bakanando

Since the 0.90 update with the new porkjet adapters I never use the structural adapters, I wish there were a 2.5m to 3.75m, and more slanted ones though. Also, since the same update I banished the Stayputnik for any new satellites.

I've been busy lately so I haven't played much, sadly I won't take a turn in cycle 2. I propose a new amendment, the cycle starts to lose momentum the longer it stays open by the simple fact that less players have yet to take their turns as time goes by. So, after a set amount of time of 10 days or two weeks the 72 hour rule is reduced (24-36 hours maybe?) so the next cycle can start faster and the file doesn't stay unused for long.

Is there a way to compress the files without actually loading the game? I suppose this would take less time, as the program would have more resources at its disposal.

Great parts that the game's been lacking since stock release of MK2 parts. Now the only part that is missing from the roster is a MK2 docking port that has the ability to attach only at 0 or 180 degrees relative to the other ship so alignment is required by the part, but I don't know whether that can even be supported by the engine. Thanks for your work!

It seems the concensus is that as long as pancake exists there is no need for bigger rockets. I don't understand where that logic stands, but this is going nowhere.

@Daze The variety of engines is indeed limited right now, the game lacks in engine's ISP between 390 and 800. Some engines with ISP of 400-600 in the 1m or 2m size parts would help the game have more variety, even just a bigger 800 ISP engine would help. Having bigger parts and a greater variety of engines are not mutually exclusive, though. I understand that by adding more parts you reduce the performance of the game, but many parts have been added in recent updates anyway so that doesn't seem to be a good reason to not do it. @Jouni The engines are indeed "a little bit" off in TWR compared to other LOX engines, but nerfing the engines without adding anything bigger would only reduce your payload weight to LKO. This is not a good option if you are not intending to compensate it with anything else, thus the request for larger diameter (5m, maybe) tanks and engines. A 5m payload bay/fairing would be nice too. The only problem I find is that when they fixed the size of the SLS parts at 3.75m there are not many bigger engines IRL that can work as comparison to make bigger engines without making them absurdly OP. 5m sized SaturnV engines and tanks anyone?

Well, I launched this with a standard looking rocket (even if the payload is not standard, lol) but it's somewhat below the max amount you can lift with a sole SLS engine and a couple boosters. It might be possible to lift bigger stuff with the new stock aero even with the thrust adjustment, but I'd really like bigger sized rocket parts for big launches. It looks more plausible, has less parts, and would reduce asparagus staging a lot.

With the introduction of the new stock aero the Age of the Pancake is going to start its decline, or at least it won't be as useful as before. The problem is that pancaking, asparagus staging and some other crazy contraptions were used because of the lack of even bigger rockets to send stuff to space. Anything below around a hundred tons to LKO will probably be alright, but monolithic launches for Jool-5 or other big stuff will probably not be able to reach orbit on one piece efficiently. This types of missions could probably be done in smaller batches and docking in orbit, but there are some missions that require big launches in atmosphere as in the case of Eve. I know the Evian atmo will be changed too, but that doesn't mean it will be a lot easier to get out of than it is right now. To fix this, do you think we will get bigger rocket parts or other tweaks that will make this kind of missions doable without recurring to asparagus/pancakes?

I'm sorry to say that the only workaround I found is to completely edit out all bugged parts from the .craft file. Or simply redoing your craft from scratch. Most of the time, the amount of work that has to be done to clean the file is greater than the amount you'll waste redoing the craft so that's what I recommend. Until the .craft files are more user and editor friendly, this will be the only way to go.

You might want to update your nvidia drivers. This doesn't seem to be the problem though, as your pc looks in good shape to run KSP. Could you post the logs from the game? This are normally located at .steam/SteamApps/common/Kerbal...

The main issue with KSP is with memory hogging, which will increase given the overhead of running two OS simultaneously. So try only if you have RAM to spare. I normally use virtualbox for my vm's, with the guest-additions installed. If I remember correctly, Unity doesn't support 64-bit outside of win-64 and the only change between both ksp is the libraries used (either lib32 or lib64). Can't say much about the RAM usage though, never had a memory issue with ksp and I use ksp.x32.

The problem with this one is that there seems to be no solution to it. I had this problem too and can't find where the problem might be. There's two more recent threads for this problem in the stock support section, too. Edit: Even though your craft will most likely be doomed, you can still hit the new craft button twice to fix the VAB. At least for me, every other craft loads fine.

If you have your ship pointing retrograde with the SAS options, if your ship stops descending and starts going up the ship will try to flip too. It won't do it smartly, so it will just start flipping around until it points exactly there or breaks apart in atmo. If you are using these options, I'd recommend to use it just for the initial breaking burn. When you get close to 10m/s change to normal stability assist. If this is not your case, some picture would help pinpointing your problem. One of your craft, and one sometime after the spinning/shaking starts.

I'll just copy the backup version and go from there then. At least I remember how to complete it now, as I already made it once. I used diff to see between both versions and the first quarter or so doesn't change that much, but after that whole part sections are different so I gave up tracking the problem. The difference in parts is way too much. It's good to know it's actually effed up and not just arbitrarily broken because of a missing part reference or bracket. The parts count is consistent to the amount it should have before load, and cost is too. You can actually load it, but it borks your game until you select new craft _twice_. File size is 180kb, about 40k bigger than the backup (which has less parts). At least I learned something, the craft files are very, very long.

I don't remember there being that much stuff in LKO when I last played O_o

It's actually very on-topic, just pay attention to what they are doing. I found it strange too until I actually watched it.

