JeeF

To be honest I'd love if they made a real solar system stock. In 15 minutes you have tech to orbit Kerbin and in 1 hour of gameplay you're landing on other planets, it's too easy. But I'm guessing some people like KSP as it is and I may be overstepping my wishes here. I'll continue using mods instead.

1) Limited by tech level. Also, part size shouldn't be what a new tech level unlocks, but better technology. You can resize a crappy engine, it will still be a crappy engine, only bigger. Better performance comes with better tech, at least it should be. It's kinda how R.O. works with RP-0, I haven't played stock in ages so I don't even remember, but that's a discussion for another time. 2) I've always played with Realism Overhaul + RSS, engines cannot be re-scaled, so I didn't even consider it. But some parts really do need re-scaling, like tail fins, ailerons, batteries, landing legs, etc. Those are the only things I re-scale, as I use procedural fuel tanks. When you play the game with a set of mods for so long, you end up forgetting what the original game looks like. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to (or even be interested in) playing stock KSP, it's just too damn easy. Nathan clearly agrees with us. I'd like to hear some feedback from a developer who thinks the opposite, so I can understand this better.

I'm in IT professional, I know coding. Also, I work as a producer in the gaming industry, publisher side. So my 2 cents here are actually based on experience with player feedback, player retention, player happiness. A happy player is a player inviting his friend to buy the game too. I don't actually care about these things being added to the game to satisfy myself, since I'll always mod my games to bits. I'm just trying to help you guys bring more players in. The more players you have, the longer the game lasts, the more content and mods we'll have. I'm very passionate about KSP and I'd like it to be alive and active for many years to come. With that in mind, I imagine it would be VERY complicated to create a code decent enough to calculate all possible designs, engines rotated in different angles, opposing thrusts, different fuel levels and mods. I get it. But I also know how important it is for the game, nobody plays without dV readings. Some may say "well thats not realistic/its cheating" but honestly having to launch dozens of rockets till you get it right by trial and error is plain ridiculous and 10x more unrealistic. With that in mind, a solution for now to please everyone till they have enough time and manpower to work deep on this issue is to release a simple dV reading, nothing fancy, giving somewhat accurate readings, a round up number as if it was manually calculated by an engineer with a pencil, napkin and a few minutes. Could be something like 2.3-2.5 TWR, 4.5-4.7 km/s dV, just so we have an idea of what the rocket is capable of without having to launch it countless times to find out the hard way. "Oh but it adds to the challenge" - Sure, the same way slicing off your right arm would add to the challenge of using your TV remote. Why complicate things, why reinvent the wheel. The time spent manually calculating dV or trial-and-error could be much better used creating something new, going somewhere new, trying a new challenge, building something different. If the guy who invented the calculator kept it to himself and left everybody else doing math by hand to "add to the challenge", mankind would be evolving much slower. On the Tweakscale front, any official squad answer on the matter? I mean, seriously... if monitors and tvs were sold only either in 14" or 40" sizes people wouldn't be very happy about it, it's just not productive nor intelligent. When it comes to rocket science, NASA and space travel, a part is as big as it needs to be. Thanks for the link, Regex, but I'm not interested in 10 pages of personal opinions from forum members, but an official answer from a developer. (If I can get that lucky)

I can't imagine playing KSP without Tweakscale and KER mods. I mean, seriously, in real life rockets are designed not on what parts are available, but parts are designed on the go to fit the needs. And engineers at NASA don't just guess how much fuel and thrust an engine needs to have in order to put a rocket in orbit. "Well, let's try with 2 engines and see if it's enough... any volunteers?" These 2 tools are essential, the bare minimum, the vast majority uses them anyways, why not add them to the stock game? Devs, any plans on something similar to these mods for stock? And in case you're wondering "But if the tools already exist, why should the devs add something similar to the stock game?", this takes the load off modders needing to update their mods every time there's a new KSP update. Any thoughts? TY

Hey guys, I've recently started a new campaign with RO/RSS, fresh install. When I tried upgrading my runway (twice, from crappy dirt to full airport) the runway craft dimension limits became -1.0m! I've never seen this bug before, any of you? All my installed mods are the RO/RSS list of recommended/suggested mods, plus dynamic texture loader. Running a fresh new install, 1.0.5 and 32 bits. I need to know if there's anyway I can edit my savefile to fix this issue or if I need to start a new career. I'm dying to complete some missions with the new aircraft I've designed today. Flies like a charm!

