Snark

It's being worked on, and will be ready when it's ready. We're aware that it's a major inconvenience to people. Please rest assured that its continued absence is not because nobody cares, or because it's been forgotten about. In the meantime, thank you for your patience.

Hi @TomVorat, So, first thing to check is to make sure you're not running out of RAM, especially if you only have 8GB on your machine. Keep Task Manager open and look at KSP's RAM usage as it loads. How high does it get? If the problem were some particular mod, then the symptom you'd expect to see would be KSP having problems, but your computer otherwise being fairly unaffected. If it slows your computer way down, and causes issues like computer audio, then that's the sort of thing you'd expect to see when you're pushing past your computer's RAM limit and it and it has to start excessively spamming virtual memory. The fact that you're running a very heavily modded KSP on a machine with only 8GB of RAM just makes that sound even more likely. So, I'd suggest checking your RAM usage, and if that turns out to be the problem, either run with fewer mods or get more RAM.

Yep. The aero f/x appears to trigger on pretty much every subcomponent of the model. It's been like that from square one.

Looks great! Thanks for fixing this, we know it's a hassle and we appreciate it.

Welcome to the forum! You've come to the right place, we're pretty friendly here. Moving to "Welcome Aboard", which is a good place for this sort of introduction!

Moving to the Lounge, as this isn't about KSP.

Hello, and welcome to the forums! That looks great! Thank you for contributing to the community. One unfortunately necessary thing, though-- really sorry, but we've had to snip the link (for now), due to missing a couple of spots in the add-on posting rules. Specifically, you need to do the following: Identify the license in the thread OP above (don't need the full text, just a simple statement like "License: <license name>" is sufficient). Include a license text file in your downloadable zip, such that it'll be present in your mod folder after the user installs. The license text file needs the full text of the license with all the legalese and everything-- not just the name of the license. We know it's a hassle, and we're really sorry about that-- we hate to stand in the way of bringing a great-looking mod to the folks here. Alas, it's one of those unfortunate facts of life that mods gotta have licenses. Anyway, you're free to restore the link as soon as the above two points are taken care of. We apologize for the inconvenience, and thank you for your understanding.

Moving to Add-on Discussions, since this isn't a release thread for a mod.

Hello, and welcome to the forums! Yes, this is an extremely common problem. "I have <whole bunch of mods> installed, my game is acting wrong, how do I fix it?" It usually turns out that one mod is the culprit-- but it's usually fairly unlikely that anyone else would be able to help you (i.e. be able to just look at the list and know the answer) since it's often something to do with the specific configuration on your machine. Fortunately, there's a straightforward way to address. The standard solution is: Use process of elimination to work out which mod is causing the problem Once you've identified which mod it is, go to that mod's release thread and post your question there. Then you're fairly likely to get an answer. The process-of-elimination is a bit tedious, but not too bad. Just do things by halves: i.e. uninstall half of your mods (doesn't matter which ones) and then try running to see if the problem reproduces. That'll tell you which half of the list the problem is in. Then take that half and split it in half, and keep doing that until you narrow it down to one mod. Yes, it's kinda tedious, but even if you have literally 1000 mods installed it requires under 10 restarts, and it's basically the only reliable way to pin down the problem. Good luck!

Hello, and welcome to the forums! It's worth noting that the discussion above is several years old (and therefore on older versions of the game), so any time you have a question now about the current game, it's usually best to either hop on a recent thread (if there's one currently under discussion), or else just spin up your own new question thread. That said, though, I think this particular game behavior hasn't changed in the last four years, so I believe the discussion in the thread above is still relevant. Skimming over it it just now, I think your questions are answered there-- suggest giving it a read, if you haven't already. Short answer is: If a crew member were going to respawn, they'd do so right away. If they haven't, then likely they ain't gonna. It's possible to do some manual tinkering with the savegame (i.e. the .sfs file) by editing it in Notepad or some such. However, if you decide to go that route, be sure to keep an untouched backup copy of your file from before tinkering with it, because it's easy to accidentally screw up the file when editing, and if you do that, you could break the whole thing and make it unloadable. So keeping a pristine backup copy protects you-- if you mess something up, you just restore from your "safe" backup and at least can get back to where you are now.

