WesleyWestland

That appears to have fixed the problem, thank you very much!

Hello everyone, For some reason, whenever I deploy the fairings on my rockets, the game slows down a lot to the point where it's nearly unplayable. The clock in the top left slows to between 1/3 and 1/2 real speed, though it never turns red, and the frame rate drops significantly as well - I don't have an FPS counter but it looks like it approaches 5 FPS, down from the 60 FPS I set the limiter to. My Space Shuttle replica does something similar, though it does not deploy any fairings (it just slows the game down once I reach the upper atmosphere - maybe that one has to do with its rather high part count). My CPU, an AMD Ryzen 5 2600, is showing roughly 30% use in the Task Manager, my GPU, an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060, shows around 40%, so it shouldn't be slowing down at all, but just to make sure I tried turning the graphics settings down a lot (particularly atmospheric effects) but it didn't help. I'm running KSP 1.8.1.2694 on Windows 10 with Chatterer, the Docking Alignment Indicator and the Trajectories mod installed. As far as I can tell, it doesn't matter very much whether I'm in space or not (the clock and frame rate stay slow even when I exit the atmosphere), but the problem seems to solve itself as soon as my periapsis is outside the atmosphere. Does anyone have an idea as to what might be causing this, and if so, what I might be able to do to fix it? Thanks in advance.

After many failed attempts, I finally managed to build a functional 'replica' of the Space Shuttle. Turns out the trick is to get a forward CoM, which I did by clipping two full ore tanks into the cockpit. The monopropellant tank at the rear of the orbiter is empty, it's just there as a lightweight structural piece and because it looks cool. The shuttle, which I named Echo V, just about manages to launch 4 Kerbals and a full Rockomax Jumbo-64 tank (formerly the orange tank, but there are multiple orange tanks now...) into a 100 km orbit. To make for more interesting viewing, I decided to test it by launching all components for a space station into a 125 km orbit. I could upload the craft file if anyone's interested, but I imagine there are plenty of better shuttles out there. I'm mainly just happy that my many attempts over the past few years have finally paid off.

Turns out I've been misreading ever since I first bought the game in 2015 and migrating to Steam is only possible for those that have had KSP since 2013, so that choice has been made for me. I guess I'll just have to wait for a discount to come along on the KSP store - or buy a separate Steam copy. With the discount KSP + Making History = €17.48, compared to Making History by itself being €14.99 on the KSP store. Oh well.

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, but isn't the Making History Expansion supposed to be on sale in the KSP store as well? It shows 50% off in the Steam store, but the Steam button on the KSP store isn't showing that either. I haven't transferred my copy of KSP to Steam, and it seems odd to me that they wouldn't give you the same discount on both platforms. Maybe I should migrate to Steam, but I don't want the hour counter to confirm how many hours I waste playing KSP... :P

Bill, Bob and the Dakar Lorry finally made it! It took them 5 hours, 9 minutes and 22 seconds, the official slowest time of Kerbal Dakar 2017! I ended up losing five more Oscar B tanks, so I had to disable four of the drivewheels and most of the remaining lights to reduce their electric power consumption, and I ended up making it with only 16 litres of fuel to spare. I hope it's enough to drive home to the Space Centre, if not it'll turn into a Kerbal Marathon as well...

Good news! I won't need as much fuel now I shed some weight. I also lost some lights, so I won't need as much electricity either. Maybe rolling isn't that bad after all.

My Dakar Lorry is still going strong. Well, not that strong. To be frank, it's pretty horrible. I spent most of my afternoon on stages two and three, and I still haven't passed the latter. So far, the highest speed I've achieved was 29.7 m/s down a very steep hill, and I lost part of the bonnet immediately after. I also fear that I may not have enough fuel to finish it, I lost two out of twelve Oscar B tanks somewhere along the way. Finishing the rally might not be possible without quicksaving in the middle of stages.

I wondered how well a vehicle without jet engines would do. Answer: Not very well. I'm not going for the fastest time, simply finishing will be a nice challenge by itself. Physics warp worked fine on the first leg, I drove nearly all of it on 4x speed. I never exceeded 25 m/s anyway. On the second leg, steep downgrades sped me up too much. Maybe I shouldn't use 'cruise control' (trim) either.

