SyzygyΣE

Haha, it's alright. I've kept a copy of the download so I can still have it even when the link runs out, just in case I need for reference. And yes, you are right about the "000-RSSPatches.cfg" being present. I've removed that now. I will test once more and confirm whether this does the job. Thanks for your help and effort in providing this update. Would you mind informing me how you've changed the objects' colours in the Tracking Station? You were able to modify those?

R.A.V.E.N | For The Skies Are Boundless |

My bottom line when it comes to mods is "if you don't think the game can handle it, don't try to handle it." I'm running over 180 mods, the majority of which are related with RO, RSS, RP-0 and KSPI-E. My mod folder takes up a total of 3.43GB. The RO suite is challenging but incredibly addictive, perhaps of the sense of achievement after being able to beat that kind of difficulty and achieve the goals of the space program. Designs must become a lot more complex. Rockets must actually look like proper rockets or fireworks and explosions will reign supreme. Trying to keep all 180 mods updated manually is a bit of a nightmare. To handle this I install the majority of the mods via CKAN. What I can't install by CKAN I either bookmark their development threads or use KSP-AVC to check for updates. CKAN and AVC inform me whenever an update is available and CKAN allows for updates at a single click of a button. There's no need to manually go to dev threads and download from there: CKAN handles that for you. Downside is that my device isn't all that good at handling the load of all these mods. I'll be needing a better computer to get framerates above 15. Yes, you heard that right—I play the game at an average FPS of 8. Today that dropped to 4 during a launch. That in itself is a nightmare, and it almost borders on hypocrisy—"if you don't think the game can handle it, don't try to handle it." But hey, these mods are just too good to uninstall. Even with that kind of slow motion and lag it doesn't diminish the beauty of the game. I can tell that when I manage to earn enough money in the future, the first major thing I'll be buying is a brand new computer so I can enjoy KSP at a minimum of 30 FPS.

So, I acquired the updates @Guswut put forward, and I would just like to confirm whether this image of the inner Solar System is correct. This is what the inner system looks like for me. Earth is the blue circle on the right of the Sun. The inclinations of objects in the asteroid belt look a little high, but it might just be me.

That's just beautiful. I would find it hard to make this kind of face if I was sitting on a chair descending through the depths of the atmosphere though.

I'm not actually too sure how to do so in Stock. RSS has a LaunchSites.cfg file supplied but I don't know where to locate that for Stock. You're meant to modify that file to change launch site. In any case you're going to need the mod KSC Switcher. Without that I'm quite sure you can't switch to a new site. The mod developer already said he won't be releasing a LaunchSites configuration for Stock, and I've never tried using it with Stock alone so unfortunately I can't help much beyond this point. Nevertheless, these are the kinds of parameters you'll be facing to modify if you wish to change your launch site location. This here is my LaunchSites.cfg file as an example. You can refer to this if you want. In RSS this file is located in the RSS GameData folder. In Stock I don't know where to find it.

I think the Toucan Space Program is fine for this. After all you are on Kerbin. Then again a flag probably isn't the main point of concern. If I was in your position I'd only use the NASA flag if I had a career in RSS but I am a bit obsessed with realism. Do what's comfortable for you.

I would recommend RSS for you if you are thinking of using real nations. But, what are you intending to do? Will you simply just try some "interesting" designs and watch the fireworks that may ensure or perform a progression through a real space program? For my career, I based the launch site on a remote island in the Pacific as a secret organisation. Depends on your play style and what you want to achieve.

