thereaverofdarkness2

I am also experiencing this issue. I have a desktop with a GTX 970 card, quad core processor, windows 7, and I was running KSP pretty well all along until right after I installed 1.1 today. I tried restarting my computer and clearing some memory but it didn't help. The game starts to overheat my computer about as soon as I load a save file, even just idling at the space center or in the VAB with no craft loaded will cause the fan to spin up like a jet engine prepping for takeoff. The task manager shows me that all 4 cores are running at about a 60% average at all times while the game is loaded, even though they are pretty much idle with the game off--when I'm not running Mozilla Firefox that is. Closing Firefox does not help the game run any better, and I can't see any reason it would run all 4 cores at 60% when I'm doing nothing. ------------------ System Information ------------------ Time of this report: 5/12/2016, 17:32:52 Machine name: CARBATTERY Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601) Service Pack 1 (7601.win7sp1_gdr.150202-1526) Language: English (Regional Setting: English) System Manufacturer: Dell Inc. System Model: Precision WorkStation T3500 BIOS: Phoenix ROM BIOS PLUS Version 1.10 A07 Processor: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU W3520 @ 2.67GHz (4 CPUs), ~2.7GHz Memory: 16384MB RAM Available OS Memory: 16382MB RAM Page File: 4832MB used, 44315MB available Windows Dir: C:\Windows DirectX Version: DirectX 11 DX Setup Parameters: Not found User DPI Setting: Using System DPI System DPI Setting: 96 DPI (100 percent) DWM DPI Scaling: Disabled DxDiag Version: 6.01.7601.17514 32bit Unicode ------------ DxDiag Notes ------------ Display Tab 1: No problems found. Sound Tab 1: No problems found. Input Tab: No problems found. -------------------- DirectX Debug Levels -------------------- Direct3D: 0/4 (retail) DirectDraw: 0/4 (retail) DirectInput: 0/5 (retail) DirectMusic: 0/5 (retail) DirectPlay: 0/9 (retail) DirectSound: 0/5 (retail) DirectShow: 0/6 (retail) --------------- Display Devices --------------- Card name: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 Manufacturer: NVIDIA Chip type: GeForce GTX 970 DAC type: Integrated RAMDAC Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_13C2&SUBSYS_367A1458&REV_A1 Display Memory: 4095 MB Dedicated Memory: 3072 MB Shared Memory: 1023 MB Current Mode: 1280 x 1024 (32 bit) (60Hz) Monitor Name: Generic PnP Monitor Monitor Model: unknown Monitor Id: PTS06A5 Native Mode: 1280 x 1024(p) (60.020Hz) Output Type: HD15 Driver Name: nvd3dumx.dll,nvwgf2umx.dll,nvwgf2umx.dll,nvd3dum,nvwgf2um,nvwgf2um Driver File Version: 10.18.0013.5582 (English) Driver Version: 10.18.13.5582 DDI Version: 11 Driver Model: WDDM 1.1 Driver Attributes: Final Retail Driver Date/Size: 8/25/2015 11:46:21, 15512888 bytes WHQL Logo'd: n/a WHQL Date Stamp: n/a Device Identifier: {D7B71E3E-5082-11CF-2662-77161CC2C735} Vendor ID: 0x10DE Device ID: 0x13C2 SubSys ID: 0x367A1458 Revision ID: 0x00A1 Driver Strong Name: oem15.inf:NVIDIA_SetA_Devices.NTamd64.6.1:Section032:10.18.13.5582:pci\ven_10de&dev_13c2 Rank Of Driver: 00E62001

