Violent Jeb

Great.. new changes that make it even harder to reach the existing planets. Why not add new planets for the experienced players rather than changing /making.more.difficult / locking.out.the.game to 50% of people who simply don't have the time to relearn the game every 3 months. Duna is supposed to be the easy starter planet, remember? Its ridiculous because I can BARELY accomplish a Duna landing as it was in 1.0.4, and now i get to relearn if i can even do that before i worry about the other, also now more difficult planets. They make changes that nobody seems to ask for. People wanted jool to be easier to aerobrake, i remember that. What was wrong with duna? it needed biomes, not borked atmosphere.

Inclination shouldn't matter. As long as you launch directly into an orbit around the equator you should be fine. It seems you are assuming that as long as you maneuver [passes through the mun orbit, you will be "grabbed" by the mun. This is not so. The orbit that the mun is on is just an indicator of the path the mun takes. You need to meet the mun right on the line, so that your craft and the mun are almost in the same place at the same time. This will create the encounter. This is because the mun has [relatively] small gravity. As others have mentioned it all depends how you assign your maneuver. keep up the good work!

Its things like this that illustrate clearly how essential dV readouts, ejection angles and maneuver planners are, and how they should be in stock. The staff that makes Mechjeb and KER really need a raise. Oh wait..

I just wanted to point out that this mechanic is flawed an obscene. Throwing my hat in the -1 ring, even if it can be disabled. in the real business world, you don't hurt clients feelings by declining contracts, you are simply too busy to take them on, or you provide an alternative reason (not what we're looking for, etc.) I do this all the time. Not only do i not LOSE business, but the same clients continue to bring me new opportunities that might be more in line with what i am trying to do. This is a botched solution to the completely broken contract system Not only are the contracts completely RNG, but they are often; •completely redundant (testing rocket parts which have already been used for 20 launches??) •completely ludicrous in terms of payout •Requiring a massively over engineered structure. example, missions that require more than 1 large "ore" tank. If my ISRU calls for one tank, it calls for one tank. i'm not adding the additional mass and size just to fufill some arbitrary RNG contract Let's talk about how these RNG contracts are typed out via WACKY MAD LIB? When you take your own contract system seriously, then i'll stop skipping your repeat, RNG, wacky mad lib contracts. If they were dynamic, scripted, multiple pathed contracts that changed based on the type of space program you were running, i could see punishing the player for declining contracts. This is a complete joke. It's like trying to justify the broken mechanic by removing more fun gameplay mechanics. ANYBODY who has played a tycoon game or business.sim knows that some of the "real life" stuff is removed in place of better gameplay. So it's a complete farce to say "oh well IRL NASA sends up satellite after pointless satellite and doesn't have any say, so just shutup and push buttons at your PC" No thankyou. I will continue to mod out 70% of the contracts, as the only nesessary ones to maintain a career are planetary exploration and flag planting, which should be a single mission to begin with. But once again you are punishing vanilla players who are looking for an even remotely enjoyable career experience. As it stands this game is a hollow shell in terms of a business or tycoon type "career", where more and more the freedom to run my own space program is being replaced by empty justification for broken mechanics. Is it that much to as for to have a small penance for the missions that I WANT TO FLY and to simultaneously have to manage career funds from that? I just want science mode + funds that work, and this completely doesn't work. Making it suck more isn't going to make it work. Heck, why not just instant game over for anybody who skips a contract? If people didn't want to play this game "their way" then we wouldn't even have buoyancy, and the majority of the plane experience we have now. Forcing people to succumb to the broken system by punishing them for wanting to manage their career their way? Nonsense. Real excited for 1.0.5, but as usual its just a huge mess of being forced to take the good with the bad.

Just here to say the same thing as the person above, thank you for this beautiful mod.

My duna craft was more "re-usable", it had additional weight. I'm going to try a retroburn stage, and decoupling everything, with a heat shield under it. Back when I thought you could perform reasonable re-entry in this game I was relying on my engines for shielding which is perfectly sufficient within the soi. Things behave as normal, and your ship doesn't vaporise in atmosphere. Never bothered with the ablator because then it's really not re-usable in any sense of the word anyway! I wanted to eventually build spaceplanes and shuttle back and forth from layth, but once again this is something that will never happen for a post .90 player, like myself. I just find the constraints to be too much. not fun anymore to sit and try to guess where the 5% sweet spot might be. Its just my opinion on how jacked they made the heat system. They need to do SOMETHING. SOI heat is fun and intuitive, and interplanetary is a complete nightmare.