Lest folks forget, the actual topic of this thread is a gameplay question. One that was asked over two years ago, so the original questioner has presumably long since moved on, and further discussion in that vein is therefore moot. If one wants to discuss the philosophy of spoilers, computer games, nerd culture, or anything else, that's fine-- but it's off-topic in a gameplay question thread, and would be better suited to take up in some other thread. Accordingly, locking the thread to prevent further confusion. If anyone has further gameplay questions, or wants to discuss the philosophy of spoilers, or anything else, feel free to spin up your own thread in the appropriate subforums. Thank you for your understanding.

No exact details that I'm aware of, but my impression is that yes, there will be more resource types. Some of the new engines will require specific new fuels, and apparently some of those fuels will need to be made from other stuff, so my guess is that yes, there will be more stuff to mine than just one generic "ore". But that's including a certain amount of reading between the lines, and I don't actually know that.

Number of forum users: ~200,000. Number of moderators: <20, plus we're NDA'd and can be fully engaged with details of technical problems. So it's not the same. There are technical issues, such that it's been necessary to disable them for the forums-at-large while it's being worked on. I'm sorry, I know it's galling, especially in the absence of more detailed explanation. I wish I could explain more to you about it, but I simply can't. Until they've got it sorted, it's simply "technical issues, please stand by", and that's all I can say. Thanks again for your patience.

He was able to "like" the post because he's a moderator, and moderators have abilities that regular users do not, by design. For example, we can post into threads even when they're locked. For another, we have to be careful what we type, because the profanity filter ignores us. We're really sorry that "likes" have had to be turned off for the forum at large. We know it's a major inconvenience to the users, and we regret the necessity. However, a technical issue-- which I can't go into details on, my apologies-- has made it necessary to do so until it gets sorted out. It's being worked on and we'll have it turned back on just as soon as it's feasible to do so. In the meantime, thank you for your patience.

A lot of content has been removed and/or redacted from this thread, due to multiple forum rules violations: Unfounded accusations (rule 2.2.d) Insults and threats (more 2.2.d) Discriminatory nationalist ranting (2.2.e; it's not okay to bash a nationality, folks) Flamebaiting (2.2.n) Backseat moderating (3.2) Folks, please be civil. It's perfectly fine to have an opinion, and it's perfectly fine to express it, and it's perfectly fine to have spirited debate. It's not okay, however, to make accusations. It's not okay to bash entire countries. It's not okay to threaten people, and it's not okay to tell other people what to do. If you don't think you'll like KSP2, or you have some reason of your own for not wanting to buy it-- e.g. if you have some reason of your own for not liking the company, or anything else-- then by all means, don't buy it! And then the people who do like it will go and spend their money as they like, and everyone wins. Everyone here agreed to abide by the forum rules when creating an account, so please do so. And please don't try to enforce it on anyone else-- you're not a moderator, it's not your place to tell anyone else what to do. If you see someone behaving in a way that you believe is so egregious that it's actually violating forum rules, then by all means report the post so the moderator team can have a look and address anything they deem necessary. Do not, however, publicly threaten to do so-- it's against the rules. Do not attempt to enforce rules yourself. And if someone just says something that makes you really angry? You can choose to engage them in civil debate (no insults, no threats). Or you can just choose not to engage and stroll on by. Please don't feed the flames. Flame wars accomplish nothing, and everyone loses. It has become clear at this point that this thread can't be trusted to stay on the rails; people have said their piece early in the thread, and further discussion has been pointless flaming and bickering rather than constructive discussion. Accordingly, this thread is now locked and shall remain so. Thank you for your understanding.

Sure, but it's also worth noting that IRL planet probes are carefully computer-controlled the whole way and "navigational concerns" simply aren't a thing in that regard, so (unlike KSP) they have no advantage in going to a parking orbit first. Anyway, if that's how you like to play, makes perfect sense! Was just curious. I never use navigational mods myself, so am not in a position to offer any advice there-- maybe someone else will have ideas or suggestions.

You don't, at least not in stock. Out of curiosity, though, any particular reason why you're not doing a parking orbit? Navigation is a whole lot easier if you do, and you're not sacrificing any significant dV to do so.

Thread locked at OP request.

