MatBailie

Your image is so low resolution that I can't read any of it. What version of KSP are you on? It needs to be 1.3.1, in which case it shows up fine for me. EDIT: Appears it was my phone snaffuing the resolution. You're on the same version of KSP and CKAN as I am, and yet I can see Realistic Progression on my screen...

Is there a more sensible method of matching the diameter of a procedural part to a non-procedural part, other than "just eye-balling it"? For example, the Aerobee parts all match up, but if I put a procedural nose-cone on it, what diameter should it be? 380mm "looks" right, but I'm not certain. I'm also not certain how accurate the match needs to be to not impact FAR's modelling, so eye-balling it may well be good enough?

I suggest you look at the real life missions. They're very light and use Multiple slingshots. Messenger didn't even insert into Mercury's orbit, just did a few fly bys. It feels as though you're trying to accomplish too much through brute force. If you want a realistic chance of Mercury's orbit, you need to work smarter rather than harder. Google for the transfer window planner application (a windows exe, not a mod), it can plan multiple fly by maneuvers, and may help find some good sling shots.

12km/s in a single stage is crazy (imo). I'm not even sure its possible with any engine, unless you've turned test flight off (rated burn time will limit you). Cryogenic fuels aren't great for long term missions. Best bet would be to use multiple stages and avoid cryo fuels. Even then you'll struggle. Have you considered planning multiple sling shots to reduce your dV requirements?

What leads you to conclude that they are incompatible? I installed via CKAN and all of those mods were fine.

Ignoring the Random failures, I do like that test flight introduces maximum burn times. No burning a booster for 15 minutes.

Then don't build A4s until you've invested more money in VAB Upgrades in KCT? On my RP-1 play through I had reached the 1960's techs by late 1954. I did this by treating the start of the game like an economy game: complete sounding rocket contracts to gain cash invest in build points to build sounding rockets faster, completing sounding contacts faster get upgraded launch pad asap, for bigger sounding rockets, for harder more lucrative sounding rocket contracts My first rockets were just Aerobee (WAC Corporal), and pretty much every penny I earned from Sounding Rocket Contracts was invested back in Build Points. This enabled me to build two stage A4-Aerobee rockets, from which I made more money, etc, etc. Quickly I was doing the difficult sounding rocket contracts and making a fortune. EDIT: Each time you complete a sounding rocket contract it gets harder for next time, but more lucrative. The Difficult contract reaches something like 300k credits reward (upfront and completion combined) for 2000 units of payload to 3,740km. Then it stops getting more difficult and the reward starts to decay (I'm currently on abut 180k credits per contract completion). This means that funds are probably Too easy for me to gather at present. I liked the scaling difficulty, it kept me on my toes for when I needed to unlock new tech or upgrade the launch pad. Now, however, it's a grindy cash cow. (So, now, I limit myself to building cash cow contract vessels only when I'm rolling out vessels for other contracts.)

Then you possibly have a broken save file, perhaps missing or conflicting mods, it's impossible to tell until you provide the information needed. So...please Please PLEASE read the link "How To Get Support (READ FIRST)"... It explains to you what you need to do, what files you need to find, etc, for us to be able to help you. Unfortunately we're not psychic and without the correct log files we have Zero chance of helping you.

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. I specifically said that if my proposal does not work for you, read the thread marked as "How To Get Support (READ FIRST)". It tells you how to get error logs, etc, and how to actually request help without expecting Mod developer to tell a thousand different people the same thing a thousand different times. As for what @daneilboro said, here is the important line : " i copy that dir to a new dir and i play in the new dir"... He goes to the Steam directory, finds KSP and makes a copy of that directory. He can then play KSP from that copy rather than playing directly through Steam. In your case, Rename the directory you have KSP installed in. Then you can use Steam to download another copy, for whatever version you want. Then you can install whatever mods you want, and copy the save game folder from the old copy to the new copy. While you may be intimidated by such a process, any attempt to "fix" a broken install is going to be 100x more complicated than that. As such, I strongly recommend you search the forum or the internet for guides on how to manage multiple copies of KSP in different directories. It's far simpler than trying to fix something that is broken, a far more reliable way for you to proceed, and a for more flexible option for trying to prevent it happening again in the future. (If you want to experiment with adding mods to an install where you already have a game in progress Copy It First and tinker with the copy rather than risking breaking your ongoing game.)

Did you read the last line of my post?

Start a completely fresh installation. Don't try to fix what you have, start over complete from scratch, then copy your save game across: re-download KSP (having backed up your current installation) install all the mods you had, from scratch (not from your old installation) copy your save game over Don't try to cut corners on the "re-install" option, it's a false economy. If that doesn't work, read the "How To Get Support (READ FIRST)" as linked in the post immediately above yours.

