LittleBlueGaming

I definitely notice how much faster it is. Small little thing, not sure if there's even anything you can do about it, but if you drag the chart until the cursor is off the canvas, it won't receive the mouseup event. Clicking on the canvas will restore the chart to the point it was at when the canvas lost focus. This is most annoying if you start dragging from an edge of the chart. Chart saving works great, zoom/recall work fine, control-zooming works fine, freezing/unfreezing works fine.

Uh... don't kerbals do the fragmentation thing anyway? Or was it parthenogenesis? Edit: sneaky false dichotomy

I would love to see a study showing this, as well as watch the authors win a Nobel prize.

Saw this earlier today... I remember watching someone at TED talking about the landing and their projected search area. Glad it woke up, that's great news whenever you spend a billion dollars trying to get somewhere.

KSP Version: v1.0.2 Windows 32-bit What Happens: Medium landing gear cause a craft to accelerate rather than decelerate in certain areas. Mods / Add-Ons: All Stock Steps to Replicate: 1) Make a plane which uses medium landing gear. 2) Drive it over toward the anomaly near the KSC. Speed >15m/s 3) When close to the anomaly(maybe 100m), engage the brakes. Result: Craft will rapidly accelerate. This doesn't happen on the runway, or on the grass on the other side of the runway. Fixes/Workarounds: - None that I know of Other Notes/Pictures/Log Files: - This will work with mixed gear, although it depends on the brake torque. If you reduce the torque on the medium gear, the other gear can stop you on the same terrain. - Example craft using mixed gear: https://www.dropbox.com/s/z0mospjptz64njj/Buggy%20Brakes.craft?dl=0

And, a little more maybe-helpful information. The error is in no way, that I can see, attached to a save file. I saved a named quicksave after producing the bug, restarted KSP, and neither the persistent nor the quicksave would destroy craft. The bugged parts travel in a straight line, they aren't at all affected by gravity. In this instance, my probe core wasn't accelerating very quickly away from the asteroid in m/s, but it also wasn't being pulled by gravity. I have a composite image showing its path over time. I'm guessing its trajectory is just frozen the moment it is bugged and no other forces will act on it. I wonder what would happen if it collided with a celestial body. When I reloaded to the quicksave(after restarting KSP), which was shortly after the probe core separated from the rest of the vessel, the probe core was again behaving normally, back in a matching orbit around Kerbin. I can't really think of anything else to test, but I'd be happy to try something if you think it would help.

Lol, you're crazy. I like it.

Ok, I've got something even better: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3e9j7u5ih19ib77/AADsIua2iKg40Qjw3UNjNFALa?dl=0 It's all stock. Load up the game, go to the tracking center, and fly the Claw Debugger 1. Turn on RCS. 4x physical warp. Alternate between A and D to get the ship flexing. Quicksave during maximum deflection. Debug log should post an error like this: '[Log]: Active Vessel is under acceleration (G = 0.829280703246545). Cannot save.' Quickload, you should get a NullReferenceException error in the debug log. 5x warp. The ship should fly apart accompanied by a slew of NRE messages. The first time I tried to replicate this, it worked. The second time, it didn't. What I've found to work consistently is to spam F5 while doing Step 4, so maybe it's an overload of that? - - - Updated - - - Output_log: https://www.dropbox.com/s/10nnqpkk8blbf0l/output_log.txt?dl=0 This output log, I had to spam F5 a lot, and go through quite a few quick reverts for it to show up. After it destroyed the ship, I went to the Space Center, Tracking Center, and loaded up the other ship in orbit. Hit '>' and it immediately tore itself apart too, so both ships are in the log.

I've got a savefile where I can reliably produce a NullReferenceException. It seems to be tied to the '[Log]: Active Vessel is under acceleration (G = 0.829280703246545). Cannot save.' message when using F5. I haven't done this enough to say for sure, but it seems the higher the g-force is when you quicksave, the more likely you'll get the NRE on quickload. Regardless, you can just keep quick-loading from the same quicksave until the error pops up. Now to figure out how to screw up the claw from here. I've tried a couple things, but no luck so far. Might need to put more vessels up in orbit. https://www.dropbox.com/s/qq09ntz4ljzxeqj/%5B11%5DNRE.sfs?dl=0

Getting them to 'attach' to another part is very finicky. When I was doing a rocket, attaching the end of the fairing to a decoupler, there were only a few pixels of room where it would let me close. I can take a look at that, should be interesting. I've never attached through a fairing. - - - Updated - - - You can strut from the fairing base to the payload, or if the fairing isn't too long, you can strut all the way up vertically to the next part. - - - Updated - - - The part the fairing clips through is completely protected, so it appears as long as the connection node is inside the fairing(in the VAB/SPH) the whole part counts as shielded. Parts attached to it, however, are not shielded. You can see the drag indicators for the two top structural fuselages, but there aren't any for the one that has a node barely inside the fairing.

I've experienced Oct's and Slam_Jones' versions. I want to try getting a null reference exception into a named quicksave, fully stock, and see if we can establish some kind of baseline to work with. Seems like http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/2349 will be the key to getting a surefire method of replication going.

KSP Version: Version 1.0.2 Windows 32-bit. What Happens: Cannot disable Surface FX from the settings menu. Mods / Add-Ons: All Stock Fixes/Workarounds: - Changing the option to false in settings.cfg works permanently.

Sounds like your friend was trolling you.

It would be better if those types of fairings actually connected to the part above them and added to stability.