Hello guys, I've experimented a lot with Kerbal over the past 6 months I've been playing it. After a while, I started making calculations on how to launch directly up instead of going into an orbit for a moon landing, etc (using RSS and RO). I find it's very efficient... a lot less fuel needed. If you select the correct launch site, wait for the right angle to the moon, an aimed direct launch can save me up to 2k delta-v. Not only you need less time/fuel/total weight to get to the moon (or other planets), but you also spend less time in the atmosphere, so you lose even less delta-v there as well. For the moon, I find that a 42-45 degree angle from launch gets me an intercept 99% of the time, with very little correction necessary to get a moon orbit, most of the time I can even get it trimmed with RCS. I've played a lot with it and I've tried thinking of a reason why it would be a bad idea, or a worse idea compared to orbit, but couldn't. Tried searching internet about it and didn't find anything. What do you guys think? Why isn't it done in real life and why can't I find one youtuber using this same strategy? What am I missing? [IMG]http://s9.postimg.org/p9l8t6f3j/asd.jpg[/IMG] Possible causes? 1) Needs more precision, tighter launch window, bigger chance of missing intercept? Well, maybe, and if so not by much. When you consider the fact you'd be almost "parked" at 0m/s waiting for the moon to come. The moon's gravity gets me on 99% of the attempts without any corrections. 2) ... ? Idk. 3) Why isn't this done in real life?

[quote name='NathanKell']We're about ready to release for 1.0.5. I suggest holding off a little bit, and then starting from a clean KSP 1.0.5 install. Right now a lot of RO submods are in flux between 1.0.4 and 1.0.5.[/QUOTE] When you say "we're about ready to release", do you have any predictions in terms of hours or days? I've been unable to play since 1.0.5 came out, refuse to play without RO and RP-0 and RSS and unfortunately I didn't make a copy of my 1.0.4, steam auto-updated and I'm going mad here. NEED to play it. Maybe you have an experimental version that I could try? XD

Always the grumpiest guy in the forums. Unable to reply to something without tossing a grenade. Working? Yes. Somewhat playable. Compatible? No. Some very important things changed in 1.0.5 and those need to be updated in RSS/RO. You can play but you won't enjoy. Don't worry, RSS/RO update shouldn't be long.

Sorry if this was already answered (couldn't find it) but is this compatible with RSS?

Using DXTory, great recording software, very little impact on fps, plenty of options and the compression is awesome.

One of my very first videos, from some time ago now. Got any talent?

That works but would look damn ugly and would be impossible to achieve any decent speed. I'm looking for realism, 9 thousand RPM and speeds over 200m/s on the airplane. Wasn't even touching the keyboard, just climbing straight up and increasing throttle. Yep, using KJR. Tried that, the whole structure wobbles.

Rotatron, from Infernal Robotics. - - - Updated - - - One interesting thing is: If I remove the wings, I can spin that thing to a kazillion rpms, and it's rock stable. So the wobbling is being caused by the wing drag somehow. At first I thought maybe the exhaust from the turbines was causing turbulence on the wings, but even placing the engines really far away still causes the wobbling. I think I may try with FAR installed. Currently I don't have it installed due to a very annoying bug that was inverting my engine's _____ (forgot the word) at certain speeds. FAR may kill the wobbling. Will post results later.

Hey guys, I've been trying for weeks now to create a propeller engine from scratch and I've come pretty close to a good design. It can lift a CM, that's how I've been testing optimal wing angle. However, in order for it to be able to be attached to an airplane and actually drive it forwards, I need to make it spin REALLY fast. Spinning really fast is not the problem... I've done that. The problem is the WOBBLING! Doesn't matter what I do, what parts I use, how precisely dead-center I install these parts, after a certain rotation speed it all goes to hell. Here's a video showing the design and the problem: I've tried many different approaches, angles, parts, sizes... you name it. I've installed a previous prototype in a big airplane I've made, 4 engines, and it can drive the whole heavy airplane forward at about 25m/s solid steady at about 30% throttle. Anything above that, yes the speed increases but the wobbling begins and the more throttle I give the worse it becomes till it all explodes. Shame KSP doesn't allow us to connect both sides of a part to another part, otherwise I'd could double the "firmness" of the design by putting rotatrons on both ends and connecting both ends to the same wing, having the engine spinning in the center of the wing instead of the front. Any help is appreciated!

