MaxwellsDemon

Ah... I should point out that I use the Kerbal Construction Time mod, which affects my point of view. XD But I see what you're saying.

I've done some poking around to see if this is addressed anywhere, and so far I can't find it... please pardon me if I'm repeating a question already answered somewhere else (and, if you could point me to that answer, great)! Building a whole new rocket each time makes sense for the VAB. They're generally expendable launch vehicles, and with the StageRecovery mod, you can notionally re-use dropped stages calculated to be in good enough shape for re-use. No worries there. But... cross the tarmac to the SPH, and all of a sudden it's a whole new ball game. If I go up and do racetracks/touch-and-gos for training on the runway, it doesn't make any sense to "Recover" the plane and then build a whole new one for my next flight... do I just park it off the runway? How far off the runway in order to avoid it being "cleaned up?" And how about refueling... do I need to put in a drill and ISRU to have a fuel tank ready for topping off, or is there a simpler way to do it? (Am I making this too complicated? I tend to do that...)

It's not a huge obstacle. It's just a bit jarring to be coming into the atmosphere a little "hot" and see a titanic kerblam just because one OX-STAT panel was in a bad spot!

Mostly designing again; created a Progress analogue for station resupply, re-designed the Science Power Platform for the KSS, and tested boosters in preparation for starting construction flights.

I didn't have a whole lot lot of time for KSP last evening, but I built a SPP (Science Power Platform) module for the KSS and fiddled around with a couple of mods, including installing USI Life Support.

I think my wife would prefer the term "obsession." What she doesn't understand is how nuts I've been about space exploration since I was first able to read... it's neat to be able to play in that sandbox, so to speak! ETA: I got heavily into Orbiter a few years back, but while technically terrific, it lacked the kind of try-and-fail-and-enjoy-the-fireworks-then-do-it-again factor, if you know what I mean. Things either worked or they didn't. KSP's more fun.

Designed most of the modules for the KSS (ISS-inspired space station). I'm taking the real ISS modules and approximately duplicating their function (without worrying overmuch about exactly duplicating the look). I test-assembled it all in the VAB and then saved off each module other than the core service module as a subassembly for launching. In keeping with my Egyptian nomenclature, I did my best to find a corresponding ancient Egyptian word for the name of each module (some I had to be flexible on)... I also created a tug with a claw, two different sizes of docking port, big reaction wheels and lots of thrusters and monoprop, to do the assembly work. I'm debating adding the Science Power Platform on the "Russian" side that was canceled IRL. I sort of like the way it looks... I suppose I can wait to get the whole thing on orbit and see if I have enough power already from the other arrays, and then launch the SPP-analogue if I need it! Also thinking about looking into a Life Support mod (I don't currently have one installed) to make a "Progress"-type resupply vehicle necessary rather than "cosmetic."

Landed the latest Minmus expedition and started designing modules for an ISS-inspired space station.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!

The Horus 16 mission to Minmus's Lesser Flats launched successfully and stopped to pick up an engineer stranded in LKO; Trans-Minmus-Injection is scheduled for later today.

Must have been operator error. I didn't have the problem the second time. I did notice a few stray files got into a folder level above where they should have been the first time around, which was probably the cause. Both Eve probes passed out of Kerbin's SOI and made course adjustments; launched two probes on contracts; and started moving the next Minmus mission out to the pad.

I've done it all three ways in different campaign games. I was pleased with myself when I finally cracked the code of how to do an Apollo-style single-launch LOR mission profile in my current campaign. The solution was to have a decoupler/low-profile adapter/decoupler "interstage" with the lower decoupler facing "down" and linked up with the LM-analogue's docking port. (It needs to be strutted to avoid significant flexing, of course). It generally floats clear of the docking zone before I get the CSM flipped around to dock, but sometimes I need to bump a piece out of the way (I considered fitting Separatrons but decided that would be overkill). You just have to be careful of the staging sequence, or use action groups to control it. In my prior (1.0.5) campaign, I did multiple launches (LM in one, CSM in another) and docked them before Munar transfer. The first time around, I did direct ascent, since basically all that needs is more boosters! But not as elegant IMHO.

I redesigned my Munar/Minmus landing complex to iron out some minor but annoying features of the current version, and launched two probes on their way to Eve; one on a fast track and one on an economical track. (I also uninstalled Asteroid Day; all of my current and past contracts vanished when I installed it! I'm going to back things up and try again and see if I messed something up in the process... may have been operator error. )

Out of curiosity... it would appear to me to be a no-brainer to include the parachute fix (to avoid them clipping into each other) in stock... I'm baffled as to why that hasn't been included when so many of your other bugfixes have been?

Perhaps this is a dumb question, or perhaps it's been asked before (or maybe both), but how come the explosion effects aren't scaled to the mass of the part exploding in some fashion? Whether it's a thermometer or a orange tank, they all seem to blow up with equal ferocity...

Did you send them for grid squares, a couple of rolls of flight line, or a bucket of jet wash?

I mostly designed stuff... I'd come up with a Soyuz-inspired design and spent a considerable amount of time tinkering to find just the right launch vehicle for it. The next Munar mission is on the crawlerway to the pad.

