Gaarst

Chutes deployment mechanics have been changed with 1.0.x versions. In Beta, defalut setting for parachute full deployment was 500m above the ground, and the deployment speed of the parachute was high enough for it to deploy and slow down the craft in those 500m. With 1.0 though, deployment is slower so default setting was raised to 1km high, so that the parachute would have time to deploy and slow down your craft. When you create a new parachute in the VAB/SPH in 1.0.4, it automatically has a deployment altitude of 1km. The thing is, if you're importing a craft from Beta (copy/paste the .craft file or save folder), the parachutes will keep their old 500m height and therefore will not slow down your craft enough and will lead to a tragic end for your crew. So even if you didn't change the settings from your old craft, the chutes can be faulty.

Probably not a lot higher than your average PC, since KSP doesn't support multi-threads or multi-cores (I can't remember which) and supercomputers are basically hundreds of really powerful 8-cores (mostly) CPU. Though this should change with Unity 5, as I heard it would enable multi-whatever support for KSP. Don't quote me on that, I have close to no idea what I'm talking about...

Je parle de clipping, j'avais un design de rover lunaire avec un siège, mais même en utilisant le "offset", soit il clippait par le haut ou le bas dans la service bay, et le Kraken passait dire bonjour, soit je remontais mes roues et j'avais une garde au sol de F1, ce qui est pas très pratique quand tu traverses des cratères lunaires Au final, j'ai décidé que marcher un peu ferait pas de mal àmes kerbonautes.

At this point, I think you'd be better off with a ladder to space...

De manière générale, les contrats, stocks ou non, ont toujours du mal avec les véhicules qui s'amarrent ou se détachent, et ce pas seulement avec des rovers moddés... Aussi, d'après tes images, le contrat ne mentionne pas explicitement d’intégrer des expériences spécifiques donc ça ne devrait pas être ça le problème. J'ai 3 idées (j’appellerais pas ça des solutions) pour t'aider: 1- Vérifie que le RoveMate soit bien la "root part" de ta fusée. Sinon, utilise l'outil "root" du VAB (touche 4), clique sur une partie au pif de ta fusée, puis clique ànouveau sur le RoveMate. Quand tu bouge le RoveMate ça devrait bouger toute la fusée. 2- Essaie de mettre un decoupler pour détacher ton rover au lieu d'un docking port (Jr ou pas), le jeu devrait pas considérer que tu changes de véhicule. 3- Triche, et change la catégorie ton atterrisseur en rover sans sortir ni séparer le rover. Vu que ya des roues et tout, ça devrait passer. BTW, mettre un rover dans une service bay c'est très, très périlleux: j'ai moi même perdu pas mal de fusées àcause de ça (sans compter le nombre de crashes du jeu)

Ion engines have an Isp asl of 100 (at Kerbin) and, if I remember well, solar panels are terrible inside Eve's atmosphere and do not like being moved around in atmosphere. So I guess you'll have to look aroung for mods to do the job, there probably are quite a few out there offering what you wish for.

My lunar rocket (yes, lunar) "Alba", weighing 3297t on the launchpad, using 5m parts, courtesy of SpaceY:

What are you calling "freaking slow" ? If it's a loading time of a few minutes, it is (somewhat) normal in lower-end PCs, talking from experience here.

Ou sinon, pour la lancer, tu le fais Energia/Bourane-style: tu fais une énorme fusée, et tu attaches ta navette a l'arrache avec 3 boulons sur un côté (ou comme la navette américaine aussi... ). Blague a part, vu la taille et la masse supposée du CRV, ça m'a pas l'air dur de le lancer comme une des 2 navettes IRL: il va a priori pas trop déséquilibrer le lanceur.

First, welcome to the forums ! Then, seeing your screenshot, I wouldn't call the game unplayable, put on some ol' Red 'n' Blue 3D glasses and you will see what is your problem (just turn off 3D anaglyph somewhere in the settings). Actually, I don't remember ever seeing a 3D option in the KSP settings, it may be an issue from your PC's graphical settings. I'm still wondering if I was supposed to answer this seriously or not... EDIT: ninja'd

Go tell that to Ike...

