FullMetalMachinist

You sure that was stock and not from a mod? I don't recall that feature.

Honestly I'm quite surprised. I expected QA to go on for at least another week or two, given how big an update this is. In my mind that means one of two possibilities. Either QA was a big success and they found and fixed many things, -or- QA was rushed and we're due for a disappointing release with 2-3 quick hot fixes. Here's hoping that we get the former, God knows we've had enough of the latter lately.

Are you sure about that? Have you done orbital rendezvous before? I only ask because earlier you said that your experience is "practically nothing", and rendezvous & docking is generally considered one of the hardest things in the game. I don't mean to sound like I'm talking down to you or anything, I just don't want you to get in a situation where you thought it would be easy, and it turns out not to be.

If you mean that you are going straight up until you get to 10km, then suddenly pitching over to 45 degrees, that's bad, and you should stop. That was the old way of doing it, but a little more than a year ago the aero model in the game changed, and it's really inefficient to do it that way. Instead, you should perform a gradual gravity turn, starting with a small turn to the east almost immediately, and then continuing to slowly turn. The big milestones that most people generally agree on are roughly: 45 degrees by 10km, 35 degrees by 20-25km, 20 degrees by 35km, and horizontal by 50-60km.

Well, it's not a bug, because even though your ship is on rails, the probe core (I'm assuming an unmanned probe) is going to use electric charge. This used to work, but was seen as a bit of an exploit. So the devs "fixed" it so that if a probe core has no charge at all, then you can't do anything, not even enable a locked battery. So again, not a bug, but definitely something that you have to be aware of.

It's when the wings have a built-in angle of attack. Basically you rotate the wings so the if the plane is level, the wings are angled higher in the front and lower in the back. This gives them an angle of attack with which to generate lift, while the rest of the plane is level and making as little drag as possible.

Just to be clear, if you're saying that you tried attaching the side boosters to the center one using two Decouplers, this doesn't do anything. The side booster will only ever attach to one decoupler or the other, never both. To solve your problem without using extra parts, attach the booster to the radial decoupler higher up. Place the decoupler a little higher up than you normally would, and attach the booster to it. Then use the offset tool (press 2) and move the booster down so that it is attached more towards the front (of the side booster). That way, when you decouple it, some of that ejection force causes the front end to rotate away from your craft. Then aero forces will cause it to keep rotating away and move it away from the center.

It works fine for me. Are you on a laptop? Maybe try Alt-FN-F12?

Since you mention "early contracts", I assume that you are playing career mode. If that's the case, you need to upgrade your R&D facility to level 2 to be able to transfer resources. Also, which time warp bug are you talking about?

That makes sense. Thanks

You said this a couple times in this thread. Why does Oberth care if thrust is constant if the only thing that matters is adding to your velocity when you're already going fast?

They don't even get the hype-train out of storage until the update enters QA. And it doesn't leave the station until experimentals starts. I'm betting we have at least a few more weeks to go.

I actually agree with you on this, but we disagree on the amount of blame. As @Snark said earlier, bad luck just happens sometimes. In fact, they've said publicly that their internal QA missed it. You're assuming that either Flying Tiger, or Squad, or both, knew about this bug before shipping, and decided to ship anyway. There is no evidence of that. Is it a little hard to believe that their QA team didn't find such a bad/big bug? Sure. But is it possible? Adsolutely. And I find it even harder to believe that they knew about the bug and shipped anyway. Again, there is zero evidence of that. If the past few years have been evidence of anything it's that the developers at Squad care deeply about KSP. It's not just a job, they are truly passionate about it and want it to be the best game that it possibly can be. I find it extremely hard to believe, without actual evidence, that they knew about a bug that would so badly effect players and decided to ship anyway.

Be careful, it has a really funky scale applied to the wheel clicks based on how fast you scroll. For example, say you want to change the maneuver by 5 m/s. So you hover the cursor over the prograde handle and give it a few clicks. Each one adds, say, .02 m/s. "This is going to take forever" you say, and proceed to spin the mouse wheel rapidly. Suddenly your after-maneuver trajectory is escaping the SoI. "Uuummm, what just happened?" It works like this: if you scroll the wheel slowly, like "click.....click......click" then each click is a very small amount. But if you spin the wheel quickly, like "clickclickclickclickclick", then not only do you get a lot more clicks, but each one is worth more m/s than if you scrolled slowly. This leads to the possibly that spinning the wheel quickly can actually add more dV than pulling the handle out all the way.

Use the list on the left to focus on the ship you want to rename. When you do, a few orange button will pop up on the right. Click on the one that's an "i". After you do that a small window will open giving you more detailed information on that ship. Click (or is it double-click?) on where it says the name of the ship. That will bring up the rename window, where you can not only rename it, but also change what type of craft it is (ship, probe, station, etc.).

Tracking station and Mission control, isn't it? Tracking station for the patched comics, and Mission control for flight planning.

