rynak

An update on the heap crashbug: I've just downloaded the source from github. I was expecting having to delve into complex code, but just to see if compiling works right, i did a compile with the unmodified source, then launched KSP. No crash! What happened? I'm not sure but i have two candidates: v4.3 was released a month ago. The last commit on github also is about one month old, so one would think the source on git is identical to 4.3. Well, if that is so then why are there commit comments about 4.4beta? If that is no mistake, then 4.3 might have been released from a different branch, because 4.4 was considered beta - yet already fixed a crashbug. The other possibility is that i might have compiled it with no multithreading, without doing so on purpose (the devs use MS tools, while i use CSDevelop, so my IDE might have skipped some directives in the project file). In any case, either the heap issues have been fixed, or it indeed is a matter of compilation settings (my bet is on threading - too many heap handles).

I use ion's a lot, but not the stock ones. Stock ions are an example of "so realistic that it's useless". So yeah, i guess the answer to the question is "No".

You mean with mods or without? Changes to the mod setup of course will change memory consumption. I was talking about memory at startup without mods. Between 0.24 and 0.90, it went up by almost 400mb for me.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned clearly yet is, fins or even winglets. Sure, you can go brute force and just add more SAS.... but inside the atmosphere spins are better compensated with winglets or at least fins. Checklist: - Make sure the weight of the rocket is centered. Easily achieved by just mounting everything symmetric. - As a beginner, make it at least two stage. First stage should be SRBs, because they're efficient. - Add at least 1 SAS stabilizer - it should be either close to the top or bottom (so, far away from the center of mass) - Add 4 winglets to the bottom. - Rotate the entire rocket, so that you already have 90 degrees (East) at the bottom of the navball, when you launch. This way, you dont have to spin. - Depending on the speed of the first stage, SLOWLY start turning down towards 90 (E), until you hit 45deg pitch, somewhere between 6000-12000m - Once Apoapsis reaches 40km, slowly start turning further towards horizontal. A plugin like VOID is very useful here, because it has a HUD readout showing you the orbital stats without you having to go to the map. - At first, target for 80KM AP. Once you reach that, cut down the throttle and wait until you're almost at AP. - Now burn to raise your PE above the atmosphere - get it to about the same as the AP to circularize your orbit (again, a HUD like the one from VOID helps a lot). The speed will be at about 2300ms. Congratz, stable circular orbit. From here, everything becomes MUCH easier with regards to thrust and fuel (EDIT: In fact, so much easier that your normal engines will be excessive - its much easier to adjust an already existing orbit, with those tiny "ant drives" - They're really useful). Next step: Learn how to change your orbit (Altitude, Eccentricity, Inclination), then go for one of the most difficult things: Transfers, which is meeting with another object in space - be it a moon, planet or vessel. For the later, an important thing to keep in mind, is that speed in space works upside down: Say you are behind a vessel and want to catch up: Acceleration means slowing down. Deacceleration means going faster. Yup! Basically, forget about speed and think about orbit diametres and such - a circle with a smaller diametre is shorter, than a larger circle - and increasing speed will make the circle larger. Another way to phrase it is this: Your puny vessel is powerless - it's the planet that is doing all the work for you.

@lamelefty: That's because it now uses much more memory. I suspect it has to do with the upgradable facilities, but that's just speculation - haven't looked into assets to be sure.

I personally found the capacity to be excessive... for SRB's as well as other tanks. For SRBs, you could edit the file gameplay/proceduralparts/parts/tanks/4srb.cfg Scroll about 2/3 down and find the line that starts with "unitsPerT = " That's the amount of fuel relative to size, if i understand correctly. Keep in mind this will affect ALL procedural SRBs - so, their maximum fuel will in general be lower.

I MIGHT have experienced the same, with the small gearbay of the adjustable gearbays mod. I too currently have the tier 2 runway. Please try something: Enable the brakes, then disable them again. Is rolling now possible?

I wasn't confusing both, but apparently unaware that 64bit OS's running 32bit apps, allocate 3,5GB userland. By the way, a 32bit OS can let KSP use 3GB, but as mentioned in my post, it requires an option in the OS configfiles.