Yeah, I guess that non-spaceplane SSTOs are possible, fairly easily, but I doubt the payload fraction would be big enough for the thing to be worth the trouble. IMO, I think you're better off with a regular rocket, even though that might be more expensive in the end. And about spaceplanes... Well, that would indeed be quite a challenge ! Making a plane with >9k m/s dV in vacuum, able to orbit at 130+ km and withstand a >7 km/s reentry and capable of taking some payload seems quite not very possible, IMO... Anyway, for this kind of SSTO, you're definitely better off with a rocket. Still, waiting for challengers...

These kind of unexpected encounters are fairly common in the Jool system, where, basically, if you have an elliptical and equatorial orbit, you will visit one of its major moons (Tylo, Vall and Laythe) at least once per orbit, though that sometimes does not end up like you'd like... But I haven't had any of this kind of encounters in the Kerbin system, well done

No, my rocket is not stock, it contains parts from the SpaceY mod, and I did run it on a modded install (Real Fuels, RSS, SpaceY amongst others). I did report my issue on this thread because the issue is with stock KSP. I thought that the fact that this occurs even on a modded install and with modded clamps (as I said, I also tried with SpaceY's clamps) would help making this thread go further in getting the origin of this bug. In my post I also mentionned that the "position" solution (putting the rocket at the center of the VAB/launchpad) does not work for me, maybe that can help too. Anyway, I can always try to replicate the issue with a stock rocket, but then, that wouldn't contribute to solving the issue more than all the previous posts, I'm afraid.

I got 6 GB but a crappy i3 laptop CPU, so the CPU's the problem for me, already struggling when launching (due to smoke) and operating a 120+ parts vessel... So, personally, I'd like Squad to keep the minimal requirement low (as it is today) and add all sorts of fancy graphic stuff as optional settings

Try getting a 10000 m/s dV ship weighing no more than 20t. Only solutions are Nuke or "Dawn" ion engine (which has 30x less thrust).I don't know if a 20t ship powered by a nuke has exactly 10k dV and that's not the point.

I have had this bug of clamps following me into orbit, so far so good, worse thing is that I have to clear the debris from the tracking station, but otherwise nothing really annoying. And then I made a rocket. That rocket is designed to put ~15t to LEO (built for RSS), and I say "designed" because it hasn't reached over 6000m as a whole once in a dozen launches. Every. Single. Time. Clamps crash into my rocket and destroy it. It contains parts from SpaceY, but the issue is seemingly due to KSP itself. Otherwise, the rocket is fairly simple: 570t on the launchpad, two SRBs in addition of the core stage (kinda based on Ariane 5). It is centered both in the VAB and on the launchpad and clamps are not off the launchpad. In the VAB: On the Launchpad: I tried positioning the clamps almost everywhere on the rocket, using 2, 4 or 6 clamps, using SpaceY's clamps (so NOT stock clamps !). Clamps are not damaged on liftoff, neither is the launchpad, everything is within the "grid" on the launchpad. The only thing I haven't tried is the radial decoupler thing from Twurtz. I can provide any file needed (.craft, logs, save...) if anyone asks for them. EDIT: and adding radial decouplers between the rocket and the clamps doesn't really help, it just causes even more issues with the clamps somehow clipping into the rocket and causing the destruction of kinda capital struts and thus the rocket. Good thing is, if I manage to launch it, rocket doesn't blow up at 6k like before, so I guess that's better ?

Si t'as besoin d'une trad anglais, hésite pas àdemander, ya une grande partie des joueurs sur le forum français qui parlent très bien anglais et qui pourraient te le faire sans problème Sinon, super travail, j'ai hâte de voir ce que cette navette donne en orbite !

Recent studies show that Kerbals indeed don't actually breathe. Their constant state of either excitation or fear, their lack of any noticeable survival instinct and the fact that they can only focus on one task at a time has led biologists to think that Kerbals aren't able to breathe from the day they are born (or spawn, or whatever...). Then, natural selection has made them able to survive and live in good health, without the need to breathe.