Doing some work on the wiki page for fairings, I would like some input on if I'm interpreting things correctly. Also, if there's something else you'd like to see, just let me know. 1 - It appears that parts which clip outside the fairing do show mach effects, but don't actually contribute to drag as long as they stay connected. 2 - Interstage fairings don't actually connect to the part above them, so they can shift in relation to one another. I need to test with aero forces on to see if the shifting creates new drag. 3 - Fairings don't add stability directly, but can make a rocket more stable by reducing the torque on weak joints created by drag. I'm not entirely sure on this one, I find it hard to believe that the extra drag on the girders made such a difference, but then again, I'm not a scientist. The amount of flex at 100m/s with and without the fairing just looks like too big a difference to me to chalk up to drag.

I always have to rebuild fairings when I disconnect them from the core part, and then add them back in. For the snap problem, I don't really see an issue. If you're using a fairing that's the same diameter as the part above it, the first step just needs to be slightly outward, then you can build straight up from there.

The only problem with testing those heights out at the KSC, is if you go to a lower/higher gravity body, it can end up being off. My Minmus modules wouldn't all attach on Kerbin, but all worked fine on Minmus. - - - Updated - - - My second asteroid-grabber glitched out and I had to just terminate it. Anytime I loaded it, it would just start accelerating out of control, threatening to break the ship apart. If I detached the ship from the asteroid, just the ship would fly out of Kerbin's SoI(and very quickly).

Love it, as always.

"Gene, why did you leave me up there so long?!?!?" - Jeb Haven't been playing as much this last week, but made progress since my last entry. Put up a fuel depot in LKO. And yes, it does carry gratuitous amounts of mono-propellant and electrical charge for its size. What can I say, I like the way those parts look. Brought some kerbals back from the KSS Valentina, they had been there for quite a long time, and done all the science they could. There were too many parts when the station and crew vessel were both loaded, so I parked the crew vessel out of range and performed a synchronous 2-kerbal extreme EVA. Got a science-biome-hopper thing to Minmus. Picked up 5 biomes and realized that was more than enough to power my mobile lab for a long while. Vertical docking ftw. Got a drill rig to Minmus. It's vastly inferior to just having a drill on my outpost, but I wanted to simulate having to travel between the 'mines' and the outpost for processing. Plus, vertical docking on Minmus is fun. Only have 3 nodes left to unlock, and I'm starting to feel disappointed. I've got 4 mobile labs setup, I want to have tons more research nodes to work toward. I'm going to take a module off the KSS Valentina to get the part count down, probably just de-orbit the science module since I'm done with it. Next on my list: Outpost on the Mun... that will basically mark the Kerbin system as 'complete' in this career. Manned missions to Duna and Ike, followed by outposts and stations. Design a better crew spaceplane, what I have now is just a two-seater SSTO with a drone core. Design a cargo spaceplane, I haven't yet worked on an SSTO that can carry a decent payload.

Turn off the edge highlighting. I'm lucky, my computer doesn't support it, so the temp gauges have never been a problem.

Yeah, I had played with ScanSat before I ever used the stock scanner. I was really disappointed when I setup my polar orbit and just got the whole planet in 5 seconds. I loved how ScanSat took time and I had to plan how I wanted to scan the planet ahead of time. To me, that's an example of being way too concerned with playability and not nearly concerned enough with realism.

Yeah, I dunno. It works every time for me, no mods except KER and KAC... I figured it would work for everybody.

Apologies, I've been feeling a bit down lately, having a hard time coming up with dialogue. I was trying to design an all-in-one outpost for Minmus, but I couldn't get a modular station with a low enough part count. I decided, having been so successful launching entire space stations, to try and just launch the outpost in one piece. This saved me on parts for legs and docking ports, and made it more sturdy. It was a little difficult to balance, I left one side a little heavier so it would help me with my gravity turn, but that caused more problems outside of the atmosphere than it helped with. I got the part count down to 62, and decided to make the drilling rig, fuel freighter, and biome hopper all separate from the outpost. That way I can park them out of physics range when I'm not using them and keep my frame-rate up. This baby was... fun... to fly I also finished cleaning up all the debris, and put up the beginnings of a fuel depot. I just need to finish that, then get an outpost to the Mun, and I'll be moving on to other systems. - - - Updated - - - Thanks

I launched a new Minmus outpost. Surprised I was able to get it there, tbh. One single launch to save on part count, 64 parts for 11 kerbal capacity, science module, ISRU, ore/fuel/mono storage

Come on, Squad isn't going to turn KSP into a dry, ultra-realistic, tedious simulator. As I understand it, Orbiter fulfills that niche. We don't need arguments trying to remind them to keep it fun, this game is amazing. If you want 150% unrealistic engines, then mod them. They don't belong in the stock game. Just like any other sandbox game, you can completely ruin the theme by what you include in the stock experience. Minecraft shouldn't come packaged with anti-monster turrets and a shop where you can buy any weapon imaginable. 7 Days to Die shouldn't come packaged with the ability to fly. The best approach is to make a game that is self-consistent with its own theme, and then allow the people to customize things as they see fit through modding. It's been said in this thread, better than I can put it, that the game is meant to represent real space exploration at a basic level. They've stuck an amazing balance between realism and fun, keeping it as close to realism as possible without ruining the fun. No unobtainium rocket parts, no infinite fuel, no magic engines, no superpowers. No 'One Engine to rule them all, One Engine to find them, One Engine to bring them all and in the darkness bind them'.