Kesa

Is there any mod that allow craft to perform maneuver nodes in background (not being loaded)?

No, It lets them hit the ground with their feet (not their most resilient feature, but next to). To hit ground with head yo have either to click and drag, or to auto rotate while high in space (near apoapsis)

This add to realism from a logistic point of view : - reward : cost ratio is less ridiculous - "grindier" : I don't think this is the spirit of this mode to scour easy contract (you should stick to main contract instead of doing other and feeling grindy), but if you do, you will spend more time on unmanned mission, and will do more than 1 mission on Mun before heading outside Kerbin SOI, just like RL. Also, you won't unlock half of the tree using barely RT 10 and 48-7s (I did in Hard), you will have more time to be forced to build and optimized craft with technological constraint However, unless you like sattellite or survey contracts, you may want to stay unrealistic on the numbers of rocket you ever launched. You should rather get mods that add life support and antenna range, and maybe konstruction time or whatever you like. You can even get Realism Overhaul for really true challenge (I'm new to it and the 18t restriction just barely allows me to put a very light probe to orbit, while in stock ksp, you can barely do manned Mun and back on rocket with it, and probably low tech manned Ike and back if using a basic jets first stage).

The advantages I can see are rather real-game-time related than kerbal price related. Bigger ships -> fewer launches, fewer docking (if any) Smaller ships -> simpler design (and faster to do), more stable, easier to fly Plus a refueling vehicle is only designed once for any mission involving ship of similar or (reasonably) greater size. For automated refueling, you should try this. In kerbin, the cost per pound decreases as the playload mass increases because bigger engines have better TWR. But jet powered spaceplane SSTOs are the most cost effective, so if only cost efficiency matters, you should use them for anything more than few tons (as long as part count/lag allows you). Instability of big ships can induce steering loss, and docking small ones require slighty more dV (loss is induced for all but first launch, so there is more difference 2 and 1 launches than between 10 and 5), but this is very small. If you overpower your spaceplane or pack one or two ditchable SRBs, you can fly it like a rocket, saving time at launch, and can glide to runway after reentry. The real life argument doesn't really apply to KSP : Bigger is always better, as long as structural feasability is met (unless using mods, adding more struts makes this less of an issue in ksp), due to the square cube law, which reduce drag (exists with far) and tank dry ratio for big rockets (exists with procedural tanks from Real Fuels or procedural part, I can't tell). However, generic launchers are far cheaper than designing a new bigger one (designing is a significant part of a rocket), even though a new bigger one can be useful if use for other missions (exists, to a limited extent, with rp 0, with part cost quite low but unlock cost quite high) - - - Updated - - - I second the Idea of SRBs, but I have to add that given enough of them, you could also go for a fully fueled launch strategy.

I've spent one month or so on the demo, not watching any video, and learned many thing on my own, though it was a bit slow and frustrating. I still don't watch that much video but love to discover things on my own, even though I have to admit I've found immensely usefull informations here in the forum, and also that I've been doing some very noobish mistakes even after 2 or 3 months (~100+h?) of game (maybe I still am (: ). learn things one at once, and find your balance between the time spent on game and on tutorials, enjoy!

Hi, I'm using Realism overhaul, so I have real fuel, which set Isp to realistic values and scale the thrust with Isp, but does not seem to extend Isp curve to pressure greater than 1 bar (at least from what I see from KER's VAB readout). So I wanted to know if it works fine with RF, despite Overlaping features, and if I can use KIDS only for pressure higher than 1. If I do, how should I configure KIDS (No preset config seems to suit my need)? Nothing but the extend "Extend curve to Zero Isp" enabled? More few question, just for curiosity, how does this mod change the Isp? What does a rocket Isp curve looks like in reality in KIDS in RF and in stock?

I just learned that KIDS was not just a Isp Difficulty Scaler (which I wouldn't use, because I prefer play full stock or full realism, RO), but also can be set to fix the engines' behavior, by : - scaling the Thrust with Isp - Extending Isp curve to pressure higher than 1 bar RF does the first, does it also do the second? If so, can I use KER to figure out performance at high pressure? If not, how do KIDS and RF interact with their overlaping features? How can I set KIDS to EDIT : I just checked with KER, RF seems to use Isp at kerbin sea level for any pressure greater than 1 bar. I'll head on KIDS' page to see how to configure it.

