Aeroboi

It has always been sandbox. But career also occasionally. Right now I'm only into modded career and sandbox in RSS, but these habits can shift quite rapidly from time to time. I never do science mode. It's the whole career package or none at all.

Today I launched my first orbital rocket to deliver a small satellite, I call it the Kerkaputnik that was launched to listen to Gaia's surface to hear if there is more technologically advanced life besides the KSC and the dwellings beneath the mountains. *1* Launch *2* Solid rocket booster seperation. *3* Following the gravity turn as she goes. *4* Engines are slowly throttling down while coasting to 80 Km. *5* Orbit insertion burn. *6* Orbit has been achieved and today is the greatest victory in Kerbal history. *7* Seperating the spy satellite *8* Junk, litter and debris are Kerbals worst enemies. Luckily this rocket came with some fine retro boosters... *9* Playing with 120% re-entry really doesn't change much apparently, stages still de-orbit from low orbit without losing their paint let alone any parts. *10* Meanwhile the spy satellite listens beneath but nobody radios in, for now kerbalkind has to assume they're alone on their mountain. As the satellite was no longer needed it fired it's de-orbit thrusters to cleanup LGO. *11* Again re-entry heating doesn't destroy my vessel, I'm not sure what this sat is made of but it are some tough extraterrestrial materials. *12* The fate of my first orbital vessel... a watery grave

Thanks for considering this

This still happens regularly to be honest. I make a plane, or rocket and I know it can land safely. I launch it often and land it often. But due to repetitiveness of contracts, launching and landing I sometimes become inattentive, most noticeably in my landing attempts and often after playing for several hours in a row. This inattentiveness results in violent touchdowns causing rolls and spins all the way up to accidental crashes or violent RUD. In almost all these cases I'm trying to RUSH my landings because I'm already occupied with whatever I'm going to do on the surface and wanting that last mission completed before bedtime while having already postponed going to bed to begin with. Instead of quikloading I say FUK IT! I open Hyperedits ship lander and set the coordinates to "current" then I quikload, land the ship there, fire up my engines to simulate the fuel I should have burned and then drop the ship to simulate my landing was flawless. If this isn't a sin then you guys are the devil.

@Gameslinx I really love this mod. I'm playing career and I'm currently fixated on building rockets. However, I'm also a spaceplane kind of guy. While I can definitely make these the location of Gaia's Ksc at 3750 meters really adds towards difficulty in designing airbreathing spaceplanes which is what I'm after when building SSTO's. The KSC location is absolutely gorgeous. However, it really limits some designs like interplanetary SSTO's or even SSTA's because I need a lot more engines to deliver the required thrust at launch in order to takeoff before the end of the runway. That means more rapiers = more dead weight in space = less juice to go to other distant places. Question: While I'm not entirely sure it's on your mind to do any further progress on this planet pack may I suggest you add a secondary KSC on a lower altitude? Furthermore, I like my engines to be realistically achievable, I don't like to change the config of any engine if it doesn't make sense. However, is there a mod that adds a concept engine that can deliver more stationary thrust at greater altitude that goes hypersonic? Would it make sense for a rapier to deliver more thrust at greater altitude if you could somehow give it more air to breath? If it can then changing it's thrust parameters is definitely a option. I already have some workaround using rocket thrust at launch to get up to speed. But that requires extra engines since rapiers need time to kick in after changing modes and ultimately the added weight for most interplanetary or SSTA designs really don't benefit from this once in orbit. Or just tell me how to SSTO from Gaia most efficiently.

I don't have something I always forget, although forgetting things does happen. Now, if I had to point at something that I still do forget from time to time then it is installing lights when wanting to land on the dark side of a planet. In my mods I use realistic lighting effects so dark is actually dark and I recall quite a few times where this turned into near disaster and a lot of quikloading. Tip: I also use self written checklist. Checklists for several vehicle types, a checlist for specific mission types so I don't forget certain contract requirements and pilot checklists. Maybe it's because I played X-plane and Flight simulators all my life. Checklists is what makes pilot check and control their plane in methodical fashion across their entire career and the same works to achieve methodical flights and vehicle builds in ksp.

