NEBx

Well possibly however they are even more efficient, though more thrust, but that would compound the problem of aesthetics. The 'vector' engine would be another option, it has well and truly enough thrust and not as efficient but again, aesthetics and continuity problems. Thanks for your idea though

I am aware of this - I'm more pointing out that if these parts were created to work together (which it seems, overall game balance or not) then I believe they are out of balance with each other specifically. Thanks for your suggestion anyway, I might have to end up taking one of those good old work arounds after all.

Hi, I think the RE-12 'Skiff' Liquid Fuel Engine needs some tweaking. With the collection of new parts from the 'Making History Expansion', it seems obvious that most of these parts are there to make replicating historical rockets easily, namely the Saturn 5. This is easily one of my favorites so I wasted no time in building my own replica, which I have done many times throughout playing KSP. This part seems a good pick to simulate the J2 engines featured on the second and third stage of the rocket (at least aesthetically), but in KSP their function is just not right and don't fit with the parts associated with them. I have tried many different ways and either my second / third stages have lackluster TWR or burn for too long which ends up with a weird looking Saturn 5 in order to compensate. If this part was not intended at all for this then this is purely academic and disregard, but otherwise if this could be addressed in some way that would be great. I think an increase in thrust and a decrease in ISP values will solve this issue.

Hi, The 'Kerbadyne Engine Cluster Adapter Tank' part has a bug where if you have 'Rigid Attachment' on, it will break off your rocket on launch regardless of how much support you give it through struts. For those who might be having trouble, just turn off 'Rigid Attachment' for the time being. I have found it to be fine without any support.

Hey there, The shelves within the large service module are slightly misaligned from the centre point of the craft. It is a relatively small thing I know but being a game where symmetry is key, I get used to everything be exactly centre and equal and it's driving me nuts. I hope it can be rectified, thanks for the expansion

Hi there, Could enhanced scanning be an option that can be toggled both on and off - for it seems to limit me more than help when I'm stuck with a FoV between 160 - 170 rather than having options to zoom close into the surface. I can certainly see the the upside but just so if say I have a RoveMate on a planet surface but I want to have a closer look at something in the Kerbnet screen I can disable enhanced scanning for a moment to allow me to bring back down to 5 deg FoV then I can switch it back on once I'm done.

Hey there, Could we allow the M4435 Narrow-Band Scanner to toggle its scan displays for both biomes and terrain along with ore? I believe this used to be a feature and think should still be a feature otherwise how can you scan terrain when you have a manned craft without having a probe body on it just for the sake of scanning, seems silly to me. Thoughts?

Client version:

I'm sure I remember it used to do this but perhaps with all the changes introduced to the game since then it is just too much. Still I wish it could at least be a tweak-able option so those with higher end machines could do this. Well thanks a bunch guys! I have tested everything you have mentioned and you're absolutely right. It seems that as long as you get those ejected stages above 25km altitude you can switch back easily enough to guide them back to the surface however you would still want a probe so you can pop your chutes at the right time. Any debris that does not have a probe on it is recovered for funds but it does not give you a report like a normal flight. I guess that's where I was getting tripped up. Cheers

Thanks for that FancyMouse, My debris appears to disappear regardless of my settings, including the filtering within the tracking station. Also if craft are only unloaded from physics why can't I switch back to them even in map view (well they don't even show up) is that normal? Cheers!

Hey all, I don't know how to do this more succinctly so I apologise but I will clearly label each section for your convenience. BACKGROUND It's my understanding that there is an umbrella system to dealing with debris in an attempt to encourage more efficient rendering and physics calculations in game. Basically the rules are that debris is over 2km from the main craft in atmosphere or on a suborbital trajectory then it is simply removed from the game. EDIT: Debris 25km from main craft <25,000m altitude = auto-deleted So in the case of recovering a spent stage from a launch, you would need to switch focus to the debris once ejected and stay focused on it till it touches down. Then if you wanted to actually get returned funds, it must have a control capable part attached (usually a probe body). I can't find a way around this and tutorials I have seen have been from a couple years back before the new aerodynamics system, so simply having a steep suborbital trajectory doesn't work so well for the ejected stage simply burns up. You might be able to help this with late tech larger heat shields but you're kind of stuck early in your career. QUESTIONS (read dot points below questions for further explanation) What is the point of having settings in the menu like "Max Persistent Debris" and "Tidy up debris cluttering KSC"? It seems to me that the majority of debris will be generated by launch vehicles and spent stages, which are likely to be left in atmosphere or a suborbital trajectory and thus they are going to be cleaned up by this umbrella system anyway. Could this umbrella system be a tweak-able option like the 2 listed above? Leave this option to the discretion of the user depending on the capabilities of their gaming system. Any ideas on how to recover stages early in career? CONCLUSION It just seems silly to me that you need to leave your craft effectively uncontrolled for the sake of guiding 'debris' back to the surface. Although I understand the idea of making sure the game is running as efficiently as possible, it seems to me that the 2 tweak-able options in the settings are there for that purpose but allow more user control. This umbrella system just seems more restrictive to me but please share your thoughts and ideas.

Great! Well thanks for the clarification and keep up the great work in the Kerbal universe

Thanks for that sal_vager, I understand and have since done that with success :). Just to save an extra post in the suggestions forum, could the contract simply state that speeds are relative to 'surface' to save on confusion? Cheers!

