Amishacker

Thank you for the many and various responses guys. Basically, spot on. Windows being weird for permission reasons. The zip version simply unzips - I always ran without admin permissions in a folder (Program Filesx86) where it lacked write access without admin permissions. Result: Virtual folder - where stuff was hiding C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Local\VirtualStore\Program Files (x86)\KSP_win\saves\<savename>\<stuffstuff> (One) Solution: Grant permissions, move save file from virtual folder to saves folder Right click, properties, then: KSP, though running at the time didn't mind at all, and neither the save I moved from .90 nor the save from virtual is bugged (yet). It's saving where I want now. Huzzah and thankee. ps: I have a 'games' folder too, but some games are weird about path changes, or were in days of yore. That folder is full of tabletop RPGs and old save files anyway. Off-topic, but I do the 'system disk fast SSD secondary disk big archive' thing so anything executable usually goes defaulty-places. I might poke around and see if KSP can be coerced into loading/saving on my 'archive' disk without performance loss.

I started clean last month with 1.0, patched to KSP x86 v1.0.830 (in Win 7) and began one game of each type. I played pure stock a bit and wanted to share some .craft files, but my creations were nowhere to be found. The 'saves' folder I expected contains 'scenarios' and 'training', but my new saves are absent. So much grumblecakes! I searched the install. None of my .craft files (only stock craft) exist in the file system, and no .sfs files exist either. I was far more comfortable testing things in sandbox and moving/sharing crafts so this contains exceedingly sad panda New saves are hidden somewhere, but they aren't hidden files. I can't find mention of this concern on the forum here. As an experiment, I moved a <savename> from KSP x86 .90.0.37 into the expected '<KSP_root>/saves' folder of 1.0.2 That save now shows up in-game under the 'resume game' options, and it loads/saves mostly normally (it's mildly modded and kraken-eaten) I downloaded a .zip of the windows x86 1.0.2 install, and the hidden save behavior remains. All my new saves work but are hidden. Are new saves stored in a database file instead of the file system now? Where are they hiding? Is my system alone in this behavior? The workaround I have of creating the folder manually from an old install is my only way to 3D print or share my crafts now. Blerg. Apologies for the grumblecakes. Please help -|\/|/ - - - Updated - - - Oh, PS: I thought about posting this in support, but I found the tutorials on exporting .craft files here. This seems like a feature rather than a bug introduced when going to release, but I'll be happy to move to support.

It felt to me like the OP was lamenting the loss of Turbojet+LV-N to anywhere, which did result in unrealistic outcomes like: . Yep, those were the days.I was excited to see that LV-Ns are now liquid only, since I dreamed of pure hydrogen-powered flight when the nuke first game in. On the plus side, that's now possible in stock... but it seems like it won't be winning any performance trophies. Has anyone manage to get a 'ye olde ram-nuke' to orbit and back? This is the best I've got. I had to red-line those nukes all the way to 70x70 orbit. I had ~100 deltaV for deorbit/landing With absolutely no features beyond 'carries three kerbals' - it was a very marginal success. Also, the landing needs a little work. Reentry was OK but CoM was just behind/below CoL with dry tanks. With a little clipping (shoving the nukes forward) it'll land, but what then? It seems like even turbo/nuke SSTOs can still achieve a thing, but only a small thing. Clearly SSTOs aren't dead, even the olde kinde, but has anyone eked out some real utility from 'em?

Beautiful designs do deserve imitation. Coinkadinkally I built a modded plane in 0.90 with SR-71 looks that was also named Aurora. Ha.

I've found that MK2 bicouplers make excellent heat transfer bridges a) They are fuel tanks that have respectable thermal mass (1800-3400) They conduct heat via three connections, enabling them to source and sink heat rapidly In early testing, this makes for a respectable backbone for flying wings and branching VTOLs

thus far, and I'm scraping the bottom of my tanks at 28kmInlet drag is a very significant damper on airhogging; enough so that airhogging yields more drag than thrust at some equilibrium I have not yet found. I have found that using minimal intakes (perhaps 1:1 with engines) can dramatically increase airspeed. Based on the config files for air-breathing engines, power drops off gently for basic jets at .5 atmo, turbos dramatically at .16atm, and even rapiers slowly starve after .08. Comments in those files indicate this is as-intended, but it puts a serious damper on the thrust ceiling for anything with intakes. Hitting 30km is now a little tricky. This feels like a very significantly different paradigm, and I'm very skeptical anything works until I fly it. Solarapple: how far does the wee guna do get without infinite fuel?

It's not the turbojets, Kerbin physics is 'spooky'. All the engines are unrealistic because they are grounded in spooky; airbreathers extra-so I've been playing with similar ideas (ramjets/scramjets/AAR), but I have now accepted the opposite goal to the OP: Interesting spooky Kerbin-flavored ram-compression engines that have a niche I tried realistic, but the universe spat them out. Now I try fun/interesting This is the kind of contortion we should realistically be involved in with hypersonic turbojets: Part of my initial goal was modeling the blackbird engines (ain't we all?), but I found that dropping in the right numbers made really weird things happen, so I had to Kerbal-ify it. A placeholder ramjet based on data from ramstats - and a healthy dose of Kerbalization. I enjoy this ramjet topic, and I want to collaborate before I release anything stupid, so please crit - just be aware my goal is 'interesting' not realistic. The scramjet on the tail there was stupid-stupid-'interesting' (press Z to melt engine), so I'll keep that under wraps for now. NB: If you want to play with intakes, try very high and very low mass intake parts. Big mass parts (EG NASP style lifting body) with modest intakes act like drogue chutes, very light intakes (besides being cheaty airhog stuff) suck in lots of air without contributing much to drag. *spooooky* Yep, changing the air ratio and increasing ISP are the two ways to make an airbreather suck less air, and that's the more direct one. Great idea. Kyklops: nice, thank you for sharing PS: Bonus fun, how far can you skip off the atmosphere and into deep space with my ramjet?