Maybe that tells us something that can partially explain the mystery. Given the dimensions of the Goo container it would be acceptable to assume that the casing of this device itself was made out of carbon fiber. For reference, the light road bike frames are around 500 grams. I think a goo container made out of carbon wouldn't weight much less or more. Whatever the goo container is supposed to be holding it probably can never add up so I say that the mystery goo itself is weightless which is what makes it mysterious.

Use Search function 1.0: Most of these questions about rocket stability and cargo delivery are common questions with often near identical answers that can be found in multitude using the search function. Anyway, I do want to address it. My advice may be quite in depth but there's so much to say for this when I see that picture, here goes. Stuts and joints 1.1: Docking port connections are unstable. Better attach a decoupler to a docking port for more rigidity. I'm referring to the docking port connection of the center Kerbodyne S 14400 tank to the cargo there above. When doing this you may not need these struts sticking out. I myself use autostruts when in need for sstructural integrity. I find them more rigid then the strut parts. You have to enable advanced tweakables in the main main menu general settings to use autostruts. Then right click and use "autostrut" to enable it on a part in the editor. If you grandparent autostrut the docking port to the stage that pushes it and the parts above that to the heaviest parts you should solve most of the wobbling, which I suspect you experience. Lift, and drag 1.2: A secondary part of stability especially when going through the atmosphere is the Center of Lift (CoL) The Center of Lift is visualized in blue by clicking the right most icon in the vab/sph next to CoM (yellow) and CoT (purple) In almost all cases you want this blue marker to sit below the yellow com marker. You haven't activated CoL and it should be seen in your picture if you want to receive the best advice. A third part of stability is drag. A engine creates more drag then a nosecone since it isn't pointy. You have the LV-N Nerva atomic rocket motor on top of your rocket that catches a lot of air more so when going faster. That forces the rocket to pivot due to drag. Even if you have a lot of weight near the bottom of your rocket to counter act that drag you can expect a lot of wobbling on the ascent. If you had to go with this design you want to use the fairing to shield parts from unwanted aerodynamic forces, protect parts and to make the rocket go faster. In a nutshell: Using a fairing is a triple win. You can press F12 in flight for aerodynamics overlay. This will visualize the forces on your rocket that cause instability. Pay specific attention to red stripes which are drag indicators when your rocket gets up to speed with the overlay activated. These drag indicators should especially be visible once the rocket wobbles, wants to pitch or yaw on its own or have any other stability issues during the ascent. I see you have fins on the center stage but aren't they small in comparison to the whole rocket? I would just use large wing pieces there myself, ones without control authority which you don't need as you have gimbal on those engines. Remember that drag isn't visualized by CoL and hasn't got a indicator in the editor. What you want is to have the lift indicator in the VAB well below the CoM. And by 'well' I really mean as far down as you can get it because the lift has to counteract the drag at the top. In stock KSP you can only guesstimate how far down you want the fins to be but if you want to use a mod to calculate this you could use Correct COL. This let's you visualize stability in the editor while taking aspects of lift, drag and Center of weight into account. Wett/Dry Mass 1.3: A rocket at launch has a lot of fuel (Wett mass) As it burns fuel it looses this weight and only the weight of the structure (tanks, cargo etc) remain (Dry mass). The center of mass is usually not similar between Dry/Wett states unless you particularly optimize your rocket for it. In your case this difference is likely a great contributor to instability. The LV-N nerva rocket motor weights a lot. Unfortunately it is all they way at the top of your rocket. When you have unstable aerodynamics the dry weight of a engine near the top that catches drag will create a strong pivoting force causing the top of the rocket to flip. As you burn more fuel, the center of mass will shift further and further to the top. For stability reason you want your dry mass to stay as low as possible. In your case I would rotate the cargo stage by having the Nerva near the bottom conneted to the 1st stages with a decoupler in between and put a fairing over the entire section of cargo to reduce drag.