After enough of my "critical" mods got updated, I upgraded to 1.1.3 a couple of days ago. This was partly prompted as well by a kerblam occurring when a Kerbal on EVA on Minmus got too close to a landing leg (the lander stayed mostly upright, though, and was able to launch to rendezvous normally...). I've been running the 64-bit version for the first time, too. So far, things seem to be going relatively smoothly, except my graphics adapter keeps restarting at inconvenient times. Other than that, the 1.1 campaign continues. A good transfer window to Eve opened up, so I'm putting together my first (for this campaign) interplanetary probe. I also went on a bit of a probe design kick, putting together probes for tech levels 4, 5, and 6, launched a "ferry/lifeboat" to the Skylab-like Space Station Alpha, and now the next mission to the Mun is on the pad, with Jeb coming up in the pilot rotation.

In earlier versions, I had an occasional "semi-crash" where my screen went black for a few seconds, then came back on, with a "bubble" notification that my Intel Graphics Adapter had stopped and restarted, but it appears to be happening much more frequently in 1.1.3 (multiple times per session). I do not know that it is anything specifically wrong with KSP 1.1.3, since the game itself does not crash at those times-- might just be that it's a bit too much for my crappy graphics card-- but I've done all I can to update drivers, etc., and I'm not really certain what I can do, if anything. Can anyone offer me some not-too-technical pointers on what could be my issue and how to try to correct it (barring purchasing a new PC, which is on my to-do list, but not for a little while)?

Has this been superseded by 1.1.3 or is it still useful? (Same question for StockBugFix 1.1.2? I know I've greatly appreciated the parachute fix-- chutes not clipping into each other in animation-- in the past!)

I think mine tend to fall into the category of "personal preferences" rather than actual "tricks of the trade," but I do like to have a small service bay on top of my Mk1-2 command pod, with the docking port then on top of that. Within the bay I have an OKTO2 (to provide SAS capabilities even with no skilled pilot) stacked with a couple of Z-200 batteries and the MechJeb unit on the side. I sometimes squeeze in a couple of small monoprop tanks, but more usually add some of the science experiments like the thermometer that yield more science from returning it than from transmitting the data. In the 1-2's "service module," the top unit is another service bay with either a SC-9001 materials bay serving as the 'center column' or a FL-T200 for an additional fuel supply, and a couple of monoprop tanks; the rest is space for various science experiments (concentrating on the ones that give better value for transmitted data-- though the SC-9001 will still need a spacewalk to grab the data for full effect). When I started, I stuck my (radial) components all over the outside but that always bothered me; the service bays are much preferable! I try to orient the command module(s) in the VAB so a standard 90-degree east gravity turn only takes "pulling back on the stick" (S). Makes launches easier. It took me a while to figure out how to do an Apollo-style LOR mission; till then, I did direct-ascent. There's nothing wrong with that, but again, my personal preference is LOR (and then I typically leave the lunar module in a parking orbit for later re-use by another mission-- why pay to send the hardware up there twice if you don't have to?), though with a one-stage lunar module (Apollo-style two-stage stacks get too tall for my taste). I send a Kerbal out in a special rover with a cockpit (for replenishing flags) and place flags at the east and west end of the KSC runway, place another lined-up flag a kilometer out from the west marker to be a "middle marker" and then go another 5 or so kilometers and place an "outer marker" flag. In my last campaign I also had flags marking the centers and entry points of shuttle landing guidance cylinders about 7 more kilometers to the west but never actually used them (I still haven't quite mastered a good horizontal landing-- to-do for the future).

Still 1.1.2'ing till a few more of my favorite mods (notably KAC and KCT) get updated. I don't want to restart my whole campaign just for the patch! Landed on Minmus for the first time in my 1.1 campaign, sent back loads of science; going to be able to upgrade R&D just in time to avoid bumping against the 500-point ceiling.

Landed on the Mun for the first time in my 1.1.2 campaign. (I tested the Munar lander on Kerbin, taking it for a short hop to see how the landing legs behaved, and then deliberately running into the landing legs on EVA. No kerblams or other problems were apparent.)

Thank you! That's the kind of explanation I was hoping for. So, as I gather, some of it's intentional-- it doesn't make sense for a 747-sized aircraft to have Cessna landing gear, so to speak-- but there are issues with the landing legs that are presumably certain to be patched.

Obviously my own "stupidity" rating is on the high side... I've been trying (and failing) to piece together something understandable from all the discussion of landing gear/wheel problems in 1.1.2. Would some kind Kerbingineer please summarize it at a relatively simple (i.e., non-programmer) level? I have searched through a lot of the discussions on the forum, but I haven't found a post that explains it all satisfactorily. Specifically, I hope to find straightforward answers to these sub-questions: 1. I have heard that landing gear/wheel behavior has changed, apparently not for the better, in 1.1.2. Is this a bug, an intended modification of the game physics, or perhaps a combination (i.e., buggy modification of physics)? 2. Are all landing-gear type items affected? For instance, landing legs, aircraft landing gear, and rover wheels? Anything else that contacts the ground? 3. Is there a known workaround(s), patch, or recommended best practices to minimize/avoid the problems?