how I can effectively create a 3m fairing? I would be most grateful, Thanks!

Oh, so I can just leasve out the USI folder and be fine?

I know this is a horrible thing to say, but, I just really like the parts. I play rather casually, and is there a separate parts pack? Or easier still, is it possible for me to just cut out the non parts stuff on my own without wasting your time. Wonderful parts btw, I love the habs.

First. Nothing productive to add. Looks cool tho!

He tried. It deserves a response. C+ for effort.

I have [Removed by the Moderation Team] Good day. Sir.

OK so the problem is KSP needs longer tanks. I never stated mass should be evenly distributed, rather I said in real life it is distributed differently. KSP distributes mass in an unrealistic way. Remember oxizider (generally LQO2) is generally heavier and more dense than it's corresponding fuel counterpart. This correlates into a smaller yet heavier tank (if we follow stoichiometric rules). The mass shift as the oxidizer drains is less significant than the shift that occurs as the fuel drains ( in terms of the total fuselage, in terms of individual tanks the shift will occur at the same rate). If we talk about hydrogen/oxygen combustion, we are looking at a mass ratio of almost 8 to 1 in terms of oxygen to hydrogen, and for Oxygen/Kerosene my rough calculations put that at 20:17. These ratios assume perfect combustion, I will assume rockets will often run Oxygen rich, to ensure full combustion, which will increase mass. Even at relatively low levels the top of the rocket will remain heavier and as the rocket consumes fuel and oxidizer, this will continue until further drainage forces the CoM back towards the heavy machinery. Even using a single long tank in KSP is insufficient in fixing the issue, in fact the result will remain the same, CoM will shift in the same basic manner it currently does in KSP. Ideally, we need an oxidizer tank and a separate fuel tank

Let me make this clear. The reasonbi became upset is that i was arbitrarily told to redesign my rockets to correct for the flipping. Let me point out that adding aerobrakes IS designing a rocket to prevent flipping. You waste maybe 300m/s between 5000km and 12000km. But overerall the modification is easy and i think it kind of looks cool. I will again point point out/argue that the primary cause of flipping (in what is regularly a decently engineered rocket) is the CoM/momentum issue. A physically accurate portrayal of tankage would solve many stability problems. I am not asking for that. I am simply describing my fix for it. I suggested an unrealistic solution to fix an unrealistic problem, and was then told i was doing it wrong. Hence me getting touchy.

It's fake

I have just been notified a warning for calling someone a jerk. Wow. I don't even. I don't need a citation. Realistic tankage does not drain from the top down per se. Both oxidizer and fuel drain at a constant rate thereby minimizing the shift of the center of mass. As it stands now in kerbal, fuel and oxidizer occupy the same cross-sectional space in the tank, this creates an artifical shift in the center of mass.

I did not want to create a debate about the mechanics of Kerbal, which are inherently broken. Stability problems in Kerbal rockets I have found come primarily from mass/momentum issues. In real life situations, the first stage fuselage mass generally remains remains evenly distributed (not perfectly, but certainly reliably distributed). That is the total mass of one end of the fuselage does not become significantly heavier or lighter (past the ideal point) through flight. Now, most rockets we build will likely consist of more than one tank piece placed in a stack. By default the farthest tank will drain first. This creates a certain momentum problem where the rear of the first stage fuselage becomes far heavier than the top. This artificially shifts the center of mass to the rear, this exacerbates the mass/momentum issue thereby allowing momentum to win out and flip the rocket, with the heavy end pointing forward. What needs to be introduced is a way to drain all tanks at the same rate thereby equally distributing mass along the entire fuselage. Now in real life the balance is not perfect but it is no where near to the issue we have in Kerbal. My assertion is easy to test. simply keep the furthest most tank constantly filled and you will see your rocket fly relatively nicely. Also, I need to make a quick mention of how lift across the body of the fuselage is distorted to to these mass differences. What I am frustrated about is being told to redesign my rockets to compensate for a flawed/limited mechanical feature. I simply am implementing a unique fix that I thought was interesting. Personally I would love a code change that would allow either the closest tank to drain first or all tanks to drain at the same rate. Edited: used the word lift instead of mass, my bad.

Oh ok. COOL. SO, you saw fins on retired launch vehicles, all but one of whom haven't flown since the early 1970's. I hope to hell the shuttle had fins. Please come back when you have productive comments with which to contribute, otherwise you are wasting forum archive space. Note, when did you see a Titan, Delta, Atlas, Antares, Ariene, Proton, Zenit, Falcon (gridfins don't count), Soyuz, Vega with fins? Riddle me that?

This is probably a fake image. This is 2016 why does the quality of the image look like it's 10 years old. Why does it look like it's running at 480p? So we have a picture of a crappy Kerbal image on a tv with a dude holding a PS4 controller and we supposedly have proof. FFS.

So either way I'm breaking rules. The Soyuz also uses grid fins, your point? They are for atmospheric control, they are not true lift generating apparatus. I'm talking about requiring large lift producing fins for regular stability. I didn't start this post to be told I'm building wrong, I'll go to the steam forums for that. I asked a fun questions. Go be a jerk somewhere else.

I don't like fins on my rockets. When was the last time you saw a fin on a launch vehicle? I have no problem adding extra fuel to compensate. I have found the addition of airbrakes also add a good degree of stability during launch as well, with the vehicle accepting greater angles of attack than it normally would. I'm not really looking to redesign my rockets as I like them as is.