I started my new KCT/UBM/SETI career using well over 100 mods with GPO/OPM and Extrasolar while having fun doing the USI sounding rocket missions. I'm a bit dissapointed about the fast deployment rate of the parachute and the nearly immediate speed arrest once deployed. I know it should be fast for a small sounding rocket but it still seems to fast. So far there's nothing but small details to complain about and more interesting launches are to follow.

I second this. I made a jet rover once doing 430+ kp/h using the TR L2 wheels assisted by a wheesley, clipping several pairs of wheels inside one another to absorb terrain and also using decouplers as suspension/shock absorbers to minimize wheel breakage and it could traverse the grasslands on Kerbin at that speed (in the average vicinity of 113 m/s). In terms of speed over surface by comparison is similar to driving a Bugatti Veyron at full speed through i.e. the Nevada dessert or over Irish grass hills without breaking anything on the way. Any sane suggestion about rover wheels would be nerfing them, but it is kinda cool and I bet many will agree so it's better here to stay.

I play ksp 1.4.3. Whenever I install this mod on my heavily modded install the game stops being able to load, save and launch ships from the VAB/SPH. Dragging texture replacer out of the gamedata folder and this problem goes away. This MUST be a conflict with another mod because it doesn't happen on a clean gamedata folder. I tried to troubleshoot this but I have 100+ mods so it isn't easy. I also read a few pages back but it isn't soon until I read posts from January. Maybe @shaw knows about any conflict known to cause this behaviour. So far I can't find the other mod(s) triggering this issue with texture replacer and I prefer the other mods if texture replacer doesn't combine. All I can hope I find this other mod and hope it's sacrificial so I can still use this.

@4x4cheesecake Yes! The default settings for blizzy's toolbar configuration was set properly to start with. It solved though. For some utterly inconceivable reason it appeared that re-installing blizzy's toolbar and clickthroughblocker managed to fix this. It's all I could think of doing after reading your comment but for some reason it worked. It also made the icon appear on the stock toolbar, although I don't see the correlation for that behaviour at all. It's not like I did anything to these folders to start with. All I can think of is that I accidentally installed the wrong version from the GitHub page. I will have to assume that this is the case.

To many variables and it's impossibe, really? Aren't you thinking to complicated? Now, if I'm thinking to simple by the end of this comment do tell. From a designers perspective I'd set the rule to allow hatches or connection points as open doorways only when attached straight to existing attachment points. But it shouldn't work when they're surface attached as the example from your picture. If from any point in IVA you would want to go straight left, straight down or all around you use the Rockomax multi point connector. I can see myself making a whole maze of different angled entry points and tunnels and then cover it in structural pieces, wings, fuel tanks and engines to make a entire spaceship with internal IVA routing. The internal IVA of i.e. the Hitchhiker storage container has trash and snacks cabinets on the walls so one could never render a opening on any of those places without making it look jagged and misplaced no matter how much good luck one wishes the one willing to code it. Because of this reason the example on your picture will never work as you say so yourself. So, don't code it, saves the time. Why would we want it that complicated anyway? Ask yourself, is that necessary? In my view that shouldn't be needed. If I refer to that picture you posted and I assumed one were silly enough to surface attach a structural fuselage to the walls of a hitchhiker with this future implementation installed it would just be, a structural fuselage attached to the hitchhiker with no opening to go through. And at worst have it visible inside the hitchhiker storage container due to it clipping, luckily we have the move tool thingy to use for this. I also rarely see people attach modules together as in that picture. Is this what you do? Or just a worst case example? The latter I assume, so there's no need for tackling these extreme case variables then anyway, is there? Now, if there were another compartment on the other side of the left attached structural fuselage like the Cupola in your example you could still enter it from there. You should see one seperated section as a private privacy place where naughty Kerbal stuff happens.... People talk about realism, realistically naughty stuff must happen. So unless you think naughty privacy stuff should be public to everyone on board it is a good imagination to validate this as a excuse that some parts of the ship shouldn't be accessible only from outside. You just couldn't enter the left sided section with the cupola from the hitchiker compartments, that's all. I remember so many sci-fi movies where the astronaut had to EVA to go from one side of a ship to another side. Usually because the ship broke due to whatever hostile intervention or having sections blown to smithereen. The way your extreme example has modules attached together also looks broken and it isn't how I design my vessels in KSP to begin with, and I rarely see it also so I doubt that you do. If you still wanted that from the picture to work somewhat practically by having diagonal or non straight pathways in general while having everything connected in straight lines this implementation for a future release could add one or two curved angled pieces of structure that are stackable. Or just one such a piece that could be toggled between a 2.5° and a 5° degrees or more angle types that one could stack or completely toggle to create corners of 2.5°, 5° 10°, 15°, 20° or 22.5° which when created are hollowed structures that allows for internal IVA. To expand on this whole idea a bit further... First I would add a 2.5m multipoint hub that can be accessed at least 4 ways (5 ways?) with a floor/ceiling and a 2.5m structural tube so you can create 2.5m connected living spaces on a planetary surface. The current 2.5m modules can only be accessed top or down perpendicular to any floor while under gravity. Furthermore, all the compartments should have ledges, handles, ladders and/or ropes visible in the IVA compartments. They could also have droppable rope ladders that automatically drop when inside of a low atmosphere under greater then 0.1G which themselves are only visual as the movement through compartments is still automated but the speed at which this happens depends on the gravity at the destination. You would still use the simple WASD-QE controls but the camera would pitch and roll according to simulate Kerbal effort in climbing rather then floating as it would in space and movement would be restricted to and from grab/climbing points within the compartment so as not to be as free moving like you would in space. All of this bundled together in my eyes would make a very solid IVA experience. I hope splendid imagination isn't deceiving myself this day but this doesn't seem in the vicinity of impossibility IMHO.

