swjr-swis

Ahh yes, the 'Bird Trap'. We had to install that last friday, after the umpteenth supersonic jet blasted the eardrums out of our entire air controller staff by trying to land on the roof of the tower....

There's a thread marked as 'answered' in the prerelease modding forum: I may have misunderstood this. Apparently it's only for the Difficulty window in the in-game Settings. not sure if that would still be a workable place.

The type of survey doesn't matter, so use any of them that seem appropriate or offer the best percentage/field of view. The question marks indicating the anomalies will appear on the KerbNet map used at the time.

Add a toggle to the KSP Settings window? It's a New Thing of v1.2...

Psst... don't tell anyone I said this, but uhm... ..if you look in the game save files, you will notice this new parameter has appeared since 1.2: Also, some of us have discovered that the newly added 'green monolith' anomalies do not appear in the same places from save to save; which may be related to that new parameter, as there doesn't seem to be any other method by which the location of those monoliths is recorded in a save. Mum's the word...

You are missing the Spread Angle in this table. Makes a significant difference.

High warp while relatively close to a planetary size body is a risk in KSP, because the game starts taking liberties and calculating positions and triggers in bigger steps apart. Viewed from a Kerbol perspective, planetary bodies and their moons are zooming at very high speeds through space, and every physics calculation represents big distances. You may have just had the misfortune that the collision routines were triggered before the game could reposition the craft to the equivalent position the surface had moved to, or vice versa, and for that split second both were in the same place at the same time. This can happen sometimes faster than the screen is redrawn, so it still looks like they're nowhere near each other. It used to be a frequent thing once upon a time, I've not had it happen in recent versions though.

It's always risky to move saves between major versions of KSP, so keep a copy of them archived just in case. That said, and although I don't move saves myself between versions (it's easy enough to keep a different version installed to 'finish' those): I have gone into the Difficulty section of the in-game settings plenty of times now to switch most of the settings on and off back and forth in different combinations, and so far I've seen no ill effects. It appears the game copes with it well. Given that, I would expect that loading an older save and resaving it should make it good to go, and then in-game you can go into the Esc menu, settings, Difficulty, and tweak the new options to your liking, to then continue the save. Just keep in mind that some settings can have very intended adverse effects if you enable them: probes could lose control, or parts in deep sea/Eve's atmosphere may explode from pressure, etc etc. Nothing a reload of the previous save can't resolve though.

The kerbal CommNet works on vibration rather than electromagnetism, first invented by one of the female ancestors of Valentina, when she discovered 'tapping the foot' was a very efficient way of communicating her displeasure with any of the males within local range. The 'antennae' on kerbal space craft are actually rail guns (explains the ridiculously high EC discharge they require, as well as range being an issue) that fire quantum-scaled pellets at any empty surface area on the home planet, from where the vibrationally coded message is received by highly tuned seismic sensors. The pellets are made of captured gravioli, charged super-massive particles that are several orders of magnitude smaller than other elemental particles, thus suffering almost no interaction with the atmosphere up until hitting the super-dense water or rock of the home planet. So you see, the lines are a pretty accurate representation of how kerbals use the home planet to transmit communications. All a matter (heh) of physics, really.

The Kerbal Game Simulator Kerbals Go Boom seems fitting in this collection.

On the website itself, go to the craft page, click Edit Craft at the top, then again at the top click on the small version of the thumbnail, and it will offer you the option to replace it with one of the other pics you uploaded - including any individual pics from imgur albums.

Well, to start with, I think they made a mistake with the linearly decreasing torque curve: that's typical for DC motors, but not for the AC type motors used in battery powered vehicles, which tends to be max for a considerable portion of the operational RPM spread, and then only a slight drop. So that I think still needs readjusting, separate from the heat production considerations. Heat production, I agree it should be somehow directly linked to RPM/speed. I'm leaving out potential air cooling effects in atmospheres, including that may overcomplicate things. I can agree with that, but I dislike the whole 'space-bound engineers start with no clue about wheels' mechanic, so I don't like the repair requirement. Basic repair skills of the equipment should be an essential requirement of an engineer included on a space flight... not something they 'learn on the job' (or worse, after the fact as if a posthumous badge pinning suddenly makes them more capable of now averting a potentially mission/personnel killing technical mishap).

I actually think this has to be a bug, and that at some point someone at Squad will go 'wait a minute now...'; one would expect a probe that is clearly designed for rovers and to be placed in a specific orientation, would have the control/navball properly aligned for surface travel. The obvious workaround would be to add an additional small probe core, or probably easier a surface-attachable Jr docking port, with the correct orientation 'forward', and either re-root to that, or in flight right click and select 'control from here'.