Hello, I've run across a bug in which a haul contract is not completing despite parameters being met twice. The contract is to 'haul' a RT-10 'Hammer' Solid Fuel Booster in a flight above Kerbin, at an altitude between 47,000m and 54,000m and a velocity between 260m/s and 440m/s. I meet the parameters (just) on the way up AND down but it does not fulfill the contract. I will explain everything in detail below for the purposes of recreation and add relevant save files and screenshots (video link): ACTIVE CONTRACTS: Haul RT-10 'Hammer' Solid Fuel Booster Kerbin Flying Alt 47,000m to 54,000m Spd 260.0m/s to 440.0m/s Test a TR-18A Stack Decoupler (This contract competes normally) Kerbin Flying Alt 21,000m to 28,000m Spd 70.0m/s to 1,870.0m/s CRAFT BUILD: (Top to Bottom)(All parts using the Rigid Attachment option and default settings unless listed) Mk16 Parachute Altitude = 500m Spread Angle = 10 Mk1 Command Capsule MonoPropellant = empty TR-18A Stack Decoupler RT-10 'Hammer' Solid Fuel Booster Thrust Limiter = 30% SolidFuel = 300 FLIGHT PLAN: (Jebediah Kerman as pilot with no experience, SAS active and launched from Launch Pad) I launch straight up with no gravity turn. At approximately 17,100m up, the booster runs dry. The craft continues to rise and when it reaches 47,002m it is traveling at a velocity of 265.5m/s It continues up to about 49,625m then falls and when it reaches 260.1m/s it's at an altitude of 47,165m At both instances when it achieves the contract parameter it only is true for less than 1 second but it does achieve it. Do contracts require you to hold the parameter for a minimum time? EDIT: I have noticed that the speed parameter does not display a tick until I'm traveling at = or > 309m/s, which you can see in my recording. Below is further details for debugging crew: LOGS, RECORDING AND SAVE FILE: Dropbox link to output_log.txt https://www.dropbox.com/s/ilec0d0satnypi3/output_log.txt?dl=0 Dropbox link to save game folder including craft file https://www.dropbox.com/sh/vv8ygl7ajsfmkec/AADwCiXw2X3_49LpeCF1wYb2a?dl=0 (Quicksave name = BUG SAVE, Craft name = BUG MISSION) Youtube link to recorded flight https://youtu.be/CHHTvoX9jug (Be sure to watch in 1080p or you won't be able to read the speed/altitude) KSP VERSION: 1.2.1.1604 Windows x64 bit system x64 bit client through Steam (NOT A CLEAN INSTALL) SYSTEM INFORMATION: Windows 7 x64 bit 16Gb RAM DDR3 Intel Core i7-3770K 3.5GHz CPU GeForce GTX TITAN X version 376.09 (Current as of post) EXTRA NOTE: This is not game breaking for I can achieve the contract by adjusting my craft and/or flight path, however it would be nice to get some clarification on what is occurring here. Thank you kindly for your time.

Brilliant idea @katateochi! That would not only solve design issues but would effectively remove any need for more rods too wouldn't it? Hopefully it can be done

I feared this was the case, but can it be rectified? I'm no coder...

If you notice in my original post that I tested anywhere from one to all axles powered, so this is not the issue. What your saying is correct in their behaviour but I accounted for this in my testing.

Hi all, I am having an issue where if I rotate rover wheels anywhere from 45 degrees from default orientation or greater, they will not accelerate my rover. The wheels will turn but not accelerate. I've done extensive testing and found this to occur even with good ground clearance, anywhere from one to all axles powered and regardless of vehicle mass or root part orientation. I can't see a reason why wheels wouldn't be performing normally, in terms of acceleration, in any orientation because well... its a wheel. Screenshots below showing default orientation, 45 degrees and 90 degrees. DEFAULT ORIENTATION (WORKS) 45 DEGREE ORIENTATION (DOESN'T WORK) 90 DEGREE ORIENTATION (DOESN'T WORK) Thank you for your time,

Hello all, I wanted to show off and share my latest launch vehicle design that I have affectionately named 'THE KERBALKLES', for its massive lifting power and sturdy construction that will lead you to orbital victory time and time again. INFORMATION: 11,238.1 kN at launch Largest rocket tested was 634,524 t (Payload = 91,702 t), H: 53.4 m, W: 12 m, L: 12 m. Just this stage alone gave 3,304 m/s delta-v with a TWR of 1.81 and took me into a 100 km orbit of Kerbin (FIGURES GIVEN ARE ATMOSPHERIC CALCULATIONS ON LAUNCH PAD - WILL RAISE SLIGHTLY UPON ASCENT) Extremely rigid design that is both very stable and reasonably responsive to fly, considering its size, with no oscillations You can easily add more fuel on top of stage to increase delta-v if required Capable of lifting loads > 700,000 t with a TWR > 1.50 I have used this design for multiple missions and spacecraft including space stations Below I will post some screenshots of 'THE KERBALKLES' launch vehicle along with some rockets that it has been used on. I will also post a link to the ship file if you would like to use it to start your next space adventure https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0ZnPlCpcueMdE5TQTJ4SE9sLTA/view?usp=sharing Cheers!

Hello everyone, For a long time I have desired more advanced EVA's including things like in-space construction / repairs and having flexible fuel hoses. I'll explain more below: In-space Construction / Repairs: - Could Kerbals have little welding torches so you could send parts or small modules up to orbit then Kerbalnauts could weld them into place for example. (This I imagine would be very advanced but just food for thought) Flexible Fuel Hoses: - This is more for on planetary / moon surfaces where you could connect 2 craft by a flexible hose for the purposes of fuel transfer instead of having to dock. I thought this could be possible by adding a 'Fuel Nozzle' part that you add to your craft in the VAB, then when your Kerbalnauts go EVA and approach a nozzle they get the option to 'Connect Hose'. The Kerbalnaut then walks over to another fuel nozzle and connects the other end within a determined range of coarse. (I really want this one for purposes of on surface refueling bases) Thanks for reading

Awesome !