This in-depth post describes an intuitive and easy to use system in which range to target affects communications. This gives a use for the larger antennas as well as giving the player the capability of setting up communications stations without requiring them to do so. First, each antenna is given a range. At any distance up to this range, data will be sent at the maximum speed for that antenna. Outside that range, data transfer speed will be reduced as a factor of the multiple of its distance vs the range. If you are at twice the range of the antenna or dish, it will send data at half the rate while still expending energy at the same rate. The small starter antenna has a range of 10,000km. This means it works well for transferring data across low to medium Kerbin orbit and even works okay out to the Mün, but struggles to send data all the way from Minmus to KSC. Its base rate of transfer is 2 mits and 10 electric charge per cycle, but when transmitting from the Mün to KSC, it will send about 1.67 mits per cycle. From Minmus it will send about 0.43 mits per cycle. The large antenna has a range of 1,000,000km and a base transfer of 3 mits and 30 electric charge per cycle. It can easily reach all the way across the Kerbin system and even to nearby objects, but struggles with interplanetary distances. When transmitting between Eve and Kerbin at closest approach, it will send about 0.79 mits per cycle. When transmitting between Duna and Kerbin at closest approach, it will send about 0.42 mits per cycle. The dish antenna has a range of 50,000,000km and a base transfer of 5 mits and 125 electric charge per cycle. It can reach across small interplanetary distances with no signal loss, and even at the greatest extremities it still gets good reception. If it were transmitting from Jool to Kerbin, at closest approach it would be transmitting nearly full, and at the most distant points it would transmit at about 3.0 mits per cycle. From Jool to Eeloo at most distant points it would transmit about 1.6 mits per cycle. You can increase your transfer rate by putting multiple antennae on your spacecraft. They will all automatically be used by default, or you can turn them off to prevent them from being used. To set up a communications station, you simply right-click one of the antennas on the craft and choose the option to turn the craft into a comm station. Once you do that, all of its antennas which are on will automatically deploy. If you label the craft as a space station, it will automatically become a communications post provided it has any working antennas, but you can disable this by right-clicking the antenna. There is no drawback to having it set up as a comm station except to clutter up your list of comm stations. Next to the transmit science button is a button to transmit to a comm station. Clicking this brings up a window which lists all of your active comm stations with two buttons next to each, one to transmit to that station and hold, and the other to transmit to that station and then immediately from there to KSC. There is also a column listing the distance to the comm station, and they will all be listed in order of distance with the nearest comm stations at the top of the list. Another column lists their status, for example "in orbit around the Mün". At the top of the comm station window is a button to select multiple comm stations. If you click this, it removes the two buttons by each station selection and changes it to a depressed square slot. When you click a station, it puts a "1" in the box next to it. The next station you click, it puts a "2" in the box, and so on. When you hit the transmit button, it will send the data to each station in the order you listed. If you try to send data to and hold it at a station that contains a duplicate of the data, you will have to overwrite the duplicate in order to hold it there, but no conflict will occur as long as the data is being immediately transmitted out again as soon as it arrives. A station does not expend electric charge from receiving data. When data is being transferred from a station that is not rendered and loaded in physics, the craft will have its parts loaded but will not render the meshes nor load physics. The electrical parts will all be activated and its electrical intake, storage, and output will all be managed by the game to determine if the craft is able to send data at the full rate or even at all. This includes reading its position around planets as well as position of parts for occlusion to check the electrical intake of any photovoltaic panels. To prevent excessive memory usage, there will be a limit of 5 transmit waypoints in a single transmission. By right-clicking an antenna or dish, you can scale the transmit rate as you like, to reduce both the transfer rate and the electricity cost per cycle. This is useful to adjust it a bit downward on a craft that can't quite sustain it, or way down if you're using the power-hungry dish on a small probe that doesn't generate nor store very much electricity.