I'm compiling a ginormous sets of mods together for a new career playthrough. For reference, I have 151 Folders in GameData and at launch there's 12 gb in RAM for the ksp.exe While I'm nearly done I seem to have picked up a few issues along the way. One of the first mods I installed was RCS build aid and Correct CoL. I like complex docking utilizations while spending as little rcs as possible for which I desire rcs build aid and I've never played ksp without it. I also like fine tuned aerodynamic stable spaceplanes and recoverable rocket stages where I utilize earodynamic properties to the finest capabilities so the Correct CoL mod is a must for me. I really really need this for all my intents and purposes. Another mod for which I care a lot less which also suffers from a similar issue is "KRASH" All 3 of these mods stopped working in game. The mods worked as I installed them first. But apparently after installing more and more mods the corresponding RCS build aid, Correct CoL and KRASH icons visible in the SPH and VAB have disappeared. Without them icons I can't use these mods. Maybe there's some mod conflict, I can't find it on the corresponding RCS build aid or Correct Col release thread pages, and searching for them..... well, what to search for if I don't know the cause? However, I tried. Hopefully this is not finding a needle into a haystack as I'm hoping at least a few are really experienced in the compatibility of many of the mods out there or know what else might be the cause for me missing these icons. If you need more from me you'll have to ask. This is my current GameData folder. Hopefully someone can spot any possible conflicts. Also, there haven't been any errors on startup, besides a chunkload of mods that apparently are not supported by my current KSP version which work regardless.

I use KSP 1.4.2 I use OPM with Alternis Kerbol. The combo works fine but when I want to switch the scene using Tab in the tracking station it only toggles between jool, minmus, Laythe, mun, Kerbin, Bop, Moho, Eve. If I then click on let's say Sarnus it then toggles over to all it's moons and the other bodies in the solar system up to Isaac's comet when it starts at the Sun and then it only toggles between jool, minmus, Laythe, mun, Kerbin, Bop, Moho, Eve again. I use the Shift+tab and tab keys alot to quikly change to a desired scene. If I have a maneuver node at sarnus while I'm at Kerbin let's say I want to switch there using this key function rather then zooming out and clicking there which takes longer. Is this a known bug? I hope this gets fixed. EDIT: I just read the last page. NVM the above.

