TheXRuler

So a simple question and I'm sure the answer is equally simple but for the life of me I can't find the answer on the internet or myself. Where are the custom editor groups saved? I spent a huge amount of time setting up my custom groups because I have more than 350 parts from mods and it was getting ridiculously cluttered. Now, I have multiple different versions installed and many different installs and I don't want to have to spend a day for each install

Aquick sneak peek at the part catalogue for my station, already above 1000k in funds T_T and that is not including all the peripheral infrastructure.

Great, then I can finally start launching stuff into orbit

Great so using .90 wouldn't be a problem? If, before I have completed the challenge all my mods get updated I will of course switch to 1.0.x

Great, that is what I was hoping for

If I understand the hangar mods documentation correctly the mass of a stored ship is not lost, I was thinking it would mainly be really usefull for sending the whole station plus everything else in one go, but I guess it's not necesarry. Also two more questions (sorry but my brain can't seem to think of all the questions at once). I would much like to do this in my carreer savegame because I want stations and bases everywhere and it would save me the effort of launching everything twice. However there are two potential problems, firstly because of all the mods I use it is still .90 (B9 and kethane don't have official updates yet). Also, I have KSP-Interstellar installed, which would put it in the future technology division. However, I'm not planning on using interstellar for this challenge, so would that put it in the modded division. I was thinking since KSPI uses completely different resources than stock KSP I could simply leave the resource panel open in every screenshot (save for beauty shots of course) and thereby prove that I did not use it. Just asked about the stored vessels in the thread The mass of the vehicle gets added to the hangar but the parts for the craft are not loaded so you get less lag.While this functionality is wildly different from stock I thought it might still be acceptable since it doesen't provide any unfair advantages (that I am aware of) over not using it, apart from less lag.

First of all, thanks for this mod, as I am still waiting for 1.0 updates on other mods I can use this (yay) so I will download it soon. One question however concerning stored vessels. The OP states that vessels are unloaded, does this mean their mass is removed as well? Or does the mod account for that seperately?

First of all, backup your save files before editing, always a good idea. What I would recommend is launching a new vessel onto the launchpad consisting only of a shielded docking port and a probe core. Give it a unique name and after setting it on the pad and opening the shield quicksave. Then go to your KSP-Directory\saves\quicksave.sfs and look for the docking port vessel. Scroll down a little until you find the thing that says PART{ name=dockingport1 etc. etc. and search for this section MODULE { then a crapload of text and code, finished by a curly bracket on the some vertical line as the opening one like so } Copy the entire MODULE section and paste it into the MODULE section of the dockingport on the vessel that you are having trouble with. Save your changes, exit and then load the quicksave in KSP. Simply recover the vessel on the launchpad and switch to the vessel which you wanted to dock, dock as usual. If that doesen't help post here again (please include your savefile) and I'll see if I can come up with something else.

Wa just wondering whether this challenge is still on. I have been working on a rather massive Space Station, would be a shame to see it discarded... Also, what about extraplanetary launchpads? If I send up the mining and refining infrastructure would I be permitted to construct some sections of the station, landers etc in situ? And what about the hangars mod? All that does is save on part count since you can store vessels in a hangar, reducing the effective part count from say 150 to one. Mass is preserved and the hangar weight increases with the mass of the ship so no advantages in dV, it just cuts down on part count and wobble.

From what I gather re-entry heat has been tuned down so far that it is basically non-existent. If you don't actively try to kill yourself by falling straight down at 8 km/s you should be fine. If you want slightly more realistic re-entry heating then try out the deadly re-entry mod.

I'd say you need FAR more wing area, like 3 to 4 times as much. Think bout it this way, in FAR and real life (I gather KSP now tries to model one of these at least) the maximum realistic wingload is around 0.5 tons per square meter. Now I don't know how much your craft weighs but I think you will simply have to add more wing are over all. Also, I assume you tried turning SAS off when it starts oscillating (stock SAS can be a bit crazy in the atmosphere)

If you like using expendable rockets you should try using many many SRB's (at least in the first stage). I am a fan of far too huge and entirely too expensive interplanetary motherships with dedicated landers etc etc or ridiculous 1200 ton space stations. Most of the time I use SSTO spaceplanes to get my stuff up (It's a lot cheaper since you only pay for fuel) and if you can be bothered then that (or a minmus refinery) is definetly the way to go. However spaceplanes have the big problem that their cargo bays are only ever so large mk3 in stock or s2 wide in b9 aerospace (.90). For larger payloads I use a launcher made of a 9 core solid rocket first stage, if you want my construction techniwue just pm me I'll explain it. And then a poodle upper stage, manages something like 45 tons in .90 with oldFAR installed, haven't tested it yet. The thing is, SRBs are bloody cheap "trash cans full of boom" as somebody here fittingly said, and while they are quite heavy for the dV they provide and have a low ISP it's still worth it from a cost standpoint

