selfish_meme

Theres actually a KerbalX challenge to get the craft as far as possible, there has been talk of Eeloo

Just had several cubic structures explode. They were mounted under a mk1-2 pod with batteries and little rcs tanks attached. On the other side a large reaction wheel, then a fairing base. The cubic peices and attached bits were inside the interstage fairing. They exploded due to heat, but where from, had a single mainsail under an orange and a half and two radial SRB's. Saw in a thread in the Spacecraft Exchange someone else complain about stuff attached to a large reaction wheel explode on ascent. Cannot do anymore testing right now just a heads up.

I have a core i5 and a GTX570, I find it perfectly acceptable running Linux, with Eve, astronomers, hot rockets, cool rockets, kerbinside and a host of other mods including mechjeb I would compare the frame rate to windows but I can't because windows won't run with all those mods installed, tried it the other night at a friends place with an even better rig and we had to go the low texture route with EVE just to get it to run (other mods were installed)

A few of the Eve landers lately have done this. I think the lander itself can be done in 100t or so full. Which for me is better than waiting for weeks to refill tanks. But kudos for getting there and back anyway, big achievement.

http://ksp.olex.biz/ phase angle calculator, tells you the best positions the planets should be in to make a transfer

I also hyperEdit to a couple of hundred meters high in Landing, pop a chute and let that drag my nose skyward. If a bit higher you can turn landing on and off, this rotates your ship faster.

It's not just that, the normal landing gear is quite saggy and cushioned, when you are trying to stop heavy tall things on uneven ground you need a multitude of them. The gear is lighter and stiffer. We mostly burn on landing to soften it so impact speed is not really a problem. Pre-1.0 a parachute calculator told me I needed 14 chutes to land a 100t lander at 6m/s, thats a lot of chutes and infrastructure to support them, better a small tank. Post 1.0 the chutes seem better, I can get 12m/s landings with 3 chutes.

As others have said, plan around the ascent. Mesklins Eve for Valentine mission is exemplary.

4. Inside fairings 6. Yes it's a bug

/GameData "My god, it's full of mods!"

From what I have seen the Windows Directx11 32bit and 64bit versions have better looking graphics than Linux (unless you force OpenGL in Windows) and possibly better frame rates, though that could depend a bit on what Graphics card you have, Nvidia has better support and other games from people like valve show almost neck and neck performance with Windows. For now though everything works better, e.g. memory overhead, and bugs in Linux. Note: You must use the proprietary video drivers in Linux and certain command line options to get the best reasonable performance. If you haven't then you did not do it properly.

It needs a [h=3]Kobayashi Maru[/h]

How many federal laws were broken in this post lol

Seriously, when busloads of console gamers drop in to express their frustration on not being able to get to other planets, and having no mods like MechJeb and HyperEdit to help, the pain will be felt. I think it's a serious gap in the game play. It's not fun. Just my opinion amigo's. Note: People who like realism at it's grittiest will be fine, I think we need a poll but I suspect the majority think it's a PIA to do Interplanetary Transfers.

Thanks, I was not doing that.

I have a couple of questions if someone has a moment. 1. A Rhino powered craft will show a TWR of up to 1.98 in the VAB for Kerbin but be unable to takeoff the pad? I'm not sure whats going on with this one. 2. All craft require an initial TWR of 2.1+ to take off on Eve when the body is set to Eve in KER. I would have thought it would be 1+ when the body is set correctly. I don't necessarily think these are errors just gaps in my understanding.

I tried building a rocket using all mk2 and mk3 parts but it would not go straight

Possibly the real problem is that KSP tries to fudge. If you are going to have a small planet have it. Don't fudge the gravity. If you want to make it easier then make it like mars. No need to then have 1 earth gravity but half the dv to orbit.

I have not had any problems so far from orbit, usually only engines are exposed. I once had a drill get very hot. - - - Updated - - - It does look much nicer and sleeker.

mk2 cargo bays are light and you can seat a Kerbal in them, getting them in is hard. Only had one try at ascent so far and upper stage motors were swapped. It was my first flight from the pad all the way to Eve with this so problems can be expected. - - - Updated - - - Like this, this is my Jool GT Lander, it's also an SSTO on Kerbin, it would work as an upper stage, but Every time I have tried to fly on Eve it has ended in explosions. 10t

Do you have a laptop with nvidia/intel switching graphics? If so it can be a long and hard road. If it's a desktop with a GTX card it's as easy as pushing a button, unless you have already tinkered, if you have go back to scratch and push that button.

Goddamit, I was just about to finish another, 70t, the core is almost exactly the same as yours. I've got 500t on the pad. I have launched and landed, haven't done an Eve ascent yet, still testing staging.

A few people have done it, the dv requirements are much lower only 7500 m/s but it has to be aerodynamic and the Kerbals need to be protected going down and up. Most landers are over 100t and people are landing them empty and using ISRU. I have a prototype of a sub 80t lander full that I am working the kinks out of. The Kerbin launch weight is only about 300t so far which may balloon out a bit as there is some interplanetary dv to add.

I can't believe my old Intel graphics macbook does, I came across the problem today when testing a biggish launcher, but f10 and it went away.

Also there is a mod to remove it.