^^ How did you make it to 45 km without exploding? Heat shield(s)? Usually, I can only bleed off around 50-100 m/s diving that deep. Assuming I don't burn up, it still requires 500-1000 m/s retroburn to pull me into an orbit. After that I can usually follow a similar profile and "de-orbit" after apx 10 passes. Having to reduce to just the command pod seems a little ridiculous to achieve a "prompt" maneuver. Maybe i'm the odd man out, but I really don't see the point in arbitrarily raising the complexity for something that is less fun. At the rate the complexity is increasing, I probably won't be able to get manned teams on the other planets, due to the massively increased complexity of re-entry and return cost. It's comparable to orbit docking to reduce launch fuel or building ships in space, you can do it if you really want to but it's more hassle than its worth. In the case of heat management you have all the hassle with literally no benefit. It's not like you can "limp" a craft around with a few melted parts, and redesign for the next mission. You're basically designing a monstrosity, with no way to know if you'll be able to compensate for the arbitrary heat, that much worse if it's a career game, because if you're running 15 parallel missions, then there's no revert. Or i can play sandbox.. but I don't feel like i should have to.. Subsequent post indicates that 3500 m/s is above critical speed. How did you enter at 6 km/s periapsis 27km and only burn off "a few hundred" m/s and still survive? I burn up with half that velocity. Not to question your flight but i'd love to see pics of a 6 km/s atmo entry survival. At that kind of speed i would expect to be destroyed by g forces even if i could survive the upper atmo. Oh, and how was that Jool atmosphere.

[redacted, done]

Hey. The probe will have to survive impact. Think of it like this, when you try to do an eva report, your status will be "splashed down" - but not if you're dead. so, theoretically you will be splashed down for a fraction of a second before you explode, but thats not going to be enough time to fufill the contract (which iirc requires 3s of stability on a given surface).

^This. Really excited for this. I've wanted to play an OPM w Kerbol Plus & Trans-Keptunian, will it be possible to do something like that or will I have to go interstellar to get to these systems? In a typical patch Kerbol + & Trans-Keptunian don't play nice together, which sucks because all the planets look beautiful and the objects in the system are so nicely spaced and varied when integrated with stock.

If Kerbin can be done for 3300-3600, 8k for Eve seems reasonable. Pics seem pretty conclusive, it'd be nice to have the dv readout for the craft on eve's surface While i'm here.. I re-arranged the current map so that it is a bit more viewable on a horizontal screen, since my screen is horizontal. I can view this without zoom on a 32 inch monitor. I take no credit aside from jiggling things around in paint. Hope someone finds it handy! It stays open on the PC.. super helpful! Thanks to the OP!

The LKO requirement listed by the KSP wiki is using this as reference, which is pre 1.0.x http://i.imgur.com/CEZS1.png The current delta V map is here [1.0.4 on image] http://i.imgur.com/q0gC9H7.png and 3400 m/s is the regarded figure. 4 km/s is more than enough even with a margin. 4700 dv is simply creating a massive launcher stage. You may want a massive launcher stage, but i am 100% certain you can escape kerbin SOI with that much potential. use mechjeb and your calculator to confirm these values if you'd like, but thank you for the doc regardless edit; if you're new around here, sometimes the wiki gets a little outdated just fyi

Dude you should totally go watch the starwars trilogy then make a balanced, stock-themed XWING pod (just go to R2, so there's room for fuel and engine), i would put that into rotation if you give it similar stats/performance to the mk1. More challenging and equally cool, would be a KAS Winch-connected functional Pod Racer, a "go to" rover solution. Edit: Some more high-potential command pod/frames •ARC-170 Fighter, two-seater, dual engine •Eta-2 Jedi Starfighter (with front parachute node) •Clone Z-95 Starfighter