Also, try validating your files through steam (assuming you use steam, I think the option is called "validate integrity of game cache") if you don't use steam then just re download it and integrate your save folder into the fresh directory. I had a similarily crazy bug after I landed a probe with parachutes on jool (yes it was tedious as all hell even at 4x timewarp) and it glitched through the surface exploded and the mechjeb AR202 on the probe was ejected at something like 143 times the speed of light. The sun was like WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE and then the game crashed xD. The savegame was fine but whenever I switched to that part I had to reinstall the game ^^

To get a reasonably efficient and reasonably safe landing I recommend watching this video: You can be quite a bit more efficient by doing kind of a reverse gravity turn by starting higher up and then coming down more steeply right at the end.

Not really, all I can say is aim your arriving orbit into the center of the planet and then do a small inclination change at the ascending or descending node to come in just above or just below your target body.

Did you place everything, including the engines and intakes with symmetry activated? I seem to remember this sometimes causing issues in .90. What you can also try is placing all intakes for one engine, then that engine, then the nex set of intakes and the next engine and so on. Hope this helps in some way...

As far as I have gathered (I haven't played a lot of 1.0.2 cuz I need my mods, ALL OF THEM ^^) they tuned down reentry heating so far because players started crying when their ships burnt up and they didn't want to relearn what is an essential part of flying. Either that or you have somehow turned reentry heating down, from what I gather this varies with difficulty settings but can also be adjusted later.

Also, if you think about it, Kerbals are astronauts, and astronaut training takes many years and is incredibly expensive. I think it's actually quite cool that there is now a kind of penalty for killing them.

T_T that is even bigger than what I had expected. Definetly one of the more impressive designs I have seen, you just posted this in another thread I noticed

One possible use is for adding a single LV-N between two R.A.P.I.E.R.s on a Mk. 2 spaceplane. Using the Mk. 2 bi-adapter and two bi-couplers placed horizontally with one node overlapping in the middle and struts you could finally build a nuclear spaceplane

I think the best way to zip through the science tree is a staged Ion probe with all the reusable experiments and an antenna the best strategy (from my experience) is no strategy. You need reputation for good contracts, you need good contracts for lots of funds and science rewards, you need funds to go places and you need to go places to do science. Really as long as you don't have excessive amounts of funds it's not worth converting them and you always need reputation. The best way to get huge amounts of science in my experience is to launch a refuelable lander with ~1200 m/s of dV with full tanks to the mun (or minmus) and then hop from biome to biome. Or, for even more science stick some capsules in orbit, rendezvous, transfer the science to them and send them back to kerbin for 100% return rate. With such a lander I maxed out the stock tech tree in about 5 days using only transmissions and a science lab to increase transmission value a little (after I had LV-N's to get 5600 m/s dV ).

Ah well a 2GHz CPU might be a little low for really high part count. More importantly what is "high part count" for you? If you can use 200 parts it should be relatively easy so I assume you have much less? Using a procedural wings mod might lower part count quite a bit since stichting wings out of far to small parts means a lot of parts where proc wings could give you the whole thing with maybe 2-6 parts total, also procedural control surfaces ^-^ Normally I would also reccomend the [thread=107273]UbioZur Welding mod[/thread] as this can reduce part count (and increase rigidity) quite significantly. The only game option I know of that could help with that is reducing the "max physics delta time per frame" or whatever it is called. Basically this runs the game more slowly accross the board because things are calculated in smaller steps. That might help reducing the physics lagg between frames, though it will not increase game speed in general.

If you go shallow enough the high altitude braking burn shouldn't be necessary. What I reccomend is to remember how much fuel you have left in orbit after your initial deorbit burn, then go to the VAB and edit your fuel tanks so that you have the same level of fuel as after your initial deorbit burn and then find out how many engines you have to turn of to get a TWR of about 0.9. Maybe set an action group for this? If neccesarry you could play around with the thrust limiters to fine tune your TWR. Then when you want to deorbit you just activate the action group/set the thrust limiters and deorbit as usual, burn ~all your fuel leaving about 3 seconds of fuel for the final braking burn. Then, when you are only ~2 seconds from impact you hit the "z" (or "y" depending on qwertz or qwerty) key to fire your engines up to 100%, that should slow you down sufficiently.

They heated up fast in 0.90. 1.0 has changed a lotof this as heating of engines is actually a real mechanic. What I was trying to say was that the mainsail shouldn't start glowing. Sorry if I sounded like a smartS

A 400 ton lander? Oô Could I please have a screenshot? I love crazy things