@przybysz86, if you're still interested, I (finally) had time to look into things a bit deeper. Here's what I came up with. It is possible to force the 1.1.3 versions of RO/RP-0 to have the same masses and dV numbers as these tutorial videos. It's a bit neanderthal-ish, and feels like killing a fly with a sledgehammer, but it's the best I can do. First, make a backup of your game, because we're going to mess with some .cfg's for RO, and I can't guarantee that it won't break something. Go to the RealismOverhaul folder in GameData, and go to this folder: GameData\RealismOverhaul\RO_RecommendedMods\Procedurals Once there, delete RO_pFairings_Remass.cfg. Then go to the GitHub for Realism Overhaul and download the .zip for version 11.1.0 (the one for KSP version 1.1.2). Go to the same Procedurals folder, and copy/paste the RO_pFairings.cfg into the same spot in your 1.1.3 game, overwriting the current file. That should just change the masses of the procedural fairings parts back to what NathanKell has in his videos. I've only opened the game real quick to go into the VAB and verify that the masses are correct, but haven't done any other testing yet. YMMV. @NathanKell I hope that I'm not offending you by advising people to delete your hard work with adjusting the fairing masses. It was just bugging me soooo much that while I was following along that I couldn't get the same mass/dV numbers as your ships without sacrificing something else (aesthetics, TWR, cost, etc.). I understand that this will probably have unwanted consequences down the road when it comes to building larger rockets, but oh well, it works for now .

Make sure that SAS is off when you try to use trim. It won't work with SAS on.

Perhaps this will help?

Thanks so much for doing these videos/streams! I took a pretty long break from KSP and wanted to get back into it, and wanted to try RO more seriously. These are perfect to help get started in RP-0. Having said that, I seem to be having the same problem as @przybysz86 where I kept getting slightly lower dV numbers for almost all the rockets. Now, admittedly, I wasn't exactly copying you, but I was following fairly closely. It started bugging me enough that I tried to track it down, and I think I found the culprit. (I should preface this by saying that I'm a little late to the party, and playing on 1.1.3; I understand that in the videos you're in 1.1.2.) So, in part 14A where you design the first geostationary satellite, I followed along and copied your satellite part-for-part, size-for-size, utilization-for-utilization. Everything exactly the same, and both the mass and hand-calculated dV numbers for the hydrazine RCS work out the same. That is, it's all the same right until you put the procedural fairing base on. When you first attach yours and right click it (before changing the size), it shows yours masses 0.373t (31:00 mark on part 14A: Geostationary!). But when I put mine down it shows as 0.533t. After you bring yours down to size it shows 7.55kg, while mine is at .016t. So it seems that I have the opposite of a lightening on the fairing sides/bases. (Since you don't attach fairing sides to that base I thought it would be a useful comparison.) Right after that, when you attach the Altair motor (31:12), MechJeb reports your mass as 0.402t and dV of 1827m/s. Mine is 0.407t and 1795m/s dV. Just to try and do some troubleshooting on my own, I tried getting a fresh .zip of Procedural Fairings, once from CKAN, once from GitHub, with the same result for both. I also tried mucking about with the .cfg files for the bases, but anything that I changed that seemed remotely related to it's mass didn't actually change anything in the game. I know you're busy, so I'm trying to not come off as "fix nao, plz", and more trying to just let you know that something might be up. Whether that's just a problem with my install or something else, I can't say. Anyway, this went on way longer than I planned. Thanks again for all the work you do, both on the core game and with the mods; and for the vids, they're great!

It's a bit long, but this article is what made me really understand how gravity assists work, and how to use them in the game. The TL;DR of it is that if your orbit after the assist looks more similar to the assisting body than it was before, then that will speed you up. If your orbit after the assist looks less similar than it was before, then it will slow you down.

This isn't quite true, though it is hard to see sometimes. When trim is set, the little orange markers in the bottom left hand corner of the screen that show your control inputs will move in the direction of the trim. You can see this effect easily if you really lay on the trim for a long time in a single direction. Having said that, if you accidentally set trim, then those markers will have moved only a pixel or two, so it's very hard to notice, but it is there.

Well you could get an information mod like KER or Mechjeb, those both have a "time to AN/DN" function. Then just make a node that is that far ahead of you.

Yes, if you have zero relative inclination to Eve's orbit. What I would do is make a very small burn so that you lose your Eve encounter and the ascending/descending nodes show up. Then put a maneuver node right on whichever node you come to next. Use that maneuver to do two things: get the relative inclination to zero and restore your encounter (and set your PE where you want it). After that burn, as you get a little closer, you can make small correction burns to fine tune your Eve orbit.

Contract rewards being based on your reputation is in KSPedia, as @bewing says. However, that's just talking about the reward, not what contracts are offered. The rules for that have changed since this thread was started over a year ago. Update 1.1 added a new weighting feature to contracts, meaning that the more of a certain type you do, the more likely it is to show up again. 1.1 also reworked the conditions for which "explore" contracts are offered, but I'm afraid I don't know exactly what the new rules are, though I believe they are supposed to come up more often.