Snark

Some content has been removed. Folks, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with each other, and nothing wrong with spirited debate. And it's nice to see that people are posting links and citing evidence on various sides of the issue. Let's please try to keep it friendly, though-- no need for finger-pointing or name-calling. The best way to support a position is to simply present the evidence (e.g. citations), make one's argument, and then let the argument and evidence speak for themselves. No need to make things personal-- we're all friends here, right? Thank you for your understanding.

Moving to Add-on Discussions. Though it's worth noting that if you have a question about a particular mod, the best place to ask is usually in that mod's release thread, since that's where the author and expert users hang out.

Moving to Technical Support.

That's odd, I'm playing 1.7.2 and don't observe any Mun gravity issues at all. It works exactly the same as it always has for me, and kerbal EVA packs can fly around on the Mun just fine. I can't speak for the community, of course, but the Mun is such an important part of the game that if it were actually broken as you describe, I would expect there to be very large numbers of forum users pointing that out, vocally and immediately; and I haven't observed that at all. Which makes me wonder whether it might be some technical issue with your particular installation. Is it possible that you may have some mod issue? Perhaps worth posting in Technical Support (modded or unmodded, as appropriate)?

Hi folks, Just a gentle reminder to keep it on topic, please. This thread is for discussing the JNSQ mod, and the last few posts are starting to derail the conversation into an argument about Kopernicus. Keep the topic on this mod, please, and not try to fight some other mod's battle here. If anyone wants to discuss their thoughts about Kopernicus, this thread is not the place for that, take it elsewhere, please. Thank you for your understanding.

Just a gentle reminder to everyone to keep things civil. They've been okay thus far, but things are becoming a bit heated, so please let's comport ourselves like adults, yes? Just to recap the obvious: Users of mods have ideas, which leads to feedback. Which is a good thing, and I don't think anybody objects to that. It's also the case-- which I assume everyone also knows-- that no modder owes anyone anything, so it's entirely up to them as to whether to act on any such feedback. As a matter of etiquette, it behooves everyone involved to remember that modders provide their work for free, out of the goodness of their hearts, and as such anyone who uses the fruits of their labors owes them a debt of gratitude. So it's poor form to be rude, or criticize, or demand, when talking to someone who wrote the mod you're using. Be polite, please. It's the right thing to do, and it's also the way to encourage modders to keep wanting to do what they're doing. We all know the above-- right?-- so I'm sure we can keep things friendly. Thank you for your understanding.

Just to go back to the original question of how to read / understand DV maps, here's a rephrasing of the numbers you give above, to make the semantics a bit clearer: 3400 m/s from Kerbin surface to low Kerbin orbit 930 m/s to change between Kerbin orbit and transfer trajectory 160 m/s to change between transfer trajectory and Minmus orbit 180 m/s to change between Minmus orbit and landed on Minmus So to go home, you just play that in reverse. 180 m/s to go from landed-on-Minmus to Minmus orbit, and then 160 m/s to initiate the transfer home. Then you can skip #1 and #2 on the way home, due to aerobraking. The key takeaway is that when shifting from "orbit around a body" to "transfer to some other body" (or vice versa), that's a dV requirement that will be very different at the two ends of the transfer-- in the above example, it's 930 m/s on the Kerbin end of the transfer, but only 160 m/s on the Minmus end. So that was the bit you were missing. I'd add that 180 to land from low Minmus orbit seems a bit optimistic to me, too-- I'd allow 200 at least, perhaps a bit more if you're not an expert at efficient vacuum landings. That should be ample, yes. I'd also add that biome hopping is far cheaper on Minmus than on the Mun, so if you've gone all that way, it's generally worth doing at least two or three different biome landings to greatly ampify the science obtained. The two main skills to develop for landing are efficiency and accuracy. I would say that for most game circumstances I've run across, efficiency is the more important of the two, and good to master first. The relevant term to search for on the forums is "suicide burn". Basically, it goes like this: the most efficient way to land on a vacuum world is to do an initial de-orbit burn to put you on a suborbital trajectory (preferably a fairly small burn, so that you're going mostly horizontal at your projected impact site), and then point and wait until the last possible second to turn on your engines. Then hit the engines at 100% such that you brake to a halt right at the surface. The tricky bit, of course, is gauging exactly when that "last possible" second is, thus the name of the maneuver. There are various techniques for that-- some which work in stock, some which are assisted by mods-- but getting your suicide burns working is the main thing. As for accuracy... yep, that's another skill. But how much work is needed is highly subjective-- there are various strategies and techniques, and how much of a refinement you need to your current technique depends on how well that's working for you. How would you evaluate your current Mun-landing skills for accuracy? i.e. if you land on the Mun, in a way that's as efficient as you can make it (i.e. without doing a lot of wasteful hovering), how close to a desired target can you land? i.e. how far off target is your typical landing? 10 meters? 100 meters? 1 km? 10 km? Something bigger than 10 km?

Lots of good detailed advice above. My own summary boils down to this: Transmit science if you're on a one-way mission (e.g. disposable uncrewed probe), or if you need some of your science urgently back home and don't want to wait until you return. Otherwise, it neither hurts nor helps you in terms of total science available. If there's an experiment somewhere that is worth a max of 100 science points, and let's say it's transmittable for 40... then any of the following scenarios can happen: You grab it, don't transmit, and bring it back. You get 100 points upon returning home. You grab it and transmit it (getting 40 points), then grab another copy and bring that home with you. You get 60 points upon returning home (i.e. 100 points, minus the 40 that you already transmitted). You grab it, transmit it for 40 points, and don't bother bringing anything home. Multiple transmissions don't gain you anything, since you transmit everything transmittable the first time. Depends on what's trying to talk to it. The wiki article linked above does a pretty good job of summing it up, but the short answer is that as long as you have direct line of sight to KSC (or to other groundstations, if you have "enable extra groundstations" turned on), then even the most basic antenna (like the Communotron-16) will work fine from the Mun. If you're trying to talk to something else (e.g. a relay satellite or something), then "what's big enough" depends on the power at both ends of the connection.