I don't see a problem with having Kerbals aboard your first craft. It makes sense with how it is easier for these people to get to space, and because they are a more daring and adventurous people with simpler minds. It makes sense that kerbals would fly in rockets before they have the technology to make robots. I would like to see career mode balanced a bit better at the start, as it is difficult to get going not because the parts aren't good enough but because they don't match up with each other very well. It is very difficult to get a good center of mass and lift to keep your rocket stable, and it leaves little or no room for re-entry plans, especially with the starting vehicle mass and part count so low. The buildings also only get upgraded twice, which seems to move too fast. I wish they would be upgraded three or four times before you're done with them. Moving from 30 parts to 255 parts is just silly, you go from barely being able to get to orbit straight to being able to construct colony ships for long-term interplanetary space travel. One thing always bothers me about science: by the time I have the technology, there is no drive to gather science. But when I have lots of science to gather, I can't make the craft I want because the parts aren't unlocked yet. So I wish there was more use for science after you unlock all the parts. It could be unlocking more part variations, improving the quality of parts, or special highly-advanced technology that you don't really need for most of the big missions. Or maybe there could be other creative uses for science outside of your spacecraft technology. A lot of it could be trophy-themed, wherein you collect it as an achievement and some part of the game proudly displays it for you. I know you can check which biomes you have researched, but it would be a lot more special if there was a decorated room showing your accomplishments with some artistic flair. What I'm trying to say is that there should be more to accomplish after I unlock all the tech. Without this stuff, I always end up quitting my space programs before I get out of the Kerbin system. I'll be ready to do an interplanetary mission, but there's nothing to gain from the mission--and I want to have a reason to do my first large-scale interplanetary mission. You know what would really make me want to send kerbals to other planets? If I could set up a permanent base there from which I could build and launch new spacecraft, using facilities I place down to collect and process the necessary resources. Then I would play KSP so much more, and I would visit the planets a whole lot more!

Because FAR is very difficult to use. NEAR was much more realistic than the old aerodynamic model yet it was easy to use, so Squad adopted and adapted it into the game.

Kerbals seem to use a much lower level of technology than our real-world rocket science, and it's generally because the hardships of space travel are just much lesser for kerbals. I wouldn't be surprised if their DNA is more resistant to cosmic radiation damage, and their star likely emits a safer spectrum. They can probably color their suits a variety of light colors safely--just nothing too dark.

I have a hypothesis as to what may be causing this. It just came to me, but it seems to obvious now. Perhaps what looks like the kerbal is indeed just a piece of the rover, and it shows your kerbal being there because the kerbal is inside the piece. Maybe all you need to do is EVA from the debris. I can't be bothered to test it right now, though. Possible steps to fix the bug: Make sure the kerbal piece of the EAS seat automatically "ejects" the kerbal any time it is no longer attached to the rest of the seat. Strengthen the bond between the kerbal and the Seat Rewrite the game's code to allow Kerbals to actually be attached to the outside of the craft - this is probably the most difficult option but it would solve many more problems down the road (and possibly lead to many new ones!)

I find there's little use in trying to do the gravity turn before about 3-5km. I do a gentle gravity turn pretty much starting there with most rockets, but this one refuses to turn at all until the final SRB is ditched. I wasn't suggesting making a sharp turn. I asked because if you head straight up, you cut through the atmosphere a lot faster and by the time the rocket is aerodynamically unstable, it just might be so far up that the air doesn't really matter anymore. I could try playing around with some 4x symmetry on fins. Another idea I had was to re-orient them to have them balanced into the gravity turn. 200kg is a lot. 1.25x2m is about the size of a human. It's a thin metal shell for the bell piece, and the rest is pipes and an attachment surface. If it has a gimbal function, that may require a bit more engineering and mass. 180kg is the mass of two tall men; the engine is the size of one man and it is mostly air. 1250kg for an engine that size without gimbal calls into question what it is made out of. Perhaps a cast-iron engine would be that heavy, but even a cheap steel one would be much lighter.