My naming scheme is extremely complex. I think for a long time as to what to name my vessels. Stages (in Subassemblies) My rocket stages are always named after stars. I refer to this page and more-often-than-not, just choose a name by random. The number of named stars are plentiful, and so this naming scheme would be difficult to use up. Rockets As for the rockets themselves, I consider the purposes they are to be used for and go from there. For example, the first rocket I launched into orbit was named Frontier 1. This was derived because it was the first crossing into the frontier of the cosmos. I'm playing with RO, so generally there isn't a need to design a completely new rocket for every launch. I just reuse preexisting and named rockets, perhaps modifying them slightly, ending up with two independent rockets with slight differences for specific purposes. Since the rockets are generally still the same, I simply add a letter to the end of their name. For example, Frontier 1A for launching a 100kg payload to orbit and Frontier 1B for launching a 400kg payload to orbit. If I don't tweak the rockets but instead add boosters to give them an extra kick, I use the following convention: Say, I added 2 boosters onto Frontier 1A, it would become Frontier 1A C2. C2 is an acronym for Configuration 2. The "2" at the end stands for 2 boosters. If I were to add 4 boosters, it would become Frontier 1A C4. If I add boosters and tweak the rocket slightly, Frontier 1A C2 would become Frontier 1B C4. The next stage (pun intended?) of changes is the number after the rocket name. Under what circumstances would Frontier 1 become Frontier 2? This happens when I make some significant changes instead of small tweaks to the body of the rocket (small tweaks would just mean the next letter of the alphabet e.g. Frontier 1B). This may include changing tank length, altering tank width, adding more engines, and overall, additions of features that would make the main body of the rocket decently different to the previous generation. For example, I find that Frontier 1A is not producing enough kick and decide to use an engine cluster instead of a single engine. This would create the new name "Frontier 2A." However, if I change the type of engine, that is a significant change and in that case, I would change the name of the rocket. This usually means a complete redesign anyway, as different engines require different tank and body characteristics. Now, I do have some special acronyms. If Frontier 1A is a successful rocket for lifting a payload to orbit but can be altered without changing the type of engine into a rocket capable of launching a manned mission to orbit, I apply the acronym "MLV"—Manned Launch Vehicle. In this case the Frontier rocket would now become Frontier 1A MLV. I will give a final example to help everyone understand better. If I altered Frontier 1A's body slightly, added 4 boosters and a manned module, what would its name become? Well, following the previous conventions, it would produce: Frontier 1B MLV-C4. Seems simple? Ok, that was not close to simple. Feel free to read through as many times as you like and ask if you don't understand something. Satellites/Probes Similar to rockets, I consider the purpose for which satellites are used for. They are often based around mythological figures. If I'm sending a probe to study the sun, I can name it "Icarus." Icarus was a greek mythological figure who had a pair of wings constructed by wax. However, he was too overconfident and flew too close to the sun, causing the wax to melt and him to plunge into the sea. Of course, this probe isn't going to fly into the sun, but the connection between Icarus and the mission of this probe is enough to grant it this name. Similarly, Sedna is an incredibly distant dwarf planet present in my RSS install. A probe I decide to send there I can name "Tartarus." Tartarus has two meanings: a deity and a location in the underworld. In ancient Greek mythology, it is the deep abyss that is used as a dungeon of torment and suffering for the wicked and as the prison for the Titans. If I'm sending a probe to the outer reaches of the solar system, where it will be incredibly dark and cold, what better name is there except for deities/themes of the underworld? Probes that have a basic purpose or is mass produced don't need these types of names. "CommSat" or "SkyLink" is a pretty reasonable name for any communication satellites for mods like RemoteTech. If I'm scanning another object through the use of the mod ScanSat, these satellites will quite literally just be named "ScanSat." Other examples might include NavSat, FlybySat, ImageSat etc. Rovers/Landers Rovers and landers follow the same general theme of the mythological context. I haven't really thought about them yet but I suppose it could do with mythological figures that roamed the ground and did not fly. I'll consider the possibilities. If I'm really running out of ideas I can just come up with a basic name like "Lunar Lithosphere Explorer." Recall that NASA's two active Mars Rovers—Opportunity and Curiosity, really did not have complex names. Opportunity was technically named MER-B, meaning Mars Exploration Rover B, and Curiosity being Mars Science Laboratory. Nothing too crazy, right? Stations/Bases The names of space stations or ground bases are generally more . . . epic? They still stick to the theme of mythology but I often look for a common group of deities to name a group of stations or bases. What does this mean? Well, my end-game objective is to deploy 12 self-sustaining stations around the solar system. Each will be one of the Zodiacal Constellations. Other "groups" can possibly be: | The 7 Deadly Sins. | The 7 Heavenly Virtues. | The 9 Circles Of Hell. | Paradiso, Purgatorio and Inferno, based off Dante's divine comedy. | The 9 Norse Worlds. | The 4 Horsemen Of Apocalypse. To finish off, spaceship name generators are always available online. Here is one of them. In summary, here are some suggestions you should follow when naming: | Much easier if you have a theme to base off. | Think clever acronyms. | Expand your vocabulary base and generate simply good sounding words. | Try not to design too many different rockets. Alter what you already have to avoid having to come up with an entirely new name. | Many identical satellites? Use simple names like CommSat. | Stuck? Try online name generators. Phew. That took forever to type. Feel free to ask me again if you don't understand something. My rocket naming scheme is especially complex and may require more than one read. Good luck. I hope this was of help.