This is RocketDyne F-1 Engine, quite a jaw-dropping description http://s14.postimg.org/m9ut4ttrl/Untitled.jpg This is what I've decided to put together after a lot of study and engineering. http://s14.postimg.org/dsvatwp2p/Untitled2.jpg It's an array of 64 F-1 Engines, allowing me to put a payload of over 600 tons into orbit During launch, I realized that 3 engines failed, they just simply do not ignite. http://s14.postimg.org/aw89tmj8x/untittled3.jpg I checked the gimbal, trajectory, angle, speed... it was still all good despite 3 engines failing to ignite, so I thought I'd be ok However... Around 2 minutes after launch, I realized that the 3 engines that failed to ignite were causing an unbalanced distribution of fuel Which meant some engines would run out of fuel before others At 3 mins flight... all engines on the left side ran out of fuel. With only the right-side engines thrusting, it started heavily pushing the whole rocket offcourse The stress in the fuselage made the second stage decoupler to fail, causing a part of the thrusting engine from the first stage to break away and accelerate 2x faster than the rocket, colliding with the second stage like a missile That caused the second stage fuel tank to explode with over 5 million liters of fuel Which caused a catastrophic explosion that divided the whole rocket into 5 or 6 smaller rockets which flew into different directions http://s14.postimg.org/w4lyb1xpt/untittled4.jpg One of the loose rockets flew straight into the command module, killing all 3 astronauts onboard. The fallout was over populated cities, killing hundreds. 3.2 billion dollars disappeared in a fraction of a second.

Hello there! Made this video some time ago, decided to share here. Was building quite a spaceship in orbit with all the possible science, wanted to take it to other planets... then 1.0 came out, I decided to scrap it and start over. So... decided to scrap it in a way that could be fun for others to watch... did some video editing to make it cool, but don't expect anything hollywoodian. Anyways, here you go, enjoy!

As I stated before, I don't report issues coming from my 64bit build, so don't assume things.

Thanks for the info, Blacks! I wasn't sure it was RSS, but I figured it was probably something to do with the size of the planet on the new thermodynamics of 1.0.3.

Just to confirm I'm having the same problem as GorillaZilla on my builds.

Have an interesting phenomenon happening. Some engines will blow up immediately at launch. FASA's mercury chute blows up immediately once loaded into the launchpad. Managed to launch a rocket into space using LT-45 and Thumpers, nothing heated in space, but as soon as I entered the atmosphere when de-orbiting, everything went boom. Enabling "ignore part max temp" on the debug menu allowed me to land, while I was checking the temperature (3 mins AFTER landing) it was reading millions of kelvin, and rising, on ALL parts. Disabling RSS fixed the problem. Mod List Output Log Brand new install with the latest version of all mods installed, new career game, 32bit.

How about contracts and records for RSS? For records, it all stops at 2500m/s and 70km altitude, how about extending that to match RSS? Possible?

Did both and it worked, thank you. Now the question is, how do I get this to work with RSS? When you said "Delete RSS folder, is no longer necessary" I thought the mod was already included, however the planet is small stock, not RSS. Update: Tried installing RSS + 8K textures. It loads alright and the planet still looks fantastic, however I have flickering horizon ghost textures and the sky looks bad.

Sorry Thomas, but no donut Tried many times. Tried as well on a brand new installation of the game with only the mods you've listed above + Stock Bug Fix modules: (I've tried without SBFM as well) Game loads fine (new game) but whenever I click on any building at ksc, I get the bug where nothing else is clickable, not even able to back to main menu. Output log shows exceptions for nearly all textures as: MissingMethodException: Method not found: 'GameDatabase.TextureInfo..ctor'. at DDSLoader.DatabaseLoaderTexture_DDS+<Load>c__Iterator0.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 UnityEngine.MonoBehaviour:StartCoroutine_Auto(IEnumerator) UnityEngine.MonoBehaviour:StartCoroutine(IEnumerator) :MoveNext() And: NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at ApplicationLauncher.RemoveModApplication (.ApplicationLauncherButton button) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TextureReplacer.TRGui.onGUIApplicationLauncherUnreadifying (GameScenes scenes) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at EventData`1[GameScenes].Fire (GameScenes data) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at ApplicationLauncher.OnSceneLoadRequested (GameScenes scene) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at EventData`1[GameScenes].Fire (GameScenes data) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at HighLogic.LoadScene (GameScenes scene) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at EditorDriver.StartEditor (EditorFacility facility) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at VehicleAssemblyBuilding.OnClicked () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at SpaceCenterBuilding.EnterBuilding () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at SpaceCenterBuilding.OnLeftClick () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at SpaceCenterBuilding+.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 Here's the full output log. On a side note: it was throwing "corrupted asset9" from your file, I've replaced with the one I have from EVE+AVP to see if that would fix, but didn't.

Hello Thomas, can you please explain further how to get all of this to work on 104? I download the original .90 mod, then delete KittopiaSpace folder and apply your file? Do I need Kopernicus mod and/or RSS? Thank you!

I absolutely LIVE for games that are way too complex for the average gamer. I agree with many on the list, but honestly there are some that should be and are not. For instance... the hardest learning curve of any game I've ever played is by far Hearts of Iron 3. Holy smokes talk about micro-management.