Did you make a gravity turn at around 10km? I find the craft remains pretty stable even into the gravity turn if I waste a bit of fuel by not activating the SRBs right away, but it seems to flip right about when I ditch the last SRB and try to make the gravity turn significant. It also seems dependent on intrinsic velocity, regardless of how thick the air is. I can keep it stable by continuing through high atmosphere at low atmosphere velocities, which will never have a chance at getting into orbit but it does remain stable. On the other hand, it does remain stable pointing its nose into the ground after it runs out of fuel and plummets to the ground--it is not moving fast enough to trigger the instability at such low altitude. Maybe there's something about center of pressure I need to learn. I'd never even heard that term before I made this post. Center of drag doesn't seem to fully explain my issue though it seems to make a difference. It is possible that these forces are unbalancing the rocket slightly, and that that is all they need to throw off the tiny fins. I'm sure if I modeled a rocket like this in real life, it would indeed fly straight--but it does indeed fly straight in KSP at low velocities. In the end most of my frustration is with not only how few parts there are to work with at the beginning of the game, but also how poorly matched they are. The liquid fuel engines are absurdly heavy for their size. I didn't find a good comparison of a similar-size engine but after scaling NASA's J-2X down to 1.25x2 meters, it would have a mass of 0.179 tonnes, while the first two engines in KSP are over five times as massive. The command pod is 800kg, I can't imagine the Kerbal inside plus his suit being over 100kg--yet the command pod isn't quite absurdly heavy enough to make up for the engines. You have to throw on more command pods at the top to balance out the weight, but that messes with the aerodynamic stability by creating drag, which is the last thing you need on a rocket with nearly 50% dry mass combined with engines that have lower than real-world specific impulse values. I'm fine with inefficient parts, but I don't understand why the engines have to be so much heavier than the command pods. In a real rocket, the command pod is probably the heavier piece.

Being able to fix it by changing the design doesn't mean that the current design isn't bugged. If it should work, and it doesn't work, then it's bugged. I'm sorry people can't see what I'm talking about. I'm trying to make it as clear as I possibly can. If drag is what's making it unstable, it would be unstable when flipped around. However it is not unstable when flipped around. I'll try using the aerodynamic indicator and see what I can figure out.

All good points, however there is little I can do to fix any of them at the stage in the game the rocket is built for. I have no control surfaces, no larger fuel tanks, I don't have a high enough part limit to put on more fins, and the only capsule I have is a cone. I can't bring the science home unless it is behind the capsule on re-entry because it is so light relative to the capsule that the capsule's weight will flip it around and take the heat shield away from the direction of movement. I'm trying to find a solution that doesn't involve getting farther into the game. I wish to become good at getting to orbit on my second flight, not my fifteenth flight after I have spent a few hours picking up science in several of Kerbin's biomes. I've got to work with what I have. Still, regardless of whether or not I could make the craft fly by rearranging the parts or adding higher tech parts, it doesn't change the fact that it should be stable as it is, albeit less stable than it should be with a higher tech build. The uneven surface will create a bit of drag and I could believe the rocket might not be able to remain steady, but it would not cause it to flip around and become stable pointing its engine into the wind. For starters, the back of either rocket will have a lot more drag than the front. Yet they are in fact doing exactly this. And that's why I can't accept any of the answers I have gotten thus far. You guys are ignoring this small fact. Thanks for understanding what I'm trying to do here. Also good suggestion. I'm still not convinced my rocket should be unstable, but that should help make it work with KSP's buggy aerodynamics, anyway. The CoM is NOT that close to the engines, it is much more toward the center especially when the fuel tanks are partly or mostly empty. If it's just what you say, then the exact same thing would happen once the rocket is pointed the other way: it would also be unstable, and as soon as it turns a bit off center, it'll be swept sideways. End result: it would flip around uncontrollably. But that's not what's happening, as I have stated plenty of times already. Once it has flipped around with the engine at front, it becomes fully stable and refuses to turn very far away from that orientation. It doesn't buffet in the wind at all. It's like the rocket engines are a nosecone.

On the first rocket, depleting the fuel moves the center of mass forward. On the second rocket, it moves backward a tiny bit (not nearly far enough to reach the center of lift) before going forward again. Don't forget that the capsule at the top is also heavy, almost as heavy as the engine, and the fuel tanks are all toward the back. I understand this stuff is counter-intuitive. I'm a veteran KSP rocketeer going back to before they re-textured the alpha game, and I play very nearly at Scott Manley's level. I understand how all the aerodynamic forces are supposed to work in the game. I also understand that it has bugs that create some very unrealistic situations. I'm simply pointing out that the answers I am being given don't match up with what I'm talking about. Excuse me for having some background knowledge on the subject, but I'm trying to get some good answers. I'm not being argumentative, I'm clarifying.