Are there any known mod conflict statistics? I'm making a new gamedata setup for a new career playthrough. I currently have 72 folders in gamedata worth 10gb of ram (out of 16gb available) Whenever I drag airplane plus in the gamedata directory KSP crashes upon loading. It probably conflicts with another mod currently installed, one that's possibly less interesting then this one but I can't nail it down. Oh, and KSP version number is 1.4.2

@magico13 How high priority is fixing this on your current agenda? I like to mix KCT with Unmanned before manned, and while it isn't gamebreaking, being limited to not use any kerbals on the ground is a bit annoying and stalling in my career progression. For now I'll see it as a added limitation for added difficulty but I do hope a new release comes soon and that it fixes this problem.

I have never played this mod before but I installed KSP 1.3.1 just to try it out because it seems incredibly cool to use with KSPI-E. The mod itself works in the most basic sense, I really love the planets although the RAM usage is killing me even with 16GB of it installed. I cannot get this mod to work "properly" plus EVE isn't working in the slightest and scatterer is bugged but it is my best wish to use these mods with it. I have Kopernicus 1.3.1-3. I have MM 3.0.4 I used Environmental Visual Enhancements 1.2.2-1 as it seems to be written for KSP v 1.3 (not v1.3.1) but the newer versions are for 1.4 or newer but I tried the newer version also regardless and in no case does EVE work. I obviously have the KSS_clouds folder inside the KSS folder. I also had to extract KSS_Scatterer to the KSS folder according to the install guide. When I install scatterer it does work. But it only works in flight, it isn't visible from the KSC. The KSC itself is bugged. The buildings are unclickable and I have to pan the camera position while clicking on any of the buildings to enter them. Sometimes I get black stripes across the landscape, which are glitches obviously. When I timewarp from the KSC the time warps as usual but the sky remains the same, so the sun and stars don't move. When I go to the tracking station and back to the KSC the sky has reset itself based on the timewarp so i.e. it went from mid day to mid night. In other words the KSC overview doesn't visually re-render itself based on the timejump only when jumping to a different environment (building/tracking station) and revert back. I just want to use KSS and have Kerbin clouds, scatterer working properly. Now, I don't want to be absolutely brutal, but preferably in the most utopian sense I would like SVT, SVE, EVE and Scatterer to work while using this mod. If I can't that's okay, but is there any such chance this can work? As long as EVE and scatterer work I'm happy though. Pics... As you can see, no E.V.E. As you can also see all the appropriate folders in the following 2 pics. What's going on?

I see, thanks, it works now.

I have KSP 1.4.1. I have MM 3.0.7. I. I have Sigma Replacements: Skybox I have Deep Star Map All installed to GameData folder. But only the stock skybox is visible. Am I to assume one can only install these Skyboxes on ksp 1.3.1? If this is the case what other alternative skyboxes are out there. I'm searching but I'm always directed to Poods thread as if this is all that's out there. Can anyone help me?

I'm watching a show right now but I'll test this soon. But I'm thinking it might have something to do with my tourists on board. You said you unboarded your Kerbal to have the satellite contract requirement activated, however, tourists cannot be unboarded. However, if my tourists are at fault a satellite contract also should work in my honest opinion. I think I should be able to combine tourist, satellite and any contract I like with whatever vessel I'm currently using as long as the end product (product meaning vessel) is unmanned to satisfy the satellite contract. But I'm jumping the gun on assuming the tourist are what stops the satellite requirement to activate as I haven't tested that but since you seem to have done this many times before and you talk about unboarding your kerbal I feel it has to do something with the tourists on my vessel. Either that or something that is part of my vessel setup is completely different then that of yours. By the way, I to thought I'd remembered I took satellites into orbit before using manned vessels. The thing is, I haven't played career in a long time. The last time was in V 1.2.2 I think, I'm not even sure if the version number is correct, but it was a while back. So it's only since recently I'm getting back into the career mechanics. Apparently according to your career play this is still possible. We're all playing version 1.4.1 I assume? Then I'm doing something wrong, I hope to find out what that is.

