Delay

Today I launched my first spacecraft with a Sentinel telescope in my save. It's also the first satellite in this save to stay in interplanetary space. ...But night launches are boring, aren't they? I wanted to launch at dawn. It's also the first flight with side boosters since forever! I usually just made single boosters lifters... (By the way: This launch is brought to you by RealPlume! Rocket launches look so much better with it!) ...and after a slightly different, yet still acceptable gravity turn, - turns out that the different design messed with my TWR expectations - the second reached its parking orbit around Kerbin... ...followed by leaving Kerbin.

Nice mod for sure, it definitely helps with landing my first stages on the VAB's helipads... However, slightly problematic is the fact that airbrakes don't seem to be taken into account for the drag calculations, so I end up slightly short of Trajectories original prediction. Simple solution, though - just aim slightly beyond your target. Don't know if that has been mentioned yet, or if it even is possible to fix this.

That was surely unexpected! Why did I not have this problem before, though? Or was I just "lucky" with that error? Edit: Good news: It seems like Trajectories was indeed the culprit. I had numerous (3) crashes today in quick succession. All of them happened right after GC or another huge lag. When I uninstalled Trajectories the crashes stopped occuring.

Edited the post.

Luckily, the file was still there. However, instead of copy/pasting the content here, I have uploaded them to dropbox, along with error.log. error.log: https://www.dropbox.com/s/117i48zped17d6m/error.log?dl=0 output_log.txt: https://www.dropbox.com/s/tcq52at33b109x6/output_log.txt?dl=0 INFO: https://www.dropbox.com/s/9rroez792etu30e/INFO.20190210-142632.1356?dl=0

Okay, so here is error.log: And I'm not sure what the crash dump is called. Is that crash.dmp?

@eggrobin I just got an access violation after nearly reaching orbit that was, according to crash.dmp, caused by Principia. "P r i n c i p i a \ G a m e D a t a \ P r i Read from location ffffffff caused an access violation." Aside from Principia I also use Scatterer, VSR, EVE and DistantObject Enhancement. It was the first time running some additional mods, namely RealPlume Stock and all of its necessary mods aside from MM (SmokeScreen and RealPlume). I also installed Trajectories the day prior, however I didn't get the error with it. Trajectories did however run out of iterations, which didn't occur in yesterday's tests (I never ran into the required situations for it to occur). Perhaps Principia and Trajectories are mutually incompatible? It would make sense to me since both change/add to the way KSP displays trajectories. It should also be noted that I tried recreating the error twice; it didn't happen again. I'll continue playing with all mods installed, perhaps I can get it to show up again. I don't have a GitHub account, neither do I want to make one right now. Should I post the required files here instead?

I installed Trajectories. Naturally this was the first thing I did. Trajectories actually showed me something I didn't know before: At speeds greater than ~90m/s the stage behaves like an aircraft. I have to point away from where I want to go!

... and six hours later I'm back with a somewhat better functioning computer! Hard drive replace, Windows newly installed, fortunately most of my programs were on the E: drive, not C. I have to reinstall less, maybe Visual Studio, but that's about it. However, it turns out that the old product key for Windows 7 doesn't work anymore, probably because it is being used by a different machine right now. Oh well, I can do a few days without computer too. It's not like Windows completely uninstalls itself after 3 days of unlicensed use.

Well, I have two i3s and a 750Ti. The graphics card can easily be changed (only requirement is money), but the CPU? I might as well buy an entirely new computer!

One of my hard drives is dying. It's rather loud you can hear every read/write that it does. And for some reason it also impacts sound and video. There's just one problem with it... It's the C drive.

Yes, I am doing a boostback. If the payload is too heavy to allow for a RTLS I simply land on the peninsula to the right of KSC's one.

Testing the capabilities of my Falcon 9. A literal Falcon 9 - it indeed has 9 engines. It's slightly heavier than my Falcon 2, but it has more thrust, as well as a bigger first and second stage. It's also capable of returning to the launch site with a 6t payload, upper limit for RTLS is 5t for the Falcon 2. I started the landing burn at 2650m. That works for ~750 units of fuel, but for 600 it turns out that was a bit too early. And shortly after landing I got my 6 t mass simulator into a 85km orbit around Kerbin.

@blackrack I just noticed that enabling wireframe in the main menu via alt+f10 locks the menu (and only the menu) in wireframe, which results in interesting, albeit unreadable, menu texts. No one would actually even think of enabling wireframe mode here though, so I guess it's not that important.

I installed OBS for video recording today, and it doesn't record very well for me. KSP runs at about 37 fps with Scatterer, EVE and some other mods. OBS records at perhaps not even 20. Apparently this is a GPU related problem, where OBS simply can't render the frames fast enough.

Very high FOV landing shots look freaky!

Not just on your phone. Everywhere, it seems. I using my PC and they also don't show up here.

Exactly, that how I do it too.

Some images, including my own in both the actual post and in the editing boxTM, simply don't showw while some others do. Am I the only one with this right now?

Well, images aren't showing up for me. That's bad.

I decided to take long (2x 15s, 2x ~60s) exposure shots of the sky. You can see a lot of stars today, but unfortunately the milky way itself is still too dark to be seen. They're raw images as the came from the camera, hence I use a spoiler.

I won't use mods to aid my action as long as there is a (semi-) stock way to do it. My first thought around this problem was to connect the side boosters with struts that is connected to the center booster using a docking port. Turns out, however, that this only allows one connection, which combined with the size of the struts (and by "struts" I mean the structural parts, not the click-to-connect ones) would be a rather flimsy one.

tried a first draft at a custom side-booster separation system, such that both boosters are still connected. Turns out that both struts and docking ports don't work and disappear/decouple instead. Looks like I need to think of something different.

"Stone has gone" Is that correct?