My reading of that bug is that it has nothing to do with providing batteries-- it's simply complaining that when the surface setup can't do things for some reason (due to lack of either comms or power), it tends to spam messages about it. Nobody's talking about adding new parts there, sounds like just fixing the messaging. Doesn't mean that they couldn't be looking at something like that, just that I've seen no evidence that they are.

Hi everyone, Just a note that all the content in this thread up to this point (including the OP) was originally in a different thread, here: One or two messages about DLC and economics and having-to-pay-for-things might have been okay (and the OP here was perfectly fine)... but as you can see from the volume of posts up to this point, many people ended up jumping on board and arguing economics (which is off-topic for that thread) instead of discussing the new engines themselves (which is on-topic). It's a worthwhile discussion to have, so we didn't want to simply remove all those posts-- they're simply off-topic for that thread. So we've moved all that stuff here, where it can be discussed on its own merit, rather than derailing a discussion about some specific parts that Squad is adding to Breaking Ground. Thank you for your understanding.

Moving to Add-on Discussions. Though it's worth noting that if you have a question about a particular mod, the best place to ask is usually in the mod's release thread, since that's where all the expert users (and the author!) tend to hang out.

Sorry, I don't use any of the mods involved, myself (including ReStock), so reading through your post, I lack the context to understand even what the specific bug case is, here. Are you saying that the ReStock / ReStock+ patch itself doesn't work? Or are you just saying that the interaction between ReStock and something else (RO? RP-1, whatever that is?) is not working well? i.e. is the ReStock patch broken for everybody, or just people who happen to use it with RO RP-1?

Moving to Kerbal Network.

Hi all, Just a note that I've (finally) released IndicatorLights Community Extensions v1.6, now with support for ReStock and ReStock+. Many thanks to @UnanimousCoward for taking one for the team and supplying the patch! (Beetlecat, I'm not ignoring you-- from what you wrote earlier it sounds as though you're working on multiple parts for your mod compatibility patch, so I'm assuming you'll provide an "all done" version at some point, which is why I haven't tried to incorporate what you've got thus far.)

Moving to Gameplay Questions.

Moving to Gameplay Questions. Could you post a picture of an example ship that has the problem? And what exactly do you mean by "wobble"? That they're aerodynamically unstable and flip during ascent? Or that they lack stiffness and flop around like a wet noodle? Or something else? When does the problem occur? Immediately on liftoff? Later on, when you're going fast? How fast and how high? What was the most recent KSP version that you played where everything seemed to be okay? Kinda helps to have some information to work with.

Moving to Add-on Discussions. Though if you have any questions about a particular mod, the best place to ask is usually in that mod's release thread, since that's where the author and expert users hang out.

But empty of fuel, yes? Anyway, if it's heavy/dense, that will make reentry more punishing. Oh dear lord no. First, "heat shielding on the leading edges of the wings" isn't a thing. At all. Maybe in IRL spacecraft, but not in KSP. Any given part has the same temperature tolerance throughout. Second, "nosing into it" (by which I assume you mean pointing ) is the absolute worst possible thing you could do. The name of the game here is to generate the most drag that you possibly can, in order to slow below charbroil speeds before you go kaboom. Pointing 90 degrees up would be great, so that your wings are presenting big flat draggy surfaces directly at the oncoming airflow. Pointing , on the other hand, is minimizing your drag, which is the worst possible thing to do, because that preserves your lethally high speed until you get deep into atmosphere. 30 degrees can be a nice compromise between lift and drag, at LKO reentry speeds. At higher reentry speeds, though, you need drag more and you need lift less, so a steeper AoA is a good idea.

How fast are you going when you hit atmosphere? If you're returning straight to atmosphere from the Mun, without any braking before hitting atmosphere, that's awfully fast for a craft without a heat shield. Are you going 3000+ m/s? What if you brake by a few hundred m/s before reentry? You've got it backwards (don't feel bad, it's a common mistake). A really high Pe like that will generate tons of heat while not really slowing you down at all. Result: you get fried. Generally you want to aim for a Pe in the 30-35 km range, certainly no higher than 40 km. (I'm talking in general, here. Not sure whether that would do the trick in the case of your particular craft.) Also, out of curiosity, 1.how much does your ship mass when it hits atmosphere, and 2. what angle of attack are you?

Some content has been removed. Folks, let's take it down a notch, please. No need to squabble. If you have a question, it's great to ask, because people are, in general, friendly and helpful. However, please remember that nobody owes you anything, least of all modders (who do this for free), so please keep a polite tone. It's okay to ask, it's not okay to demand. Also, bear in mind that even folks who would like to help you don't have a magic wand. They can't help if they can't see what you're doing wrong. So you need to provide them a reasonable amount of information about what you're doing, so they have something to work with. And if they ask you for specific info, give it to them, instead of complaining that you don't have an answer. Thank you for your understanding.

No, stock Jool still has no biomes. No idea, haven't used JNSQ myself and have no clue what it does, other than a vague impression that it's some sort of planet pack. I can say that this mod only touches Jool, so my guess is that it will play fine with any planet pack, unless that planet pack also touches Jool. Which I have no idea about, in JNSQ's case. Haven't the foggiest. Maybe ask in the JNSQ thread?

Moving to Breaking Ground Discussion.

Moving to Breaking Ground Discussion.

Moving to Add-on Discussions.

Basically no. The freely available versions are listed here: ...but the most recent among them is 0.13.3, which I suspect would fall into your "super old" category.