Mandelbrot

Pressure does not equal ullage. Google "ullage" in relation to rocketry. You need gravity (or something standing in for it, like an acceleration forward from a small solid ullage motor or a steady couple of seconds of RCS burn) to "settle" the fuel at the bottom of the tank so it isn't mixed with the gas inside that keeps the pressure up as the fuel flows out. It's pretty easy and super fun (for me anyway) once you get used to it. Hopefully I typed this fast enough to keep NK from having to answer it.

The best thing about these threads is that people start making mythology about the frequency of its appearance in various versions. (Along the lines of "It almost never appeared in .18-.23 but it's chances were upped in .24.") Humans attempting to intuit randomness is hilarious.

If you go into part-offset mode ("2" on keyboard) and shift-left click the rocket, you'll offset the root part. Look up, and drag the whole thing into the floor to work on the upper stages. I think you might be able to launch it that way, but I pull it back up when I'm done to be safe.

If you use the fairings rather than the structural pieces and stage them off first, the engine will deploy. It takes hitting two stages at the right time, but the margins in RSS/RO really aren't as bad as some people think so a little wasted fuel here and there won't kill you. I think a little bit of waste happens in things like staging events in real life too. Sometimes it's more important that something works than you scrape every last foot per second out of a stage.

I tried restarting the aestus II a few times using RCS like I described above. Everything seemed to be working fine for me. Turn on RCS, push 'H' for a few seconds, until the fuel reports as "very stable" and then activate the engine. The model I am using looks like it's coming out of RLA stockalike, for what's it worth. (As Nathan so patiently explains, the pressure level of the tank has very little to nothing to do with the gas mixed into the fuel. Ullage motors stand in place for gravity, not pressure.)

Thanks to everyone who worked on ullage and limited ignitions in RF. These are essential features for me. It was the thing that made engine choices and flight planning the most interesting compared to the base game, and the main thing that added difficulty in RO/RSS. I just want to report that the ullage seems fine and very similar to past versions. I can settle a 10 ton stage with 4 RV-105-45s producing 255 newtons apiece. I have done it in a low suborbital situation and I just tested it in what seems like worse cases to me. First, on the way up in the upper atmosphere, soon after it became fully unstable. And second, just as it reached apoapsis at 14.5km, while tumbling. (Has to be less than 255 newtons at that altitude.) It seems pretty fair to me. Craft file if it happens to work in your install: https://www.dropbox.com/s/4ce496ska8co4mt/Orbit.craft?dl=0

I wanted to report on this thread that anyone who may be having trouble using this, (as I did, massive FPS drop) or considering using this, RealFuels (which is getting updated regularly) now supports this function, and does it using EI's own settings, so legacy cfgs are supported. RO/RSS felt almost unplayable for me without EI so I wanted to spread this information around a bit.

Ah, I see. Kerbal 1.0 is crashing at a rate it never has before. Newbs all over are complaining about an amateurish, crash-heavy memory leaking game. So you're not going to prioritize a hotfix. Let's put in new secret features and balance aero and heat instead. By the way, what have you been working on in your capacity as "Discombobulated Moderator"? I wonder if you've been so busy coding, 3d-modeling for the game "you" are working on, if you just haven't had a chance to play it recently?

Announcement: 1.0.3 Due for release next week. Maybe a bit late, but it is looking very good for next week barring any major issues. From KSP Twitter: "Next week Tuesday is #AsteroidDay, created to raise awareness about asteroid danger. We suggest you keep an eye on @AsteroidDay for updates." So there were major issues. The two month wait for a memory leak "hotfix" that was "found" and "dealt with" in May drags on.

Hotfix for major memory leak incoming! We are also introducing new thermodynamics and aerodynamic changes! Finally finalizing the release of 1.0 with the 1.0.3 patch! (Shiny object attracts attention to a PS4 logo sitting on a pile of cash.) NM fixing game, PS4 BABY!!!

Crashcourse? You mean Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer? Of course he is, what rock have you been living under. (He's also a big fan of space, a guest rogue on SGU, he's the, you know, Bad Astronomer.) He's actually an astronomer, not some video guy on spouting off on Youtube like Veritas and V Sauce. He's written lots of books, is a major science communicator. Next you'll tell us than some random guy who happens to run the Hayden Planetarium might've heard of KSP. Yeah, and people may have heard of him, too. (Cosmos, etc)

DMP is great. It brings back those heady days of the mid '90s, where playing Mechwarrior 2 over a 2400 baud modem at 4 FPS seemed - well - it was neat that it worked anyway.

Just wanted to add that the engine variety went way up for me, seemingly because of better balance. The 48-7s accounted for >80% of my engine usage pre 1.0. (I like to build small, and clustering them using cubic octags had practically zero downside). If you look at the optimal engine usage charts for post 1.0 and compare them to the .90 data, it is clear that many more engines are worth using than ever before. If I had to decide on which parts made the cut for a game, I would want there to be at least some use for all of them, otherwise it's just a waste of art and memory. Post 1.0 engine balance is much closer to this ideal than ever before.

Hey Silverfox, I wanted to thank you for all your hard work. I am very much looking forward to the release of this mod. I wanted to let you know that there are people out there who are excited to use this.

This is new to me, sounds neat. Has anyone heard of this / know what it's termed / know if it makes sense?

Sure it's an obvious troll etc., but it makes me wonder, why have there been so many legitimate requests for caves in this game? It has to be the top requested surface feature after cities on Kerbin.

Put two SRBs side by side on the pad. Put a skinny pointy fairing on one, and a short flat disc-like fairing on the other, and watch as the skinny one out performs the flat one. Now, revert the launch and launch again after separating the fairings. The difference in performance remains without the fairings. (I don't think it's the same exact difference, but the gulf between the two is clear and obvious.) Here's a craft file that will demonstrate: https://www.dropbox.com/s/k85yrwnrtv4ggad/Untitled%20Space%20Craft.craft?dl=0

I am not sure about the future of this mod, considering the attempted upgrading of the stock joystick support, but I wanted to report that KSP still can't recognize the axises of my Thrustmaster T flight X, which is a fairly common stick, so an update for this mod would be much appreciated.

I think they usually start steaming the update after Squadcast, so this combined the the mention of an "AMA" on Sunday suggests they've canceled streaming 1.0 this weekend. Who'd care about an "AMA" after a full 24 hours of streaming the update?

I think the release of No Man's Sky will render this question moot.

I did not see the under-watched video catagory before, Tyler Raiz's " " has only 513 views despite covering a mission to Mars that continues to be important to our exploration of that planet today. That was a milestone for NASA and you can learn a lot about it from that fairly brief video.

I was gonna nominate Tyler Raiz for Best Showcase Channel, but either way, more people should watch his channel. Also, for Best Video overall, I would like to nominate: "KSP launching a plane to Mars with Real Solar System" It's based on a proposed NASA mission.[h=1][/h][h=1][/h]

I'm not sure, but my guess is that it'd much cheaper to kick it up and into a transfer to Kerbin than to deorbit it.

Should've added ullage to the poll!

I am confused. The OP says, "I've been playing KSP for technically five years at this point," but KSP has only been in development for a little over four years, and it hasn't even been four years since the first public release: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Version_history#v0.7.3 So what does "technically five years" mean? Is it a sort of rounding thing, where if you have played for more than two and a half you round up to five? So after you've played seven and a half years you'll have played "technically ten years" sort of thing?