I tried the next stage three times now, the first time I couldn't make it up the hill, even when slaloming to keep the gradient less steep. The second time I flipped when descending said hill, and the third time I tried going around the entire mountain range, but physics time warp killed me when I hit a speed bump. It might take me a while to finish this...

My Dakar Lorry is powered by the two large fuel cells in the cargo area. Its top speed on flat ground is about 15-20 m/s. I might be a contender for the Slowest Vehicle Award, if such a thing exists. I'll edit later to add in the next stages. All stages have been added! I'm also recording each leg to make a time lapse video afterwards. To make a video that's not too boring, I'll make a highlights compilation instead. I have captured a (far too) large number of rolls which might make it somewhat interesting. Damage sustained: I lost two out of twelve Oscar B fuel tanks during the first leg. I also lost the lower half of the cargo area, one of the high beams, part of the bonnet and my brake lights during the third leg when it was starting to go dark. Finally, during the sixth leg, I lost five more Oscar B fuel tanks. I was limited to two wheel drive from that moment on, and turned off most of the remaining lights. I made it with only 16 litres of fuel to spare. Total time to finish - 5 hours, 9 minutes and 22 seconds, officially the slowest time of Kerbal Dakar 2017!

Hello, I built a Saturn V 'replica'. It's not a perfect match, but at least I got the number of engines right. Of course, the only proper way to test a Saturn V is an Apollo style Mün mission, as shown in the video below. It's a pretty stable rocket, and it flies rather well, if I may say so myself. During testing an unmanned test flight, I came across a Mün Arch, which made for a good target. If anyone's interested I can upload a craft file too, although I imagine everyone and their uncle Jeb have built one at one point or another. Thanks for viewing!

Okay, I'll look into it. I haven't use a lot of mods recently, I didn't feel like reinstalling everything after every update. I think my current version only has Chatterer installed.

I honestly have no clue how fast mine goes. I could try taking the propeller blades off to see how fast I can get it, although I also don't know how to measure it.

What do you consider high?

Oh, I guess that works too. I mostly just wanted to break my personal speed record, so I just looked at the speed. I'll try F12 next time. And yes, there is a double Stayputnik in each of the two fuselage pieces. It's mostly because there is no round fuselage of this size, but it also seems to have low friction. The engine is almost completely vibration free, something I never quite got the hang of using small reaction wheels inside the fuselage. I also noticed that it's very easy to add or remove SAS units, which increases its power output. When I get the time, I'll try and see how many I can stick on there without it being too heavy. It still took off quite easily with the current weight. Just wondering, how many parts do other people's propeller engines have? My plane has just over a hundred altogether, and it made my game stutter every few seconds.

Hi, I noticed that no-one seems to use the large SAS modules for propeller engines, or at least I haven't found any. You would think that they're more powerful than the small ones. I got my plane up to 99.7 m/s (I'll make 100 one day!), without excessive part clipping. It looks horrible, but I found that it's surprisingly stable, more so than my previous ones using the small reaction wheels.

Okay, I've tried your tips (I already had yaw only for the rudder, I already had dihedral), and it seems that adding a wing strake in front of the rudder and extra vertical stabilizers like the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft has, has solved the problem. The CoL and CoM were hardly changed at all. Thanks all! WesleyWestland.[IMG]http://imgur.com/a/TX8NL[/IMG]http://imgur.com/a/TX8NL

Thank you all for replying so quickly. I'll try and post some screenshots later today. I already had my control surfaces set to their right axis. I doubt it is a speed loss problem, as it also happens when banking 5 or 10 degrees. I'll try rolling it in the editor.

I'm trying to design a cargo plane in 1.0.5 (same size as the Stearwing A300, but I regard using the stock craft as cheating), using the FAT-455 wings, but it won't work. I've tried many different configurations (high wing, low wing, Goliath engines, Wheesley engines, CoL on top of CoM, CoL behind CoM, etc.) but whatever I do, it ends up in a flat spin whenever I try to bank to try and turn. What am I doing wrong? The Stearman A300 flies fine, CoM and CoL are in similar places, only his CoL arrow is pointing up and aft instead of straight up. I can get it to point aft slightly by angling the main wings, but that only seems to make the problem worse. Do you have to treat the FAT-455 differently maybe? Thanks in advance, WesleyWestland. EDIT: the problem has been solved! :D