Ixenzo

All I did was follow the .pdf tutorial. I get to the point where you have a collision trajectory with the target planet, i.e. MO without constraints works fine. The next step is to optimize the trajectory with added constraints and none of them respond to Save and Exit. I can interact with the constraint window fine, it just looks like the Save and Exit button doesn't do anything.

Having a similar issue with LFO tanks: album. Also having the issue with not full tanks: a ship with three toroidal stock tanks on launch had ~2/3 of LFO in all three tanks. Bonus: sometimes some or all of the procedural boosters have their nozzle floating meters away from the actual craft. Launching them results in plume going out of that nozzle and actually applying force from it, crashing the whole rocket. I reverted to launch/VAB several times and it went away. This particular booster is, iirc, HBR from SETI Rebalance but afaik it's just a MM config.

Edit KSP version in readme.txt to whatever version you need. CKAN pulls out the number from this file and lists mods compatible with that version. Once done, restore the version number.

It seems that I'm unable to add any constraints in MO at all. Clicking Save and Exit in the constraint window visually presses the button but does nothing. I just downloaded this tool, so maybe there is something I missed in the tutorial?

Just crashed without any crashlogs after boarding back into a splashed down capsule. Output_log.txt is full of NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at FlightGlobals.get_ActiveVessel () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at Trajectories.AutoPilot.Update () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 (Filename: Line: -1) repeating many times before abruptly ending. Everything was fine before that. I see it happens to people on startup, this was in flight view.

That was really fun scrolling through on mobile, jus sayin. There was a bug that wouldn't let menu to do anything and it's been fixed. However, now sometimes it would bring up that meny again after you've reverted to launch, resuming the game does the job. Just one more click, really, but sometimes annoying.

In 1.0.5, it can induce some time dilation, depending on your CPU, and longer loading times. It's pretty much useless to run on 32 bit and/or a system with 4 gb of RAM or less. In my mod-heavy game KSP would take up to 6 GB after a few hours of playing.

Pay modders a monthly salary or contract them and only then you can have a voice in matters like that.

I noticed that Altitude hold is absolute ASL when flying very low above highlands. A moment later and Jeb be ded! So yeah. It would be nice to have some kind of a checkbox failsafe like monitoring terrain altitude and not letting to descend lower than terrain altitude + some number in meters. It's not really valuable, at least for me, but just a thought.

Yeah, that's a pretty big nerf to early probes, especially in SETI. Fortunately, there's already a hibernation mod for probes.

Glad to hear it! I now shall resume impatiently waiting for the 1.1 compatible release.

It seems that Kerbal Sports is named "Strategia" in latest 1.1. CKAN release. The description and contents are the same, just the name's different.

Situation: you have to introduce a new player to the game. They may have a Ph.D in rocketry or be a 14 year old kid that has only played shooters before or be a stay at home wife in her thirties. You already have a tutorial system on how to build basic craft and execute basic maneuvers that helps to get a grasp of how things generally work. After that, they begin to explore the game. You now want to introduce a parameter those players most probably have not seen in their lives before. How do you accomplish that without it being too complex but ELI5-style and 100% correct in terms of physics? Please consider the attention span of an average player. For a big chunk of people rockets are up-goer machines that work on magic and math. They don't want see the math though, they want magic. If Squad had really concerned this problem, they would have implemented their solution a long time ago. And it's not like this game is short on the community side either.

The only way to reduce RAM consumption is to delete all assets: model, textures, everything in the part's folder. I've been deleting all wings, fuel tanks (except the toroidal one), heatshields, decouplers, batteries and so on and replacing them with procedural ones. It saves hundreds MB of RAM while also allowing full part customization. Now, just gotta wait for updated mods...

You might be jsut the hero we need.

Pretty much all not updated mods that had UI or physics elements are broken.

Is there a way to unflag AD mods so I could update them via CKAN, provided they're compatible, without having to completely reinstall them?

He's expressed his thoughts about the future of KS here more than two months ago. Had the community listened, the likes of yours wouldn't have been throwing selfish accusations around.

You sure?