I usually stop playing for a few weeks post update, after all the work of getting the game working and waiting for mods i tend to not play for a few weeks That being said, I try to aim for specific goals/roleplaying, set out before I start the career. I have set space program goals to develop mun engineering, colonize the mun, travel interplanetary and establish working remote operated satellite networks. each career play gives me new skills which get me further the next new game. I have also tried to minimize the grind, I'll either engineer crafts so I only have to visit a biome once, or so I can hit 4 minmus biomes at the same time. Now that I have a reliable 5 kerbal, individual-escape-pod rc rescue craft on standby, I don't bother with rescue missions unless I need new employees, and I do 5 at a time. I also only do missions that I can accomplish "en-route" to my destination or that are parallel to the goals i have set myself, and only the highest yielding missions. I turn down about 98% of missions, while usually focusing on the "explore body" or "build base with space for 5 or less kerbals. This means that I can establish a nice uniform presence in the system while getting paid. I find that the more I focus on what I WANT to do, vs playing in the sandbox, the less prone to boredom I am. Anyway good luck finding inspiration

I have alan turing's computer and every version of ksp past, present & future.

pfft. time to let MJ shine over KER. My friends, MechJeb has an "atmospheric drag" value, which you can have visible through your entire flight! No need to get the terminal velocity and do the maths. It provides your atmospheric drag value in m/s much like the nav speedo. FWIW, typical flights will experience anywhere between 1-15 m/s drag. This represents constant losses while the air counters your momentum. With a fairly aerodynamic shape and no fairings, I can consistently keep my maximum drag values below 5, as long as you don't cap ~250m/s below 10,000m Note that atmospheric is thickest (and thus the most drag is present) around 8000-12000 m, after ~20-25k, drag decreases substantially until it is largely moot above 35000m (unless you try and hang out there for too long) All of this information has been acquired using mechjeb to get my atmospheric information. This makes it an essential mod for me

For me, it's the smoke on the landing pad that really makes lag apparent with big ships. I have an i5 w 8gb ram and ONLY with version 1.0+ have I been able to notice a substantial lag leaving the pad. We're talking 200+ parts. A segment that should take ~10s, takes more like 30. My solution has been to stay under those parts counts, i'm sure i could edit the smoke settings but i'm bound to run into more problems further down the line. If there's a way to disable the launch smoke effects that'll be your #1 culprit i bet.

Honestly, i'm frustrated. Remotetech is a great mod and it seems the concepts parts etc, are part and parcel out of that mod. However, to keep the SQUADLINESS, the end-game of the feature has been nerfed. a. no flight computer. This is because the signal delay has been nerfed right out. So we have realism in that solar panels get weaker as the light travels the system, but our communications are superior to light in every way and don't suffer at all. That NEEDS to be a configurable option, because the additional complexity of the design considerations are the only reason why a person would use a communcation system to begin with. As it stands, it's a slightly more convoluted version of the instant communications we have now, requiring several more parts, and (i'd imagine) several more lines of code. To make matters worse, because it has been nerfed from the gate, it will still necessitate running remotetech anyway for many players. So this "feature" falls directly in the SAME category as life support - it shouldn't have been done, because there's already a mod for each flavor. If you're going to add a feature, add a complete feature which would satisfy the people who use that modded feature to begin with. but i guess if completed features were on the menu we'd be expecting planetary bodies and bug fixes! Those are my thoughts - you asked!

I'm sure it's the latter. They both have the same part counts, but it's two big objects to track instead of one. FWIW, I imagine 2x100 part crafts and a 300 part craft would be closer in footprint. multi-part space stations always crash me with much lower counts vs. a single ship.

Starting with Science or funds just removes some of the early game grind. I find it to be perfectly acceptable. For example, in 1.0.4 I decided to start from scratch on normal with no modifier adjustments. It took around 3 mun/minmus operations and about a dozen kerbin operations (orbital or otherwise) to unlock the tech tree to an acceptable minimum for interplanetary travel. By this I mean; •attractive pods, •landing gear, •NERV, •Mainsail, •1*6 solar panels and large batteries. •Decouplers & Docking nodes After these ~15 missions my save has been compromised from a rogue mod. On my next play-though (whenever i muster the patience to resume ksp), I will certainly be allocating myself 500k funds and 1500 science to eliminate the grind from the first act of the campaign mode. The way I have increasingly come to view the campaign is a 3 part venture. Act 1- getting orbital, navigating Kerbin's SOI. Act 2- getting interplanetary, navigating Kerbol's SOI. Act 3- Establishing a functional and interconnected presence in the system. These ventures are not 100% linear and can occur simultaneously. If you look at it like this, you will see that adjusting the funds or science in the career mode essentially determines the amount of activity you must undergo in the Kerbin SOI. Ultimately, since you can virtually generate infinite science, even if you were to "beat" the game, there would be no way to definitively tell that you even modified the base parameters (aside from your save being a "custom", rather than normal campaign. Based on my personal stack of hours, "beating" the game in any sense of the word is unlikely to begin with, so it's largely moot to feel bad, or feel like its cheating. That mentality kept me struck grinding in kerbin's SOI for wayyy too many updates. My advice, adjust those sliders and go explore some far off reaches of space. TL:DR, if you're already comfortable in the kerbin SOI, there is nothing wrong with buffing your funds and science.