The simulation has long been removed from KCT. Through this thread there are quite a few questions like this, the response is invariably : use KRASH.

It's because it is broked...

I don't understand Why, but this is what I found: Fly in to moon at 1x time warp Impact the moon becomes ticked Launch a new vessel becomes un-ticked Time warp while in KSC Probe flies through moon and in sling shot out of Earth's SOI Time warp while in Tracking Station Same as 1. Fly in to moon at 1000x time warp Game reverts to 10x just before impact Big badda boom Contract successful

The simulation mode is part of Kerbal Construction Time. For various reasons the simulation aspect was removed. Now, instead, the mod KRASH is recommended for the simulations. The costs haven't been balanced for RP-0 yet, but the functional purpose still works fine. That's why watching his videos are so enjoyable Rather than being bone dry recounts of a geek playing a dumb game, they're juicy recounts of history, as well as a geek playing a dumb game!

Are you using an old "SXT" or are you using "SXTContinued"? I had no problems with a clean install of KSP 1.2.2 (literally clean, not an old install with the mods removed, I removed the folder and re-downloaded KSP) and then using CKAN to install RP-0 (Not RSS, then RO, then RP-0, just straight to RP-0). Doing so gave me SXTContinued v0.3.12.1, and everything worked first time.

When I encounter something like that, I confess to using Alt-F12 Feel free to ping me a save game again (with a quick save in Lunar SOI?) and I'll see if I get the same as you.

In the developmental branch, what controls the RP-0 tool-bar dialogue? (The one that lists tooled items, training, avionics status, etc) I ask because mine appears to have borked itself and I want to try to reset it I just get a small grey rectangle. Perhaps as if it's gone to a negative size or something?

I did think about asking that, but decided it would be too rude Glad it's solved though, hope someone (or a previous post) can help with the runway...

I've never experienced that. But if you upload your save game (zip the folder) I'll be happy to have a look (assuming you just install from CKAN?)

I look forward to your dropbox link

@KevinKyle Could you put your save folder up somewhere? (Zip the whole save game up.) I'm happy to have a look, but I'm not going to start a new career to get to the same point as you Also, which videos are you following? He put up some campaign videos a couple of months ago, and some tutorial type videos a Very long time ago...

The era specific parts have been added in such a manner that approximates their real life costs and performance. That simulation of real life aspect to RO and RP-0 is a strong driver for many of the people involved. Other people, however, want a game rather than an historically correct simulation. That's lead us to having replica probe cores as well as procedural avionics, amongst other things. So, if you want game / career friendly parts that don't exist, please do feel free to contribute them via github? I'm very sure that your time and effort spent designing, testing, balancing, etc, will be very much appreciated.

I'm trying to compare the cost benefit of different launchers for a sequence of missions in RP-0's development branch. But it's being complicated by the fact that I've built some parts multiple times and some alternative parts never at all. Is there a way to account for this? What the vessel would cost to build and roll-out without any benefit of having previously built them? What the vessel would cost to build and roll-out with maximum possible benefit of having previously built them? As in, if all parts have been built an infinite number of times Or anything else that would help me make a fair comparison I've also noticed that the KCT Dialogue in the VAB states one roll-out cost, then when I come to actually roll-out the Launch Pad dialogue consistently shows a figure about half of that. (Using the version specifically made for RP-0 Developmental.)

What's wrong with this logic? If I launch straight up, with no aerodynamic losses, all my kinetic energy (on the vertical axis) will convert to gravitational potential energy. I know I start with ~408m/s horizontal speed I expect to reach Apoapsis with the same 408m/s horizontal speed I know the force of gravity reduces with altitude, but not significantly, and that's not the problem anyway So, if I have a launcher with 9,777m/s available dV... Ek = 0.5 m v2 Ep = GMmh ~= 9.8 m h As it's linear with height, this works as the difference in Ep from sea level All Ek is being converted to Ep 0.5 m v2 ~= 9.8 m h h ~= 0.5 v2 / 9.8 ~= 4,877km So, if I instantly accelerated to 9,777m/s vertically, with no atmosphere, I would reach an altitude of 4,877km? But I launch to 7,750km. I had previously been deducting ~1,200m/s (from the vacuum dV as given by MechJeb) for gravity losses at launch and the lack of infinite acceleration, aerodynamic drag losses, engine performance losses in atmosphere, etc, etc. Which gave me an expected maximum altitude of ~3,750km, so I was amazed to reach just over double that. And even more amazed that it's more than my expected "perfect" / "lossless" expected altitude of 4,877km... What stupid mistake am I making in my rough calculations? EDIT: Oh, GMm/R2 does actually vary meaningfully by the time you reach 7Mm. Assumptions for LEO are not valid up there...