~350 pt/T using command seat 80-123 pt/T using Hithiker/MK3 module fix sugested : if it's about bringing kerbals there prohibit command seat for interplanetary travel. If it's about having them in the colony, don't give point, it overlap with ~100pt/T. additive with the kerbal points 10-15 pt/T (using 1T fuel tanks or piling empty Mk1 lander) What about giving points mass wise? or having usefull module (with scientific equipement) >1000 pt / T using QBE, the lightest wheels and massless structural parts. Fix suggested : rewarding a limited number of unmanned rover, and a limited number of of manned ones. (2-3?) probably > 500pt/T, using an ion glider drone. Same as the previous point. 85 pt/T 1 km is alot. Currently, the scoring system does not encourage/enforce modularity. You should try add more rules like this one : As it stands, the easiest way to score is (by far), to single launch a bunch of minimalistic rovers. Pleas consider the following : - limit the number of rover/plane module per base, or the number of rover/plane per kerbals. - balance the point per pounds of the different modules. - add a limit of how many modules are required so the challenge is not just how big a base my computer can hold (and how patient I am to build it), or a far lower bonus for modules with already fullfilled function. - add diversity to modules, for example, a module could be scientific, scoring by instruments; communicationnal; fuel module, for shuttles/plane or rovers, ... - add speed and autonomy requirement/bonus for planes and rovers. Add a bonus for flippability/unflippability. on the hard part, or how to enforce modularity and precision landing : - each module/rover/plane has to be launched(or at least launchable) and landed separately, the idea being if a module/rover/plane is destroyed/damaged, it can be replaced individually. - no penality range is 1km from first module, and 50 m from the base (recursively defined as the set set of module distant of at least 50m of the first module, or of one module of the base) - bonus if you dock the new module. Bonus if you can refuel the plane/rover, or if the rover is electric, has a power source and a great autonomy - bonus if your base is near the beach.

What I love about KSP is that it is both a game, and a simulation. I just hate space game in 2d (like sin of a solar empire), or with unrealistic behavior (piloting spacecraft like atmospherics planes). But I can't be addict to simulations like Orbiter where creating a new rocket is making a new mod. I think the current stock aerodynamic is unrealistic not to make it easier for the player, but to make it easier for the developpers because aerodynamic is one of the less computable/forseeable thing in physic (and they obviously could not make such a great game whole at once). FAR and NEAR has proved a decent model is possible. Sometimes, realism fight again fun because it adds complexity (even though one might love complexity), and require a longer learning phase before actually playing, but I'm not sure it's the case of aerodynamic. If they just fix the infiny glide, compute the lift the right way and figure out how to compute the drag properly (with cross sectional aera and stream line consideration), the game won't be more difficult, and will even be more intuitive, hence easier and funnier! I think stock KSP shouldn't be the more realistic possible, instead, it rather should be the less unrealistic possible. I mean Mach effect, orbit decay, structural failure, n body simulation are great stuff, but can reasonnably be ignored because of the complexity they would add to the game. However, control surface generating lift at 90 AoA, nosecones adding to drag, lift proportionnal to the velocity an more generally aerodynamic in its current state is unrealistic in a counter intuitive and misleading way, and can only be tolerated as a placeholder. Realistic traits of KSP should teach rocket science, missing realistic traits should teach how real rocket science is hard, and hopefully unrealistic traits should tend to disappear (if at all possible), because they are teaching false things like lift being proportionnal to to the velocity (instead of velocity squared), or reaction wheels being used to control the attitude during the ascent phase of a rocket.

Cool to know that once again, squad is listening the community. Some aerodynamic mechanisms are completly broken (no stall for control surface), in an unintuitive and frustrating way. It'd better get repaired. Adding 3 nosecones to a 5 min made rocket launcher should not hurt many players. And designing craft is part of the fun (most of it for some of us), so recreating new spacplanes with a better aerodynamic and better construction tools will just add to the fun. By the way, retrocompatibility has already be broken for less important features (but important though), like the new mk2 plane parts, and the MK3 overhaul.

Among many : Vaos3712, definitely my favorite for cinematics (insane construction skills (yes, this is a swimming pool)) SWdennis ( , and )Macollo (Ludicrous yet efficient design in RSS) Matthew Karr (really nice contraption. stock zeppelin and electric heli!) MrOverfloater (usefull and nice looking SSTOs) Cupcake Lander (VTOL master) Archaic Alibi (for his )

How, I missed the part about playload and such. You should clarify the scoring system. If I well understand it, bargain basement is about just getting to orbit and cheap hauler is having the most cost effective cargo ssto? Bargain basement should at least require the ssto to be manned, or the challenge will be very limited (a probe core, a champotron jr, a rocko 48 7s and just the good amount of fuel. Maybe a chute, maybe not, and a spoon more fuel to say it's a refueling SSTO). Anyway, here are two of my SSTOs I find cool : Can put 1.7 t of fuel into orbit, or 1.2t tons of cargo. no docking port yet. 20 parts, and <18t fully loaaded No docking port yet, no playload, but has just what it takes to rescue/retrieve a Kerbal from LKO. I do not intend to push them as entries until I know more precisely what kind of SSTO you had in mind. I guess mine are more for bargain basement (unless one can build a station with 1.2t modules )

even without FAR, stock ssto are doable with purely rocket engine. Aeorspike is probably the best choice, but a tier 0 SSTO is doable with the lvt30, and the good amount of fuel. and with 3 chutes it can safely land on water. I'll put pic if I find the save. And my SSTOs using basic jets go at at least 400 m/s on flameout (one engine for 6 to 8 t, but I guess I *can* put more), so using the scramjet shouldn't be a problem, but I'll stay on the basic jet way. btw, I was precisely searching a challenge like this one, thanks!