Also having this problem.. would love to know why..

Val fell off the roof after a spectacular landing on the control tower over at the airfield. She landed on her helmet and survived. She was not so lucky when the flight computer got removed from her craft file and she fell through a wormhole, never to be seen again. Bob died on an atmospheric EVA while experimenting with a strange rumor that ever since May the atmosphere became hotter than it was before that time in recorded Kerbal history. Turns out that the atmosphere was actually quite a bit hotter than it was before, and Bob rapidly burnt up after 5 seconds outside the pod. Since then my Space Program has been on the frontier of Global Warming research, and has made commitments to reduce our Karbon Footprint. We are also working closely with the R&D department looking into more heat resistant space suits, to avoid another catastrophe. We are chieftly concerned that if the temperature continues to rise that we could lose the ice cap biomes in the next 50-100 years, which would also cause a rise of the sea level. Since KSC is a coastal community, the future survival of the race has been called into question, and the viability of a mountain based KSC is being discussed.

Well this is simply wrong.I get flames at 55km orbit from a simple mun return, so if you're comparing an ultra slow controlled flight where you don't see kerbin flames until 40km, then it is no wonder you think Eve or jool is extreme. With that in mind, the real life equivalent (since the game tends to stay with current-ish tech) is a simple atmosphere skip, or double dip re-entry. Ships IRL don't handle the increase in the total absorbed heat well. A legitimate manned aerocapture has never been done, nor is it standard procedure. Therefore even Mun landings should "realistically" call for a braking burn, to withstand the atmosphere. I would expect to bring "slow down staging" to enter Jool or Eve atmosphere. As I understand it, the total amount of heat absorbed is higher when performing aerocapture, vs. higher maxiumum temperatures incurred with steeper re-entry. This means that the Kerbol system atmosphere is probably more forgiving than our atmosphere (capped atmospheric height non withstanding), given that our ships can handle aerocapture within reliable parameters (that or they have stronger building materials). If they're able handle aerobrake maneuvers than it should be at the cost of multiple passes/time, as it is now. If these atmospheric bodies with the strongest forces (Jool and Eve) had their atmospheres extended by around 100km, and their curves adjusted to be slightly more forgiving, this could fix the problem, no? I don't think that the atmosphere of Kerbin needs much tweaking, i find it to offer a fantastic challenge. Coming in with a 51 - 53km PE is the magic number IMO.

That gauge also gives you an idea on if you're craft is going to blow up from atmospheric forces (not heat), from coming in too fast. It's a useful gauge. I wouldn't be opposed to adjusting the "maxed out" value to kill my kerbals when the forces are too grow (just prior to when the ship would be destroyed anyway) Having kerbals black out is only good on papar. You rarely (probably never) use an engineer or scientest while transitioning through atmosphere, so if anything it'd just be a novelty when you see them pass out in cockpit view. although having a pilot blackout on re-entry could make for some interesting gameplay considerations, though at the moment re-entry is tedious enough.

FWIW, it seems to have gotten a little worse post 1.0. I notice significant lag on the launchpad with crafts over 200 parts. Suffice to say I don't have problems with any comparable game, and didn't have problems with 250 I see the mentality in keeping the crafts "wobbly" and doing calculations on the parts that are in play. I even agree that separators or docking ports should be somewhat flimsy when they get extreme weight affecting them. With that in mind, I don't see why double or triple stacked tanks couldn't be "welded" prior to launch. IRL, I would imagine a fuel tank is usually made to order, rather than made by cutting the top and bottom off two fuel tanks and attaching them together. This wouldn't bring part counts down entirely, but I would expect a reduction on the order of 30%, on simple cylindrical shapes that should be easy to scale/calculate as a whole. It seems like a happy medium approach, doesn't nerf or inhibit accurate calculations or animations, while lowering part counts. I don't know of any mods for 1.0.4, I just try to keep the part counts sub 200.