Thanks!

Then can you at least link me to somewhere I can look up all the forum posts I haven't got a chance to reply to?

This rocket becomes unstable after separating the second SRB. The nose cone at the top makes zero difference. What matters most is speed: if I get it going fast enough, it flips over. If it's not going fast enough, it remains stable.

What about when it's empty? Then the mass is evenly distributed, yet the fins are at the back which will cause a high change in the center of lift, the center of drag, and the center of pressure. And how many times do I have to remind you, this happens in rockets that don't have a blunt tip? There is absolutely no explanation as to why this rocket should be stable flying backwards with low to no fuel. I should add that KSP doesn't even model blunt vs pointed tips very well. It doesn't completely ignore them, but putting a nose cone on top of a rocket stack doesn't do much to stabilize it. If you don't believe me, try it yourself.

What if a person lost access to their email, how would they verify their account? There has to be some other way to verify their identity. I am quite certain that I entered the correct password for the account, because I had it stored in autocomplete and it was working no more than a couple months ago, right before I sent this message. The only way it could be the wrong password is if it was changed after I logged out in late February or early March, and before I tried to log back in in early April. Did you guys change my password when you put out the new forums? Please investigate, because I lost access to the forums account at the same time as the forums were switched to the new system.

Blunt surfaces may be an issue, but this is happening on rockets that are much more streamlined, as I already stated before. When the center of lift is behind the center of mass, the rocket should tend to remain pointing forward. A blunt rocket may be buffeted and shake around, but it will still tend toward a forward orientation. My rockets are tending toward a reverse orientation, as in, when they flip completely around, they become stable despite having a blunt surface on the rear. This can only happen if the center of lift is behind the center of mass. Now I know it's not a display bug in the VAB, there's no way the actual center of lift would be that far forward. It has to be a bug in the physics engine. A real rocket like mine would fly reasonably straight. The back wants to "lift" more than the front. This means the back will orient toward the direction of airflow, and the front will orient against it. This is one of the most basic tenets of aviation science.

Hushmail? Oh yes, I did have a Hushmail account once, but I switched it back to my Yahoo account a long time ago. I lost access to my Hushmail account about a month after creating it. They said I have to pay money to get it back. There is no way I can access [email protected] without paying them money. What should I do?

That would work, but I still don't see how my design doesn't work. Regardless of how far back the center of mass is, the center of lift is considerably further back. I've been experiencing this with rockets that have only an aerodynamic profile and a midway center of mass.

I am frequently having my rockets flip over in flight as if their center of lift is ahead of the center of mass, however the rocket reads stable in the VAB both with full and empty fuel tanks. Furthermore I have lots of fins to help stabilize it but it seems like I can't possibly get enough. What is wrong here? I can't figure out how this could possibly be realistic. This is one of the strongest examples, but it's been happening on some very basic rockets that should fly very stable.

I just gave you the only emails that should ever have been associated with the account. If it's got something else attached to it, then that's incorrect and I never set that. Can you send the password to an older email, before it got changed?

No, it hasn't changed. I can provide you with the password it SHOULD be, and the three email addresses of which one SHOULD be the correct email address. I'll put the emails here: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] - this is the one I used for this secondary account

Thank you!

I can't find the appropriate forum for this topic, in fact it does not seem to exist. So I am posting here. I need help accessing my account: thereaverofdarkness I tried entering the correct password multiple times but it won't accept it. I assumed maybe the password was changed, so I tried to use the reset option but it said my email isn't on file. I tried all 3 emails I have ever used, and none of them are recognized by the system. I know my account still exists because my username is taken, and I can search for my posts on Google. Please help me access my account!