5thHorseman's advice is what I virtually always do, they're just not worth the bother of bringing back. It's also worth noting that having them directly attached to the heat shield won't help you, because the heat shield itself gets hot enough to make them go boom just from touching it. Most KSP parts can handle 2000 K, but the Science Jr. only goes up to 1200 K, and the heat shield itself gets hotter than that, so any part in direct contact with it is likely to get toasty. Not to mention that if you've got a 1.25m part like the Science Jr. sitting directly atop a 1.25m heat shield, there's no margin for error on orientation-- if you deviate only slightly from perfectly retrograde, even momentarily, the sides of the Science Jr. will get exposed to heat and then kerboom. As an example of where it's not a problem, consider the case where, for instance, you have a Mk1-2 command pod, with a 2.5m heat shield on the bottom, and the Science Jr. attached to the top In that case, it has no problem at all: the 2.5m heat shield and pod make a nice big wide "heat shadow" with plenty of safety margin all around the Science Jr., and also it's not directly touching anything hot.

Hello, and welcome to the forums! Moving to Add-on Discussions. As of KSP 1.7.3, the target version is 3.5.

Neither can I. But it's what most people do. There are only like a couple hundred thousand forum accounts, and most of those are very rarely used and/or have been dormant for years; only a few thousand are active to any extent, and only a few hundred are highly active. Whereas there are literal millions of KSP players.

Yep, that's pretty common. KSP players that go as far as Mun/Minmus (like yourself) are a minority, but a reasonably large one. Players that actually go interplanetary are a fairly small minority. (Note that I'm talking about the player base as a whole, not specifically about the people who are here in the forums, who represent only a tiny fraction of the overall KSP player base. My impression is that among forum members, the average level of KSP expertise/experience tends to be substantially higher than with the player base as a whole, so you're swimming with somewhat bigger fish when you're here.) So you're in plenty of good company. FYI, if you do some biome-hopping it's perfectly possible to max out the tech tree on just Mun/Minmus, without even wringing them completely dry. So that's an option for you, should you choose to do so-- but of course the MPL is also perfectly reasonable, if you'd like to skip the hassle of hopping around a lot.

They are and they aren't. It depends on how you play the game. If you're a player who plans to go out, explore the solar system, visit Mun and Minmus and maybe other planets... then it simply isn't needed, because you can easily max out the tech tree just by going to Mun/Minmus in the "traditional" way without using an MPL at all. The MPL is a massive science amplifier, so if that's the way you play the game, then yes, it's so overpowered that it's gamebreaking. That's how I play the game, so I basically just pretend that its science-processing function doesn't exist. I never use the part, unless I either need to include one to complete a contract, or else I put one on a long-range exploration ship in order to get the "train crew" ability (which I think is a great idea and not "overpowered"). The thing to understand is that most players never go interplanetary. Most, in fact, never even go as far as the Mun. There are tons and tons of players who just tinker around on Kerbin, and simply getting to Kerbin orbit is their high-water mark. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just how they play the game. But it does present an interesting gameplay quandary, because science from Kerbin is so low-value that if you never go anywhere else, you'd basically be limited to scrounging around the bottom of the tech tree and would have no way of getting any farther, ever. It would be a total stranglehold on your game. So the MPL is basically Squad's attempt to provide an alternate route to science for people who play the game that way. It means that they can acquire science as much as they want, but they do actually have to work for it. For that purpose, I think it does a reasonable job. If you asked me to design some other mechanism that could accomplish the same goal, I don't know that I could come up with anything better. They do two things. #1, they're a science amplifier. If you have acquired a certain amount of science results somewhere, then you get a lot more R&D points if you process them in the science lab than if you bring them back to Kerbin-- by a lot, it's a factor of like 5 or more (I don't remember the exact numbers since I never use the part for this). #2, they make science repeatable, since it's per-lab. Without the MPL, for example, you can only get science points for "Mystery Goo result for space near Kerbin" once, ever, for your entire career. Go take it once, bring it back, and you're basically done with that and going to acquire another "Mystery Goo from space near Kerbin" again in the future won't get you anything significant. But, if you launch a ship with a science lab, and it processes "Mystery Goo from space near Kerbin", you get science points for that... and you can then do it again if you launch another ship with a different science lab on it, and you can keep repeating that ad infinitum for as long as your patience holds out.

