bakanando

Very nice data, thanks for the share. I'll see if I can help with it.

No it wont, the persistence file keeps the data about Pol, so you'll still have the problem. You need to remove it from your persistence file and then you can reject all inbound contracts from Pol, that should get you more appropiate contracts.

In your persistence file there is a section (Scenario) called ProgressTracking. (Remember to backup your savefiles first!) There should be a section with Pol in there, delete the whole section of Pol (watch out for mismatching brackets) It should look something like this: Kerbin { reached = 356.659999999966 Flyby { completed = 35250.0804967258 } Orbit { completed = 1419.07664550682 vessel { name = Test Rocket 4 flag = Squad/Flags/sora-yuki } crew { crews = Valentina Kerman } } } But with Pol instead of Kerbin.

So I did a thorough testing of this problem. I'll update the OP with the relevant information.

There are four fins with those two boosters in-between so it should balance the forces out. As I mentioned though, even with the boosters blocking the airflow the ship veers WNW. As soon as I removed the fins the ship magically stopped tilting in that direction. This was still happening with vessels that had no radial boosters, so it's not really that. I'll do another test ship later to see if it fixes it.

I was having some trouble with different ships, where all of them had an inclination bias towards west-north-west. It was so consistent across many ships that I thought that the launchpad was the culprit. After many many tests, I realized that all of the ships had tail fins for 'stability' so I promptyl removed them and the rocket happily went (almost) directly upwards. I have to say that this was noticeable because my ship had very little reaction wheel torque, but even with control surfaces the ships where still veering WNW with such force that I couldn't counter the tilting. Many users have mentioned that using a gimballed engine and/or other methods of control make this a non-issue. While this is mostly true, if the lift from the fins is too high (every wing section except for the smallest one, actually) you'll be fighting the fins' lift all the way up to orbit. This is the problem I'm trying to highlight with this tests: that the fins are basically useless, and in extreme cases will make your ship turn so fast you'll never reach space. This tests are indeed made with a really bad designed rocket on purpose: a long rocket without any form of stabilizing themselves apart from the fins. This way the problem is isolated to demonstrate its effects. --update-- --update+-- Some more info from other users: gogozerg and another herbal space program Necrobones SAI Peregrinus TL;DR: any fin with more than a wee bit of lift will tilt your rocket if not countered with other types of control. Unexpectedly, ships without fins can -with proper care- fly more stable than rockets with them.

Thanks, I had the same problem. I got some science from a bugged section of the Mun with the polar sciences and I completely forgot about it. I hope it is fixed now. Btw, I cringe everytime I look inside the persistence files.

I had once a "No problems" advice, but some of the engines were further down the stage and decoupled them before using them. It's not without its faults, but it helps newbies and veterans alike.

I'd love to know how is a kerbal's career chosen, as it is a problem when you want custom names with precise careers.

I saw this happen many times to different streamers during the launch marathon. Most of the warping problems seem to happen when you select the option from a point further away in the orbit from your maneuver node. I haven't used it too much (haven't even landed at Mun yet), but I have yet to encounter this bug. I really hope this is fixed soon, as it is a very troublesome bug.

I still find career mode more playable in 1.0/1.0.2 (tried both for atmo testing with low tech) than it was in 0.90. The progression feels smoother if a little forced. There's amost no grind in 1.0+ too (at least in normal mode), which is always good.

This is for those times when you don't want to bring an engineer along just to repack those chutes. That video though, you are a BadS. I think there is a challenge for non-powered, non-parachute landings, you might want to show it there.

I designed a space hotel in 0.90 as a station for training kerbals where a interplanetary tug takes them around the kerbin SoI and a smaller shuttle is used to bring them back home. I might do something similar in my new 1.0 save.

Has anyone noticed the new features in the vessel info display at map mode? There's max accel. and burn time to 0 m/s. I suppose it will be very useful for suicide burns now, if only it were in a more useful location.

Think of it as their attempts at munar landing resulting in rapid unplanned disassembly and stranding them there. It is your job now to demonstrate how the pros do it and rescue their poor kerbal.

I'd vote for the second option, but I don't like the sentiment. It does need some more work into it, but most fixes are minor and nothing that breaks the game or progression too badly.

The parachutes do seem extremely OP. I have had some ships breaking from 900m/s to 60m/s in a very short amount of time, which should rip the parachute or the ship apart.

The screenshot is from syvos KSP-TV stream made earlier today. The asteroids were actually in orbit around Dres when he found them. You can check the video here: http://www.twitch.tv/ksptv/v/4387922 He tracks the first asteroid around 2:39:00 in.

What is the hexagonal sensor thingie on the satellite?

What your quote says is basically: we are making it very precise, but at the same time there's so many calculations that your pc might just spontaneously burst in flames. He wants to make it faster without sacrificing accuracy, but hasn't finished applying it. Also floating point errors already suck in-game, going n-body would make it even more noticeable.

And here I thought we would get a 0.625m SRB, not an oversized sepratron.

Never mind, it works now. Thanks.

An engaging story and smooth progression, excellent work!

The links in the embeded albums are broken. There is an inserted space after the /a I.E. http://imgur.com/a /bxLmn

The only problem I see is that calling a scope complete game the 1.0 release version. Scope complete doesn't mean that the game's features are complete, and in all honesty there are many features that need completion. On the other hand, it does deserve to get out of early access. KSP has been complete enough to be non early access for a while, but it is still a beta version.