The additionnal 300 kg is quite a lot compared to the dry mass of the craft (1.3t, 1.6t with them). When you add mass, you always should consider that you add this mass to the dry mass of the stage the part is. An one man EVE lander won't be able to carry 2 kerbals, despite the facts that it only adds 144 kg to a several tons monster. The playload is twice heavier, hence twice difficult to lift. 3 Grider Segments as legs can also be used for land recovery. They are heavier, but also cheaper than radial chutes, don't need tech unlock and may be more mass efficient for heavier designs. Landing on water will also save your RT-10

Est-ce que tu as ce problème sur d'autres sauvegardes? As tu viré/tué des kerbals ?

When you hack gravity on Gilly, you actually doubles its gravity

Is it a new probe (created after the contract?)

(1) What do you mean by die? Have you any mods installed? Have you tried to press R to activate the Jetpack? (2) When you transmit the science, you get all the science point immediately, hence you do not get them a second time when landing. Point showed at the end of the mission are the science points for experiment you store in your craft and did not transmit, rather than the total science of the mission. (3) Did you tried with the same craft each time? If your engines are to weaks, they cannot counteract the gravity and the atmosphere, hence the loss of speed. Even with the same craft, if you turn to early, the air will be thicker, and you willl go slower. (note 2) : there is a maximum of science point you can get for each experiment. I don't know the numbers, but let say the first time you do a goop experiment, you can get 75 % of the total science, it will say that you can have 15 points for bringing back that experiment, if you don't get science point for the same experiment in betwee. So if you have two goop, you won't heve 30 points, you will have 15 for the first, then 75% of the remaining (actually, it's more) for the second. It works the same way if you transmit part of the science points before recovering it. You should try your luck in the gameplay and tutorial section, it will be morre clear and detailed that my explanation. AFAIK, female Kerbal is a planned feature, but with low priority. - - - Updated - - - Also the in game tutorial about science is a bit long if you've already jumped in the game, but explains very well how it works

They already did. but now, some scientists want to know how the see water differs from their pool. Which better tool than a rocket engine?

Great thanx! very nice links! I may have misformulate my idea :I want to save and exit craft (may they be balloons) in flight within an atmosphere, and at an higher altitude than 2.2km (lower, I can use KAS).

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/80581 you asked Even without it, you can figure out by looking ho SAS is struggling with the control : if it pitches up, your plane is naturally pitching down, so CoM is before CoL. Transfer fuel from front to back and stop when SAS is pitching neither up nor down. (if SAS has to pitch down CoM is behind CoM). edit : this mod seems out of date :/

KER, TAC LS, an antenna range are cool.

This tell that, with sufficient margin, you're sure to take that playload into orbit. But the exact dv requierement of a rocket is quite sensitive to the ascent profile and the TWR of each stage. What I usually do to precisely find the max playload of a craft is : (1) launch with a playload probably to heavy, but containing fuel, that I link to the last stage engine. (2) -If you actually used the fuel of playload, the max playload is lighter than that. See the weight of what I've put to orbit. It's approximately the max playload capacity. -If you did not, see the weight of what I've put to orbit, ie mass of playload + mass of fuel left in the launcher (- mass of fuel needed to deorbit - safety margin, of course) That weight is the estimated mx playload mass. This can be respectively an over/under estimation, since you used more/less fuel that you should, taking from playload. This could be an under/over estimation as well, as your TWR is lower/greater than it should be. (3) for a better approximation, retry 1, but with a playload whose wheigh is those of the supposed max playload. I dunno if it always converges, but it gives an idea of what your rocket can handle. If it does not converges, then try dichotomia (need more trys though) : by your first try, you now that your launcher can't handle 5t, but can handle 3t, so what about 4? yes -> 4.5? no -> 3.5?

I know mainly two ways to save eletricity on probes that have no source of power : - switch to a distant vessel - cut the power when not manoeuvring. By using the second, I've found a very reproduceable bug : under some circumstances, SAS can be toggled but has no effect on the ship. Steps to reproduced : (0) This bug is career mode only, maybe science, but not sandbox (SAS in sandbox is handled very differently.) (1) send a probe with sas capability and a lot of torque into space (the atmosphere makes the bug less noticeable). (2) disallow any source of electric charge. The 'ship' should be uncontrollable. (3) go to the space center. (4) go back to the probe. (5) allow the use of electric charge. you can now turn SAS on, but it has no effect. SAS off, user input. I initiate a spin, with time warp x 4, so you can see the spining, even without video. SAS off, no user input Then I release control, the probe still spins, as expected. take note that I accidentally set a trim, hence the offset of yaw, but this shouldn't matter, as SAS should have killed it (and this happened without trim aswell) SAS on, no control input. the SAS send no attitude control, the carft still spin SAS on, user input. As expected, the manual commands overwrite whatever command the SAS should have send. However, the attitude control indicators a irelevant (I'm playing with all buttons at the same times, as you can see by the violence of the shaking). Workaround : Go back to the space center while the probe core has access to a source of electricity. jump to it again. Ksp version : unmodded 0.90

Well, if the contract is impossible, this is a bug. But I agree He'll have more help posting in gameplay questions. I'm pretty sure such a question has been posted there a while ago, but I don't remember what the response was (or were, there were plenty!)