Answer above are quite complete, just adding some (mostly useless) details. 1) The Apollo missions did not circularise before reentring: they hit the atmosphere at ~11 km/s but did a controlled reentry: keeping the angle at 6.5° not to bounce off the atmosphere. On the other hand the Galileo probe hit Jupiter's atmosphere at 48 km/s reaching 230 G but survived the reentry itself and slowly fell down into its atmosphere, again without orbiting Jupiter first. 2) There is no defined limit to Earth's atmosphere: the exosphere extends to at least 10 000 km above the ground. But commonly, the limit between atmosphere and space is set to 100 km (if you go above, congrats, you're an astronaut) but that's just an arbitrary limit. 4) You're always influenced by a body, even when escaping. KSP's SOIs can be compared (but not the same IRL !) to real life's Hill spheres. A body's Hill sphere is first, not necessarily a sphere, but all the positions when the body exerts the strongest gravitational force on another body; e.g: the Sun's Hill sphere extends to about half the distance to the next star (Proxima Centauri), so ~2 ly in the direction of that star. Then, PCentauri will exerts a stronger pull on you than the Sun. 5) The ISS is in a ~350-400 km orbit with an inclination of ~52°. It does change a little, and tiny regular burns are required to keep it on its orbit due to the very thin atmosphere slowing it down. 6) Astronauts are selected and trained for their psychological abilities: it is required that they can withstand months-long missions, solitude, working under life threatening conditions or under heavy stress and the loss of orientation in microgravity. So they very rarely do stupid things, but, as said above, it sometimes happens. 7) As the ISS is the result of strong internal cooperations between several countries (modules + crew from different nations), I think that a specific agreement has set the rules aboard the station, so no specific country would have to judge the said crime. To be confirmed. 8) The total cost of the ISS is estimated to over US$100 billion. A single launch of an ATV is over $350M, the space shuttle $450M (up to $1.5 billion for some estimations), a Progess cargo ~$100M (not sure on that one)... Overall you're looking at several hundred million US$ for any large launch to orbit, though that tends to reduce recently, especially with SpaceX. The Apollo progam costed about $150 billion overall; and a single Saturn V launch costs ~$500M in 1969 dollars, so about $3 billion today.

Considering you just joined the forums, I guess you mean Eve and Duna instead of Venus and Mars. Then just follow what has been said above. In the unlikely possibility you're playing with RSS, the website won't give you indications for real planets. You'll need to use the Transfer Window Planner mod that will give you windows for modded planets, if any. Anyway, you should consider using this mod even with stock KSP as it can give you transfer windows IG.

"Stock" Kerbin system save: - finally manage to make a functional spaceplane - plant a flag on every body of the system - return from Eve and Tylo - Jool grand tour - Jeb's Stroll: take Jeb on a Solar System grand tour (maybe with landings) RSS Solar System save: - send probes a bit everywhere - go to the Moon - make a somewhat large LEO space station Also: MOAR MODS !

Dres is boring. Like really. Nothing to do, nothing special about it. No moons. No atmosphere. No deadly gravity well. Just a boring rock past Duna. Just forget about it and go to Jool. It is a thousand times more interesting.

Short answers: 1) Yes, it is equivalent to aerodynamic center. 2) Yes, it is resultant force. It applies to a certain point on your ship, but you can see an arrow showing the direction of the force. 3) Yes, it does depend on a craft's orientation. 4) I think the blue arrow somehow describes a resultant force: lift is up, drag is back, so arrow is tilted. 5) According to my answer above, lift + drag are reprented. To be proven, though. These are quick answers, I may post some more detailed tomorrow (I'm kinda tired right now) if needed.

Please post screeshots so that we can see what your plane looks like: it will be easier then to solve your problem. Anyway, the most general causes of a plane not pulling up are: - your center of mass being ahead of your center of lift: this will force your plane to pitch down, and therefore will make it harder to pull up, even if SAS can hold its pitch. Try to move your wings or add fins to make the two as close as possible, also keep in mind that, as fuel is consumed, your CoM will most likely move. - not enough control surfaces: for pitch, try adding fins, elevons... at the back or at the front of you plane, the further they are from your CoM, the more they will act on your plane (see torque definition)