I saw your file and picture, I had the same problem but havent found a workaround for it. If I find a fix I'll post again here. Welcome to the forums.

Were you just launching? Btw, how do you fix it?

I have had this many times, I always feel like the SOI change will not be registered and you will just fly past your target.

I was building a circular station for kerbin and when I tried to test launch it the file corrupted. The attached files are a backup I made a day before finishing the build and the second is the station as it was saved just before launching. Because it is a station, I attached an orange tank below with 6 launch clamps to it so it wouldn't fall and be destroyed by the launch logic. When I pressed launch, the ship was nowhere to be found and I couldnt select any ships. IIRC I hit revert but then the ship was broken, but didn't have either the orange tank or the clamps. The "Vessel Name" and kerbal flag where there with no way to change it, and the parts where as seen from the pics. I finally fixed the VAB by hitting twice the new ship button. I have no idea why it recovered, but the ship doesn't load properly even though everything else loads ok. File before crash and after. dropbox.com/sh/0jkrojtdguxnpfx/AABsmTggYHZwcRW4r_BEmufXa?dl=0 Update: I haven't played since posting this bug so I haven't tried anything new yet, but that means I still have the KSP.log from that time and I'll up it to the link above. Here's some relevant output though: [EXC 13:02:09.606] NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object ShipConstruct.LoadShip (.ConfigNode root) ShipConstruction.LoadShip (System.String filePath) EditorLogic.Start () [WRN 13:02:11.474] [CompoundPart]: No target found with craftID 4294628988. Attempting to find it at direction [-0.8443883,0.5357298,-0.001358547]. [WRN 13:02:11.477] [CompoundPart]: No target found with craftID 4294617010. Attempting to find it at direction [-0.8443883,0.5357298,-0.001358547]. [WRN 13:02:11.479] [CompoundPart]: No target found with craftID 4294616946. Attempting to find it at direction [-0.8443883,0.5357298,-0.001358547]. [WRN 13:02:11.481] [CompoundPart]: No target found with craftID 4294608848. Attempting to find it at direction [-0.8370461,0.5471233,-0.003139632]. [WRN 13:02:11.484] [CompoundPart]: No target found with craftID 4294607778. Attempting to find it at direction [-0.8370461,0.5471233,-0.003139632]. [WRN 13:02:11.486] [CompoundPart]: No target found with craftID 4294607714. Attempting to find it at direction [-0.8370461,0.5471233,-0.003139632]. [WRN 13:02:11.584] [CompoundPart]: No target found with craftID 4294597734. Attempting to find it at direction [0.02983487,0.9992842,0.02325939]. [WRN 13:02:11.586] [CompoundPart]: No target found with craftID 4294616584. Attempting to find it at direction [-0.8393791,0.5435466,0.0001848155]. [WRN 13:02:11.663] [CompoundPart]: No target found with craftID 4294597112. Attempting to find it at direction [0.07135057,0.9973986,-0.01025165]. [WRN 13:02:11.666] [CompoundPart]: No target found with craftID 4294615632. Attempting to find it at direction [-0.8436791,0.5368479,-1.929765E-05]. [WRN 13:02:11.786] [CompoundPart]: No target found with craftID 4294597030. Attempting to find it at direction [0.02983487,0.9992842,0.02325939]. [WRN 13:02:11.789] [CompoundPart]: No target found with craftID 4294596966. Attempting to find it at direction [-0.8393791,0.5435466,0.0001848155]. [WRN 13:02:11.880] [CompoundPart]: No target found with craftID 4294596758. Attempting to find it at direction [0.07135057,0.9973986,-0.01025165]. [WRN 13:02:11.882] [CompoundPart]: No target found with craftID 4294596694. Attempting to find it at direction [-0.8436791,0.5368479,-1.929765E-05]. [WRN 13:02:11.987] [CompoundPart]: No target found with craftID 4294596058. Attempting to find it at direction [0.02983487,0.9992842,0.02325939]. [WRN 13:02:11.989] [CompoundPart]: No target found with craftID 4294595994. Attempting to find it at direction [-0.8393791,0.5435466,0.0001848155]. [WRN 13:02:12.079] [CompoundPart]: No target found with craftID 4294595786. Attempting to find it at direction [0.07135057,0.9973986,-0.01025165]. [WRN 13:02:12.081] [CompoundPart]: No target found with craftID 4294595722. Attempting to find it at direction [-0.8436791,0.5368479,-1.929765E-05].

I like your lander design, clean and elegant. Reusing the lander for a two staged one just makes it better. Kudos.

I can't play tomorrow, so if anyone else wants to play first you're welcome to do so. I think I have a good enough ship to send for rescue, but it's heavy and I don't know how I'm going to get it into orbit. :/

The KR-2L might be nicer ISP in vacuum, but the KS-25x4 has a better efficiency on atmosphere. A combination of both engines might be a better lifting design.

Oh. You indeed did so. Sorry, that comment just flew past me. :/ I was pondering about the implications of de-stranding someone just for stranding him somewhere else. Full disclaimer: I haven't made any manned interplanetary flight as of now. The only ejections have been from Ion probes with 5km/s excess of dV. Done some correction burns of 2km/s so I'm not very able to transfer yet.

How much dV do you need for a Moho round trip? It seems that about 8km/s of dV can get you there and back, is that right (never been there before)? I'm designing a crew transfer vehicle mostly for Eve and Duna, but I have in mind a long range version with about 9km/s of dV on a hybrid nuclear+ion. This one will have drop tanks for even greater range (you never know what will happen). How many kerbals are stranded, just the one? I'll give it a try.