Thank you for reporting-- really nice that you went the extra mile to capture videos in addition to posting a log. However, in the absence of a "smoking gun" for further corroboration, I have to say that I believe it's physically impossible for BetterBurnTime to be causing this issue. The reason is that BetterBurnTime does not have any actual physical effect on any game state whatsoever. It reads data (about the current ship, and about the target). It performs its own calculations on the data that it has gathered, and it displays some information in text UI. But it doesn't affect anything. There's not a single line of code anywhere in BetterBurnTime, not one, that affects any game state whatsoever, other than the text UI where it outputs its information. It shouldn't be physically possible for it to cause a problem like this, any more than turning your kitchen sink on and off should be able to affect your car's gas mileage. They're just not connected. There's also the fact that BBT has had many thousands of users for several years, and if this were a problem with BBT, it seems likely that someone would have run into it before now. It's also worth noting that the target-intercept code hasn't been touched at all in years, certainly since long before 1.7.3 came out two months ago, which also would tend to suggest that this is not where the problem lies. Can you reproduce this problem with all other mods uninstalled, such that you're running only BBT and nothing else at all? If you can, then that would be a useful data point, and a copy of a stock-except-for-BBT savegame, where the problem consistently and reproducibly happens, would be necessary to have even a chance of starting to investigate. If you can't (which is what I'm guessing will be the case, for the reasons described above), then that would pretty much be a "smoking gun" that points squarely at some other mod being the problem. In which case you'd need to do some process-of-elimination to figure out which mod it is, and then go inquire in that mod's thread. BBT used to provide two bits of functionality that helped with maneuver nodes: A more-accurate and more-reliable burn duration indicator (the stock game had one, but it was inaccurate and often just "N/A") A countdown indicator of when to start the burn (the stock game didn't have this at all, forcing the player to do math every time). Both of these have since been addressed in the stock game, which is why I removed it from BBT: Issue #1 is implicit-- they simply made the burn-duration indicator more accurate and reliable, removing the need for BBT to try to tinker with that, and no action on your part is required. Issue #2 is now provided in stock by some additional UI, just below the burn-duration indicator, that shows when to start the burn. However, for reasons that absolutely baffle me, the way they choose to implement #2 is not only optional (why would anyone not want this?), but is actually turned off by default (why?!), and is also really undiscoverable, meaning that most players don't even see it and are completely unaware of its existence, which utterly perplexes me since it's such a crucial piece of information. I'm sure they had their reasons for burying it like this, given how brilliant and useful it is, but I've never been able to understand what those reasons might be. Anyway, you have to turn it on. I'm not in front of my KSP computer right now so I don't remember exactly where it is, but basically you go rummage around in the game settings, and somewhere there's a check box with a name that's something like "Show Extended Burn Info" or "Show Advanced Burn Info" or something like that. (There's also a slider for "what percentage of my dV do I want to do before the burn point", which defaults to 50% which is the reasonable choice and I see no reason why you'd want to tinker with that, but I mention it here because when your eyeballs are hunting around for the checkbox, knowing that it'll be next to a slider might help you to spot it.) I think, IIRC, it'll be under UI options rather than settings for a particular savegame, because I think after you set it once, it applies to all your games (present and future) and you never have to tinker with it again.

There are mods that can help with this-- my own BetterBurnTime is one-- but if you prefer a mod-free solution, here's a technique that works entirely in stock and can help take away some of the guesswork. Start in circular Mun orbit, ideally fairly low. Do your burn to lower your Pe so you're on a suborbital trajectory. Drop a maneuver node right exactly precisely at the spot where your trajectory intersects the Mun's surface. Start dragging the handle on the maneuver node. Note that this causes your post-maneuver dotted-line projected trajectory to start collapsing towards the Mun's surface. Keep that up until your projected post-maneuver Ap collapses right down to the maneuver node on the surface itself, then stop. There you go, you're all ready! At this point, the countdown-until-maneuver tells you how long until you're projected to hit the surface, and the estimated burn time tells you how long you need to burn. So all you do is, switch your navball to surface-relative mode, set SAS to "hold ", and wait. When the time-until-maneuver gets down to about 60-70% of the estimated burn time, max out your throttle. (So, for example, if the burn indicator is telling you that the maneuver will require a 10-second burn, you'd wait until you're about 6-7 seconds before the maneuver node time.) That won't take you perfectly down to the surface (there's a bit of safety margin built in), but it ought to do considerably better than you've got now. Don't slow down all the way to a hover-- that's very wasteful of dV, you want to be falling fairly fast. But this is a good start.