Tyko

Removing Kronometer worked great! Thanks for the advice.

Thanks for the reply...Yea....darn...thought I'd solved the problem with scaling and KAC / TWP....I guess I'll keep dealing with clocks that don't agree...

Interesting point...what if your inflatable included an internal core full of air with an outer shell "inflated" with water? It would stop most radiation and if it were thick enough and baffled with many small cells it could stop or absorb most of the energy from micrometeorites while only losing the cell that was hit.

Back to the original question..I just realized.... won't I have to change the year length too if I want the stock clock to be accurate?

Wondering if if BDB part selection is complete enough to allow me to remove all stock parts and just use BDB? Have others tried this? if so, were there any categories of parts that you had to retain from stock? I'm thinking science parts might be an issue.

Funny. I've played this game since 1.0 and restarted on countless occasions for one reason or another. I don't think I've ever unlocked the middle of the tech tree with the plane parts. There are a few parts hidden in there that I wanted like fairings, so I just moved those to other nodes so I wouldn't have to unlock a dozen parts to get the only one I cared about.

Couldn't you even do it in the F12 menu? Define the orbit and parameters like velocity & direction of travel will be determined by your orbit and the body you're orbiting... (actually this might be what @Sharpy said above, more precisely, when he mentioned Keplerian elements)

Thanks! The only thing I can think of that might be (slightly) impacted would be Launch DV because of different initial rotation speed of the planet Makes me wonder...could you increase rotational speed high enough that centrifugal force would exceed gravity?

I'm using SD and ReScale to create a 2.5x system. Now the clocks aren't matching in various places. Kronometer fixes some mod's clocks, but not others. This is an ongoing issue and there's no sign it will be fixed anytime soon, so I'm looking for a different way to sync all the clocks. What if I just changed Gael's day length in SD either back to 6 hours or up to 24 hours so the game could use one of it's standard time settings? Would I break anything or would the planet just spin faster/slower? If this would work, how long should I set the day for? I can't remember if SD wants Sidereal Day length or actual rotational day length. [The answer is you use actual day length in seconds. The game calculates Sidereal day automatically.] Thanks! EDIT: Answered some of my own questions through experimentation

I'm using SD and ReScale to create a 2.5x system. Now the clocks aren't matching in various places. Kronometer fixes some mod's clocks, but not others. What if I just changed the day length in SD either back to 6 hours or up to 24 hours so the game could use one of it's standard time settings? Would this work? Would I break anything else or would the planet just spin faster/slower?

Wow....that's a challenge best of luck!

Agreed...If you're arguing for simplicity for new players I'd say learning to use a ladder is a LOT easier than learning how to use a jetpack...maybe they should only give you ladders and delay jetpacks until further down the tech tree

I'm not ignoring the Oberth effect. The benefits of the Oberth effect are relatively low around Kerbin with it's deep gravity well. Moho's gravity is a lot lower, so less Oberth benefit. Compare this to the ISP of the a Terrier (345) versus monoprop (240) - the LFO Terrier is almost 50% more efficient - you're getting almost half-again more DV for each unit of LFO over monoprop fuel. I'm sure one of our local math wizards could calculate the maximum DV benefit the Oberth Effect will give you around Moho, but I guarantee it's not going to give you the 50% more efficiency that the LFO fuel is offering you.

Agreed that you wouldn't want to kill the open world approach. You could add some tweaks to encourage it though. Maybe you need a biome map and an altimetry survey before you can log surface samples - the logic being that the rocks need the context of location to be of real value. Just an idea...

This is really cool. One of the asks that comes up often in Science discussions is the lack of interesting micro-biomes to explore. Have you considered adding those? It would be cool and give people a reason to visit your sites... Dormant volcanos, ice flats, dried up estuaries, mud flows, craters, cliffs, you name it

the new model / textures rock..Thanks!

Googling "Saturn V exploded view diagrams" turns up terms line LEM Adaptor or Lunar Module Adaptor.

All true IF the game had microbiomes and IF the game's terrain detail and surface scatter was detailed enough it could be really fun to drop near a crater and figure out how to make your way down into it and run tests on various layers of the crater sides. THEN I would a agree that driving slowly could really be fun. Since this thread is about KSP 2.0 I'd say that new gameplay like this would help to justify a full new game release. KSP 1 is really about launching rockets, everything else is just decoration really and it shows in the surface detail, aerodynamics, career mode, science mode, etc....If KSP 2 was designed from the ground up to be about exploration and discovery it could be a really cool and different game.

Just something to consider - 12 m/s is almost 27 miles per hour (43 km/h). Driving that fast over open ground (other than a salt / sand flat) on earth is going to have you bouncing all over the place. The only reason you're not completely out of control is you have 1G pulling you down so you can build a bouncy suspension to with lot of travel. If you attempted those same speeds at 1/3G or 1/6G you will have a very difficult time controlling it. You can test that in the game now. Just build a rover with TR-2L (max speed 58 m/s) and go for a drive on the Mun or Duna at high speed.

I'd love to know 2 things: 1) how many Squad devs actually play KSP regularly & 2) how many of those regular players are running vanilla vs a modded game? Since a big chunk of the devs who's names I recognize are former modders I imagine that those people are playing modded games if they're playing regularly

Yeah, the idea that you'd have hundreds of kilometers of featureless plain and then hit a cliff or crater that contained multiple biomes would be very realistic and make a lot of sense. Like NASA does today you'd have to survey to find the best places to drop your rover, but if you did it right you wouldn't have to drive too far. That said, "too far" is a relative term. At semi-realistic speeds you're still talking months of driving. you'd need some sort of autopilot to let you set a goal and then time warp. This mod exists, but I've never tried it:

Except real life rovers don't go far or fast...Curiosity has only traveled 18km in 6 years...

If you're talking about the shrouded section that held the lander with the 4 "petal" doors, I can think of at least two - KW Rocketry and Bluedog Design Bureau. I think that FASA also has one.

True, there is a possibility of error, but there are enough LFO engines that one could extrapolate from that data set to estimate the performance of any other LFO engine size - assuming Squad's engines are consistent with each other, which I'm not sure about. If you're looking at a different fuel type that exists in the real world you could compare how "LFO" engines in the real world compare to your fuel type and make a good estimate - LFO is pretty close to KeroLox I believe, so if you wanted to create a Kerbal HydroLox engine you could use the real world performance differences to build a model.

...or just pack less monoprop fuel in the first place. You'd be better off adding a small LFO tank than a small monoprop tank because the LFO mass translates into more DV than the monoprop mass will.