It is indeed. If you're feeling up to it, would you be willing to do another try, but this time keep an 80 degree pitch on the way up? I'm curious to see if it holds for very different designs that a slightly angled path can get just a smidge more altitude out of the run than a pure vertical 90. You will end up way out in the middle of the ocean with a long way to make it to land, but a water landing likely destroys less parts than the landing you recorded with this one, so win win.

This is why Molniya orbits are usually populated by multiple satellites, at least triplets, so there's always at least one in the high/slow part of the orbit over the operational area. I don't think the stock contracts asking for these orbits do this though; at least, I've never seen it ask for more than one sat being placed in the same orbit. The sort of application they tend to be used for, ground signal relay and observation specifically for high latitudes, does not really exist at the moment in stock. Except maybe in a very convoluted self-created situation of placing probe controlled vehicles in a deep valley on one of the far away planets. I agree it needs some more/other types of instruments to really have some practical use - even in the sense of the game.

Yes. Extra Large too, please. We are currently doomed to try make do with just the medium gear as steerable option for crafts of sizes/masses that require the large/extra large as main gears. Aside from the very visible and ridiculous size/height mismatch, it's also always quite a job to get the respective gear height adjusted to each other without having one almost floating under the craft by itself while the other simultaneously sticking out through the top somewhere. Combinations of XL/medium in particular are very hard to get to look and work right, the size difference is just too extreme. On top of that, and due to the height mismatch often causing such craft to have to lean heavily on the nose (or the tail with taildraggers), the medium size gear ends up overstressed and very prone to exploding during take off and landing. I've ended up way too many times just forfeiting a steering option completely because of this. There is nothing about the large gear model that would prevent it from realistically have steering. I imagine that the longer 3x2 assembly like the XL may be more problematic from an engineering point of view, but then at least provide a steerable 2x2 more matching to the XL size and with appropriately adapted weight tolerances (a simple resized copy of the large gear would do nicely... once it's been made steerable).

I don't have an exact answer, but I do know that the fairing segment radius works somewhat like a Bezier curve (but not quite!), in that when you make a sharp angle in a segment, the segment right before that will be flared a bit in (or out depending), apparently to try to 'smooth' out any sharp angles. I'm sure the amount of flaring is a neat mathematical formula of some kind, but I have not seen it mentioned anywhere. I just know it very annoyingly keeps preventing me from creating very exactly designed shapes.

The screenshots only show 240827m (or 240890.3m if we take KER's word for it, which is a bit fuzzy at the moment). A typo perhaps, or have you uploaded the wrong pics?

Except this does not do what @dognosh is asking, which is a save option that shows the filenames of already existing saves to easily know which one to overwrite: And the answer to that is: no, stock does not give us a quick and easy way of overwriting existing saves, not in Esc menu save nor in the named quicksave. You would need to first check the load / named quickload menu to pick a name, then esc out of that and call up the save / named quicksave menu and type the name manually (and make sure you don't typo). I don't know of a mod that adds this functionality either.

My apologies in advance for not being able to do this in each of your respective languages individually. Hopefully you will understand this enough to participate. In the KSP Weekly (formerly known as Dev Notes) of 2016-Oct-21, @SQUAD mentioned the following: Notice the last part I marked bold. There has not been much response to this in the thread itself, and I have not seen any formal/official inquiry from Squad anywhere in the forum. I don't want Squad to get the incorrect impression that there is no need for KSP to support other languages. So I decided to start a poll here in the International section of the forum. Let's use this to let Squad know about our localization needs and wants. The above does not specify if they mean a translation of the texts in KSP, support for other characters sets, or support for other keyboard layouts - localization normally means all of those, so let's talk about all of them.

Don't spend too much an effort in redoing spreadsheets or calculator thingies, you might end up having to doit all over again shortly:

Creo que valdrá la pena esperar un poco más a ver con qué salta Squad. En las últimas notas justamente han dado a conocer que una de las (pocas) cosas que últimamente han estado haciendo es un sistema de localización. No vayamos a meter un montón de esfuerzo en hacer algo que ya se está haciendo dentro del juego mismo...

Do you happen to have a KerbNet window open and auto-refreshing at the time this is happening? I think the first auto-refresh is 7 seconds by default, and it can cause a slightly noticeable hiccup every time for some people/configurations.

You have a bit to go. Back in 1.1.2, in a mod testing install: patchedNodeCount = 41372

@Thomas P. How does this relate to the localization effort mentioned by Squad in the last devnotes KSP Weekly: Whatever they are planning/doing, it appears to include the hooks needed to also allow localization of mods.