As had been suggested before, I turned off Orbital Drift Compensation to try and allow the mod to work through a manual process but the issue I've had has kept recurring: the UI says the orbit will decay after some time, but the orbit height never changes from orbit to orbit. I think I might wait for 1.6.0 and then report back my findings. It certainly is bizarre that it worked for @h0yer but not myself. I will keep progressing through my career and see how I go. I can't spot anything unusual about orbital decay in the Player.log but I'll see if I can get a link here to one anyway so you guys can have a look. @h0yer, you are playing with Stock, correct? I'm thinking that fact that I have RSS might be the problem but I really don't know. Nonetheless, I'll acquire a copy of my log tomorrow.

Eyeing alignment can be a bit of a pain. After you've played the game for a while it usually gets better but the learning curve is pretty steep. Have you tried any mods that help with alignment as I had suggested? Mods like MechJeb can dock for you and automate the entire process, but I don't recommend it if you don't yet understand the theory behind how it's done. If you really feel stuck, however, then nothing is stopping you from getting that mod. If you are looking for responses from a greater number of experts at the game and let more people see this question you've raised, I suggest you move this issue to the Gameplay Questions and Tutorials sub-forum. This thread right here isn't really for discussions of tutorials on how to dock. More help is available if you post your concerns at the right location.

What manner of a problem are you having? Is it just alignment? Have you checked the tutorials on the Wiki and Forums? If you are having trouble eyeing alignment between the ports, mods like Docking Port Alignment Indicator can be of help. There are many, many tutorials on YouTube as well. You can try to search up some yourself. Have you tried Scott Manley's tutorial? I hope this is of some help.

Most definitely. I'm playing with RSS and RO so designs are a lot more complicated and there are much more factors to take into consideration as to whether the end result of a flight is a beautiful view from high off the ground or an equally spectacular (?) yet accidental firework. But there's a certain satisfaction in seeing everything come together and just feeling good about these accomplishments. I certainly spend much more time messing about in the VAB/SPH than performing real missions. The possibilities are endless.

Oh, yes. Now I recall that was indeed added. I haven't tested turning that off yet. It should be in the settings somewhere. I shall test turning it off and report back.

Realism Overhaul and its associated mods are incredible. I simply can't get enough of the challenges it provides. I usually don't have much time to play KSP, but following the successful tests of my rocket—Frontier I—and its very early engines, I have finally achieved orbit. Getting to space was certainly not easy with these engines, noting that with TestFlight downloaded, I must limit the engines' burn times within a limit or they are sure to fail. As a result, two clusters of solid kick motors are used for the final push to orbit. Now, maybe I just spammed these kick motors a little too much. What do I mean by a little too much? Well . . . you can probably decide for yourself. But hey, it works fantastically. That's what matters, right? Something weird happened with imgur and I can't seem to add the entire album here, but the picture below will take you there. Alternatively, there is this link: http://imgur.com/a/pyAdQ If you have any suggestions as to how to improve on this design or designs for the future, please leave a message. I will appreciate any input.

Kerbal Construction Time has a simulation feature, where anything you do won't affect the "real" career. You can also place probes at different celestial objects too if you so wish. An alternative is KRASH, but I have not used that one so I don't know how it is compared to Construction Time. I'm not a very confident engineer and RO designs tend to be much more complicated and requiring tweaks here and there. Since I'm playing with RO, I've found simulations to be invaluable. If you want to do something crazy or make a massive bundle of rockets in Stock this will certainly help too.

If the microwave transmitter isn't meant to have a chargeRate, and RO simply assumes it has, I suppose it's not really going to affect gameplay in any way except for the error message? It's alright if that's the case. As long as it works in game, I don't mind how many error messages pop up. But then again, I don't think RO is exactly compatible with Interstellar right now. I'm still testing to see whether the two can work together.