sal_vager

There are radiators on the vessel, so that explains the electricity consumption, ideally you would have enough solar panels to feed the radiators. Or, they should be togglable, which is not possible without addons in 1.0.5

Hi @zaruthoj, it looks like you have "Biomes visible in map" enabled in the debug menu, it's rightshift+F12 on Linux, so check that first. The second pic looks like something else though, maybe unrelated. There's a few log errors, if you're on Steam I suggest you try verifying the cache, it might help.

Hi Rewop, do you have a probe on this vessel? Probes consume power. If not a probe, just what is on this craft anyway ?

Good idea Diandriux, I'd add thermals and ridge lift to the request

Okay then, closing this one, it's just not the right time.

Hey Lemay, this thread didn't go how you hoped, I'll close it if you want.

Hi BadOaks, welcome to the forums. There was a bug that caused one engine of a group to run at a lower thrust but that was fixed, so I think your issue is that there's not enough fuel available when the LV-N's ask for it. You mention that the propellant requirement wasn't met and I can see the same in your screenshot, so I suggest you let the tanks fill up a bit before making another burn. Jet engines will also reduce thrust if there isn't enough air available, so it makes sense that fuel is being treated the same way for your engines. The engines can only use what's available after all.

Thanks for the info Julie but I think they may have worked it out by now, the thread was last active May 2013 I better close this one, but a new tutorial thread on uploading would be useful.

Hi yko, this thread is over a year old and there's been fixes since then. It's likely your issue is not the same, can you please open a new thread to cover your issue, I better close this one. Thanks.

Moved to modelling

There's a few things that might cause this, one is compatibility mode. If you're using compatibility mode already try disabling it, it'll be in the shortcut for KSP, also some players on Windows 10 say they need to set Windows 8 mode to get KSP to work. Another is a popular program called Precision X, it hooks into memory and makes KSP crash, actually anything hooking into RAM can do that. We'd need the full crash folder to find out more, and your dxdiag hardware report as well.

Actually no, @Jingle7620 asked for a new engine, which Unity5 has. It will use PhysX 3.3, which has improved performance in multithreading. That will improve matters whether or not it is single vessel or not I think people need to wait to see KSP 1.1 before they judge it.

This was addressed for 1.0.5, @barfing_skull are you playing 1.0.5 build 1028 ? If yes your save would be very useful, you could put it on dropbox and link it here.

Hi Jingle, KSP is already being updated to the Unity5 game engine which uses a newer version of the PhysX physics engine.

I'm guessing you asked because you want to squeeze more addons into memory, so I moved this to addon support.

We get a lot of players believing that their parachutes have been destroyed during launch, so I made this to help explain.

Just made this for you guys

Yeah I'll add how to get to them to the post

Hi @Flash Gordon, they turn red to show that if you activate them at that point they will be destroyed. If you have not activated them they are not destroyed. They will turn white again when you're in space, it's safe to activate them at that point but they will be destroyed during re-entry, if you do activate they can be disarmed in their action menu. When you re-enter they will turn red again, showing that if you activate them at that point they will be destroyed. As you slow down they will again turn white, and it will be safe to use them. So ignore the red icon until you are re-entering, then wait for them to turn white before activating them. Hope this helps.

I'm thinking I'll replace both existing threads with a new thread called "Commonly Suggested" which will link to a master thread on each major topic. That should mean we'd see just the one multiplayer thread or lifesupport thread instead of many "Add feature 'commonfeature'" threads for things already suggested. That should keep discussion going without all of us having to say "It's been suggested" to everyone who thinks they are the first to have thought of it Edit1 I'll draft up something soon, it'll probably be a bit bare to start and I'll add masterthreads to it as necessary. Edit2 Still on it, looking for threads and spellchecking and stuff.

You can run the engine just fine, and if it has gimbal you can use a short low-thrust burn to make the craft turn, then wait until you're lined up in the direction you want before using full thrust to change your orbit. Electric charge is required for reaction wheels.

Hi Ciphra, welcome to the forums! First I suggest you save your progress by holding the alt key and pressing F5 to make a save. Command pods are aerodynamically stable with the bottom into the airflow, as long as you do not have too many other parts on top that might make the pod unstable. So you should be fine even with no electric power, the pod will fall the correct side up (and down). And a periapsis of 30km should be fine.

I'm liking @pandaman's and @SpaceplaneAddict's suggestions so far. There is a need for the list, but it needs to do what it was set out to do.

It should be moot, as the wheels in 1.1 use all new code the existing bugs won't exist.

You're right it needs updating. WNTS was originally created because many things were asked with such frequency that it was annoying the members, an example at the time was multiplayer, a more recent example is gas planet 2. Other things were added because there's no real sense in asking for it, such as weapons and combat, as Squad has no intention of making KSP that sort of game. We don't see the frequency we used to on many topics so many things could be removed, and as the WNTS list was intended to serve the members of this forum it'd make sense to fill it with topics the members don't want to see repeated. Suggestions welcome