Removing struts can also help sometimes. KSP is really annoying and bugged with this kind of stuff - been so for ages. Sometimes you need to add a strut somewhere, other times a strut actually causes it. If you're not using it yet, i recommend KerbalJointReinforcement - i've had issues like this much less often since using it, plus no pancakes anymore.

In 32bit mode, windows normally reserves 2GB for "kernelland", which is where the system and all the drivers are residing. The remaining 2GB are "userland" which is where all the normal programs run in - like KSP. So, KSP in 32bit mode actually has just 2GB available. However, windows can be told to only reserve 1GB for "kernelland" and 3GB for "userland"... of course, this is only feasible if the drivers you're using aren't overly bloated (else they might actually need 2GB). The method to tell windows to use 1/3GB instead of 2/2, is different for winXP and win7. Just google it - not hard to find. A hint though: set it up as a second boot option, instead of replacing the default one - this way, if your system no longer boots properly (i.e. because of bloated drivers running out of memory), you can still boot into the standard 2/2GB setup. EDIT: Seperate from the above is another thing not many users know about: 32bit CPU's are actually capable of addressing more than 4GB of memory! For reasons we would rather not think about though, MS disabled this by default - it can be enabled with another switch in a configfile. The problem however is, that a program has to be compiled for this, to make use of the extra memory. With this setting being disabled and hidden by default, almost no app is compiled to make use of this - i guess this back then was a good selling point for 64bit CPUs and new Windows versions >.> XP technically was capable of breaking the 4GB barrier, but MS needed a reason to sell Vista and Seven.

If you prefer gameplay over obsessive realism, you might want to slightly bump up the "DishAngle" - which is the width of the arc which dish antennae have. With the default settings, especially the long range ones have such a tiny arc, that covering a remote planet reliably can be really annoying. Also yes, disabled the time lag as well.

Well, obviously people will have different preferences, depending on if they want a simulation, a game, or anything in-between. From a gamedesign POV, most of the mods that target simulation/realism add a lot of bloat, since all the different ressources needed for lifesupport mostly do the same. Oh sure, there are CO2 scrubbers and stuff, but that simply is an excuse for micromanagement. Again, if your goal is simulation, then you might actually want that. On the other hand, if gamedesign has priority, then pretty much just one ressource is needed, to represent lifesupport. Then, there's the matter of performance and ease of use. A simulation will require plenty of parts, while a single ressource pretty much just needs the equivalent of tanks. I'm more into "gamey" aspects, and prefer to keep my part count down. So, i'm mostly watching interstellar to mature, then will kick all the parts and just create a configfile for a single procedural part. So yeah, all i really want is just kerbals consuming "fuel". Of course, there's the question of extraction/generation at bases, but that is a different topic that needs much more explanation.

Every time i load up KSP, i think that ape is laughing at me. So i think it simply means "next Version".

As stated in the realchute thread, this is not caused by ATM, because it happens even without ATM installed (and i also have another mod, where it happens without ATM). Instead, it probably is KSP itself downsizing the icon. It might not happen for stock icons and most other mods, because their icon textures are larger than neccessary (if that were true, it really would be ironic, because then KSP would basically force modders to use wasteful texture sizes). In other news, still unable to use ATM because of the heap crashbug. Yes, i'm running with the extended address space switch, and without ATM i have about 1,5GB free. It probably is not related to memory size, but memory handles. Perhaps too many threads.

It is not ATM that is doing this (even though, it would of course be the primary suspect). I know that, because it is happening on my machine as well, even though i removed ATM (because of the heap crashbug). I suspect it might be the game itself, that might be downsizing the icon, if texture scaling is set to "half" (which by now probably everyone uses at least, cause without it, KSP runs through the 32bit VMem barrier in no time).