It's probably because I used FAR in this install. I remember launching HRB finless rockets straight up with no trouble in stock atmo if I was actively adjusting thrust during the launch. I promptly removed FAR after its reminder why I didn't use it earlier - heat issues - and it looks good now. I also play without any wing parts, so no fins at all for me anyway I believe I did miss the early RCS port but I don't think I'd taken the node even if I knew it was there - I usually go straight for the goo canister and try to farm science for that Swivel/Terrier node. This time I was lucky there were these part test contracts so I just shot for the Mun with a flyby return probe - about 160 science at .6 multiplier. Which got me thinking - what if there were hardcoded part test contracts that would be available for a short period of time after a certain milestone has been reached but the part in question isn't unlocked yet and is a completely new design? Like you main work horse are HRBs in the early game and after exiting atmosphere you get a contract for a Swivel - gimballing engine two nodes away? Or the first Ion-engine 1-2 nodes before it? A one-time opportunity that would allow massive boosts in science if taken notice of and executed properly?

I'm having problems in early career. I don't have OrbitalScience or any other science part packs installed (since it's essentially more parts to haul and click on) and only early propulsion I have is procedural SRB and HRB with the earliest gimballing engine being on a 45 science node. Recent update removed reaction wheels from the early game altogether and the only steering control I have available in my install is 0.25 degrees gimbal on boosters. I also have science mod at 60% (Outer planets pack), so I'm stuck with them for a long time, grinding Kerbin biome science and watching 9 out of 10 rockets go tumble at 200 m/s vertical (stock or FAR, no difference). If I'm lucky (or can be bothered enough to add back wing parts from the stock game), out of many reverted launches the rocket won't flip and I'll get it to orbit perpendicular style but it doesn't change the situation with science much. So, the problem: complete lack of craft control in early stages of the career. On the contrary, once you get that 45 rocketry node, you're given both best lifter and vacuum 125 engine with acceptable control authority and from that you can go pretty much anywhere in the solar system, and in result science just snowballs. The Reliant being earlier in the tree makes no difference as it's the same SRB/HRB but with two parts instead. It's not my first career start in this exact setup and I was able to get through the early tree with little problems before that. Maybe something's wrong with my tech tree, overlapping mods? Or having .6 science return without respective part mods is my problem? Edit: Actually, it's a fair challenge. Having such challenges makes the game more interesting. This particular one I solved by taking a Swivel and a Terrier from part test contracts and conducting a low Munar flyby mission with their help. No maneuver nodes, no patched conics, no reaction wheels, only gimbal. That's the real game, man.

Actually, no. They're useless mass and drag and add no useful value to the craft. I consider fins on a conventional rocket more of a crutch for a bad design.

I personally have never had any problems with cryo engines while using FAR. In fact, it is hard to flip an average rocket in FAR atmo while following a standard gravity turn: higher gimbal range here would actually contribute to the flippening (is that a word?).

Planet Shine has been known for reducing performance, as well as anti aliasing. Aerodynamic FX don't really affect performance. You best bet would be increasing physics dt. It's just the way KSP does things.

I'm currently trying to internalize the niche of cryo engines. They have less TWR, are more expensive, require relatively large tankage and EC to combat boil-off and return higher Isp and less wet mass overall. Conventional LFO setups give more thrust and dV assuming the same tankage volume with no drawbacks. I haven't played with cryo that much and can't quite wrap my head around in what situations would a cryo propulsion setup be better than an LFO one. Lifters? Good ASL Isp, don't need fancy tanks but the stage is quite large and has less TWR. I tried using the first cryo engine you get in the career but ended up going LFO with a Swivel simply because it was cheaper, dV-richer and smaller in size. In an old save I had, when there wasn't boiling off, I "engineered" an SSTO to Duna which worked quite well and it was fun to try out but obviously in real missions a design like that would be kinda silly. Deep space stages? Need to pack up additional EC which is mass, which is less TWR and dV. Nukes, LFO and electric engines do that job quite well too. It feels as if cryos are a sidegrade to conventional engines but the stats are balanced in a way it's just easier to use the existing designs. A TF2 analogy comes to me: there is a default rocket launcher. Well, it's been there forever, a good, reliable weapon. Then later a sidegrade is introduced. The projectile travels 80% faster, does 25% more damage but the splash radius is basically non existent. In serious gameplay (competitive) practically nobody uses the last one because it's very situational and on top of that is highly dependent on one's ability to aim good very fast and score direct hits which is instantly thrown off by the 80% faster projectile. I hope that made sense. Am I missing an obvious application of cryos or I just haven't had a mission where cryos would be advantageous to use?