That is my point, the wording describes exactly as you sayit should be, but it isn't like that. I will also make a bug report but I doubt one could call it a bug, more like bad programming or bad wording if this is as intended by Squad/take two. This I will have to test to know for sure. I'll get at it.

I'm aware of this, I did it to, but it's a cheat and a overcomplication to manage something that shouldn't be complicated, hence mysuggestion. Thanks but I knew that also. I'm posting a suggestion on the basis of scrapping the 2nd rule and altering it to suit my needs and hopefully of others also. I already tested and a "unmanned probe" requirement only registers if the rocket at launch was unmanned to begin with. It makes no sense that a rocket at launch has to be fully unmanned and remotely controlled to deliver a satellite. A satellite can be brought up into LKO with a Kerbal in a command pod just as well. I think these requirements are flawed and nonsensical. That is why I post this topic here. So please scrap that requirement. Only have the rule that the probe itself at the target orbit has to be unmanned, not the rocket itself or any of the ascent stages prior to jettisoning the actual satellite payload. My motive for this as I described in the OT is to do a mix of unmanned contracts (those darn satellites) and manned contracts into a single launch. I don't want to do a seperate launch next to my manned launches to get a tiny sat up there if I could have brought one with me during the manned launch.

Have the unbuckled Kerbal pop up in the crew transfer panel of any of the available crew containers and have a extra options to seat/buckle him in that particular crew compartment. If unbuckled that Kerbal will simply remain floating in the same crew compartment container, in the case of your example inside the science lab. I think the max Kerbal per crew compartment is the amount of Kerbals that can be strapped in seat or buckled in as you call it, not the max amount of Kerbals that can fit that volume so this proposed system could allow them to float inside containers that are already occupied in terms of seating area but you won't have to have that Kerbal seated in a unoccupied seat while leaing the IVA EVA mode. You will have to seat the Kerbal when under G strain otherwise you will hurt of even kill the Kerbal.

In general I'm annoyed by the "strict" mission rules of certain contracts. Many of these strict rules make absolute sense and for the most part this game has it the right way around. There are several of them that I find ludicrous, and one of these rules makes so little sense I want to complaint about it and suggest it to be fixed in a later release. The satellite missions that start with "Position a sattelite in [any type of orbit] of planet/moon. The first mission requirement is, which is to strict, annoying and what this topic is all about... "Build a new unmanned probe that has a antenna and can generate power" Seems simple right? IT IS! Sometimes these missions are so simple I as a player like to complicate things a little bit, and I find I should be able to. This game forbids it unfortunately as I will explain below. What I like to do is do many contracts all at once. Sometimes mixing manned and unmanned missions into a single launch. In my previous playthrough I had 7 contracts. 2 x rescue contracts, 4 tourist to Mun orbit, 1x sattelite deployment mission to the Mun, Plant flag on the Mun, Science data around the Mun and Science data from the Surface of the Mun. So for the satellite contract I took one with me on my Mun rocket with a manned lander module where the satellite was attached in a fairing shell ready to be deployed at the destination. As I tried to deploy it didn't register and while browsing the web while finding threads on this forum also I learned everything has to be unmanned right from the launchpad. So the entire launch vehicle including all the modules it consist of must also be unmanned otherwise the attached satellites aren't registered as being unmanned even if they are by themselves. Either that or I shouldn't bring a pilot on board, I'm still not clear on that one, but so far I made my point I think. There is this mission requirement check that becomes green but only if everything is unmanned right from the launchpad. The contract requirement sentences are a farce and if I take it for how things are written I'm at no fault whatsoever. The contract says to build a new unmanned probe. It doesn't say build a new unmanned launch vehicle with a unmanned probe on top of it. If it were to say that I would see my mistake, now I don't. For all I care what I tried to accomplish seems right and this game fails to tell me the exact criteria for deploying a unmanned satellite. It also doesn't make sense from a real life perspective. The Hubble Telescope is unmanned, but it was put there by people in a shuttle. So why can't I do this in KSP when following the satellite contracts in career mode? Shouldn't this be fixed?