Things like cockpits do not really lend themselves to scaling... because for a larger cockpit, different aspects of the cockpit (i.e. windows vs rest) should scale differently. Instead of going down the road to hell in trying to find an algo for this, making them handcrafted is just fine. It also allows more flexibility with regards to stats (a procedural part commands than an algo has to scale the attributes). I see no problem with keeping those kinds of parts unique. It's tanks, batteries, wings, boosters and so on, where the partcount is just stupid, and if you consider the clutter in the part catalog, then constantly having to search for parts in the editor, might very well counterweight all the benefits of having no scaling UI. Really, i think their reason simply is backwards compatibility.

They insist on backwards compatibility for aero... what do you think is their take on axing half of the part catalog? Not that i agree with this, just pointing out the obvious. EDIT: As for making it more accessable... the pictures with the parts could have 2-3 small sub-buttons inside them, to pick a preset-size. This would reduce clutter, yet still allow to just pick a 2m or 5m tank, instead of messing with sliders. Also, even for slider usage, this can be made more intuitive than the procedural mods do it. I.e., the moment you click on a tank, a small popup could appear. The steps also could be less finegrained, i.e. for tanks 1m steps... this way, you dont even need a slider, but could do it with arrow buttons.

Minor feature proposal: I use ScienceAlert mostly as replacement for ScienceMonitor... so, i keep the window with the list of available experiments open, and don't use the alarm feature. When no experiments are available, please make the printout in red or another color very different to green. This would help in noticing when an experiment pops up. And a minor (but important for contracts) bug report: Setting the threshold to 0 does not work properly - it still will filter experiments out that yield no science. Why would one set it to zero? Well, for example when doing contracts... its easier to launch an experiment from the ScienceAlert window, than zooming around the craft to highlight the part, right click it, then find the right button and.... you get the picture EDIT: Another small improvement: An option to ignore EVA while in the atmosphere and not landed/splashed.

Something which thus far apparently only KER has, yet which i think fits into VOID: In the extended orbital information display, time to ascending/descending node of the current reference body. So, if one orbits around kerbin, time to the optimal point for ascend and descend (to change inclination). There is no way to display the nodes for the current ref body in ksp - only other objects. I'm surprised no one mentioned this before, because this is fundamental. Perhaps most are running VOID and KER alongside each other, and that's the reason it hasn't been brought up.

Thanks! Didn't notice this. I'll also drop a post in the VOID thread - it seems to have printouts for everything and the kitchen sink, except of time to Ascend/Descend.

I know, but this is off-topic, since it is irrelevant to the question, which was about changing inclination for the current ref body (it's right in the topic title).

Thus far, i have done orbit inclination changes, for the body i'm currently orbiting around, by pure goddamn trial and error. I know how to change inclination - that's not the problem. My problem is knowing when i've reached a good spot to change inclination. When i already are close to the incl. i want, i can't do it visually anymore. I've red somewhere that in the past, it was possible to set the body as a target, to get the ascending and descending markers, but now this seems to no longer be possible. Are there any mods to help with this? Does the best spot for incl. change have a specific term, which i could check for in VOID?

Also waiting for an update (as well as aligned currency indicator), because my GPU can't do AA without severe performance loss.

An oldie but goodie, updated to be more universal: modulemanager config file, to add the fuel-breaker functionality to any decoupler and seperator, so that you can enable and disable crossfeed via rclick or actiongroups: Only thing now missing is, it checking if smartparts is actually installed. If someone knows how to do that properly (module manager syntax is killing me), go ahead and fix.

Is there a way to create a smaller version of the two-wheeled variant, via rescalefactor? When i set it to 0.6, the plane seems glued to the runway and cannot move. Then i went and adjusted wheelradius by the same factor, but that didn't help either. I don't see anything else in the configfile, that might cause it. Any hints? EDIT: Okay, this is weird. I redownloaded the package, to instead play with the default ones. Guess what? The smaller single-wheeled one does this out of the box. If i enable and then disable the brakes, everything works fine. So i think, something weird is going on with the brakes. EDIT2: Am using the current firespitter plugin (i put it in GameData/Firespitter/Plugins) EDIT3: Possibly related (Might be an issue with the tier 2 runway): http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108259-Possible-bug-with-Tier-2-Runway-Please-assist-confirm-it-s-not-my-system