sal_vager

It's not a bug, you do actually have to make an asteroid base, you better start practising your asteroid rendezvous

Sounds like you're trying to achieve absolutely circular orbits which are never needed in KSP, and that you have a contract to place a satellite but are getting frustrated because it won't complete, not realising you are 180 degrees off (in other words, flying backwards) Being 0.1 m/s off when doing a burn for a manoeuvre node is not just perfectly fine, it's far more accurate than you need, if it bothers you that much then use RCS to fix that last 0.1 m/s. There's floating point inaccuracies with big orbits, they are projections of where you should end up but being far from the origin (your craft) they won't be perfect. Don't worry about it preventing you from reaching other planets though, it's perfectly possible, hundreds of thousands of KSP players manage it fine This issue has been around forever, it's as good as Squad can make it and rather than being a bug, think of it as a feature Of course, if you happen to be suffering from this more than most there may be a reason why, but you didn't provide any screenshots, logs or system info so there's very little we can do to help, sorry. Please see the stickies at the top of the support section.

Have to avoid rule 2.2C, sorry.

This thread is getting overheated and from what I've seen so far it really shouldn't. You're arguing over a predictive model, there's many models for many kinds of things and they all have some utility, some are just easier to use or understand, others may be more accurate but all are intended to find a ballpark figure for what they attempt to model. Just look at weather modelling, it's very mature and capable but still gets it wrong when you were hoping for a sunny day LethalDose's model looks to be just as useful as arkie87's or any other model proposed, they give the user an idea of what kind of craft will preform better in a given situation, but like any model, the proof is in the actual flight itself, not in the graphs. I think there's little more that can be said by any of the parties involved in this thread, you're just going to end up going round in circles, I'll leave this open a bit longer though and well see.

Hello Another moderator!

Don't they have accounts here and on Reddit? You could drop them a PM or an orangered

Interesting, I'll have to test this a bit later, but why is your craft floating in bits?

This would be a great new use for the mobile lab, sufficiently experienced Kerbals could spend some time browsing Kreddit, er I mean, doing some online courses to improve their skills

Squad already update the version of Unity they use to build KSP to the most recent stable versions and are currently using version 4.5.5f1, when Unity 5 is actually released and stable it'll be tested. Currently it's neither.

Plenty of games don't make sense, they are games, they are for fun. People seem to be making the mistake of assuming that KSP is some kind of Human space flight history simulator, but nothing in the game claims to be such a thing, there's even little green men, the iconic space alien. Many things are being mistaken for other then what they are, even the Mk1 command pod, it's just a pod and we needed something after the original pod was replaced, I'd have liked another light grey/white pod similar to the old Mk1, but we have something that looks a bit like a mercury caspule, but it isn't one. At no point does KSP have to follow our spaceflight history, there's no NACA to become NASA, there's no Russians to race to the Moon, there's no Kennedy. If you want human spaceflight history I'm sure there are modders willing to make that for you so you can tailor your game to your tastes, otherwise there are a few other games available such as Buzz Aldrins race into space, and Orbiter. KSP is neither of these, and for most people that's a good thing, but as has been said here and elsewhere you can't please everyone all the time. But that doesn't mean that players can't themselves look past the faults they see with the game and enjoy it for what it is

Look harder

Don't even need another tank for a powered landing, you'll have enough left. Thing is, the option is there for more experienced players to make orbit right away if they want to, less experienced players can spend a bit of time doing some early contracts and unlocking some new parts to make it easier. Should the beginning be engineered in such a way to make it so hard that even experienced players have a hard time though? The answer to that, if you look and pretty much any other game out there, is no. Games need to be accessible at the start, and even most simulators try to steer new players to starting off easy, for example most flight sims put the player in a Cessna with no adverse weather as their default starting scenario. After that of course things can be as hard as you make them for yourself, see how far you can get before upgrading any of the KSC buildings, no one said you had to upgrade as soon as possible

Chute Mk1 pod Nine FL-T200 fuel tanks LV-T30 Orbit capable on the first launch in career, on any difficulty setting, if you can handle her....

This is the kind of thing that's not massively important to gameplay, why can't a nuclear rocket engine also roast a few oxygen atoms for good measure? The only real life reason would be to prevent oxidation of the engine components. This has also been brought up before several times, the devs do know of it but there's better things to do right now, such as the planned aero changes and resource mining Technically, you can run an NTR on anything, even water.

If you click the waypoint in the map it gives you the option to add a marker to your navball, making them easy to find

Sounds like the Data Execution Prevention Kraken, basically, don't run KSP from a protected Windows folder ever, you'll have to copy it to a non-Windows folder (like C:\Games) and run the copy. Also, you're running a mod, moving this to modded installs.

Until we know otherwise I'm going to assume ExplodingRocketShips has permission from Nassault to edit these clips in this way, so I'll thank everyone from refraining from jumping to any conclusions and grabbing any pitchforks/flaming torches, thank you

Very strange, possibly Avast is blocking KSP from writing the save file when you try to launch that way.

Moved to fanworks, looks like art to me but I don't have an eye for art

Strut your stuff... Lolololololololololol

Starting to see quite a few of these threads now, and GD shouldn't turn into the hardware forum. I've been thinking where these should go and no where suits, what we really need is a place for fan made hardware. So that's what I made, and your thread will be the first to have that tag Wonderstruck, congrats and good luck with your build

Hmmm, it could be write permissions, you're playing KSP from the desktop and Windows will often prevent programs from writing files in certain locations. Most Windows folders are protected by Data Execution Prevention, you can avoid this by running KSP from C:\Games (you make this folder) Be aware though, that because you ran your copy of KSP from a protected area, Windows now assumes those files to be unsafe, so copy KSP to the new folder and run the copy. Windows will think the copy is a whole new program.

So it's a short lived satellite and also an Ike impactor? It needed a seismic accelerometer then

Could be a corrupted save, can you reproduce this on a new save? If there's repro steps it'd make it easier to figure out what is going on (and how to avoid it)

You need Tracking Station and Mission Control at tier two