jimmymcgoochie

Try shifting the centre of lift a little further back or the centre of mass a little further forward. SAS will tend to pitch the nose up over time because it tries to keep pointing in the same direction, but as you fly the curvature of the planet means that that direction becomes more 'up' as you fly; faster planes are affected by this more obviously than slower ones and Kerbin's small size makes it pretty conspicuous after only a few minutes of flight. You may want to consider using an autopilot mod, there are a few to choose from:

You can try it, it might help. I think I explained how to do that in the thread you linked to but just in case- Make a shortcut to the KSP.exe application > open the properties of the shortcut > add --force-opengl to the end of its target. If you use the shortcut, the game will open using openGL; if you click the app itself or use CKAN to launch it, it won't use openGL. You could also try turning scatters off, downgrading your terrain settings and if nothing else helps try this: Open the settings file and change UNSUPPORTED_LEGACY_SHADER_TERRAIN = False to True That will make the game use the old, pre-1.8 terrain which is uglier but might resolve the problem.

It's plain common sense. Changing the DSN range is a stock feature already, if it doesn't go far enough for you then increase it some more. Since your answer to every suggestion you've been given has been a variation on "but it should be stock" I see no further point trying to reason with you. That's a less favourable runway heading, it would make it harder to do an approach when returning from orbit; east-west runways work best for that. It's also a bit superfluous since the entire area around the KSC can be used as a very big runway in any direction you like. Almost any smooth-ish terrain can be landed on depending on your aircraft.

Voyager took hours to send back individual pixels from images. Meanwhile there are seventy metre wide dishes on Earth to receive those extremely faint signals. It wasn't being flown in real time or having to send large quantities of data in short bursts; that would be a really boring game as your data trickled in slowly over several days. Turn the signal multiplier up more if you don't get enough range, or use one of the many mods that boost communications- some add higher level tracking stations (fairly sure OPM comes with a level 4 DSN upgrade), some add bigger and better antennae (extended antenna progression has relays that extend into the tens of light years of signal range), some add new ways to boost signals from existing dishes (NFExploration's signal reflectors for one). Don't blame the developers for not supporting your own specific edge cases when a) it doesn't affect the stock game, b) modders have solved the same problems many different ways already and most importantly, c) it's a game! It's not supposed to be realistic, because in many cases (like this one) realistic is dull and games should be fun. You're in a 1/10th scale solar system building rockets from parts literally built in a junkyard, not exactly the domain of lifelike simulations of deep space operations. And your plane, that you admit wasn't supposed to take off from a runway and had design features that made runway takeoffs more difficult, didn't work when you tried to take off from a runway, and that's the fault of the runway for not being long enough? Make your own longer runway with Kerbal Konstructs if you want a longer one; it's been a very long time since I built a plane that couldn't take off from the runway and even that had tiny little wings for its size and only got airborne because the runway ran out and it could rotate nose-up.

The trick to launching really heavy stuff is to build a suitably large and powerful rocket. You'll need two key values- TWR, Thrust to Weight Ratio, and delta-V, effectively how much acceleration your rocket has and thus how far it can go. Delta-V varies depending on your rocket's weight, engine efficiency (ISP) and ambient pressure- more atmospheric pressure = less efficiency and so less thrust from your fuel. To get more delta-V, add more fuel or strap on some extra boosters. TWR is important mostly in the lower stages when you're launching from the surface- it needs to be above 1 or your rocket simply won't produce enough thrust to overcome gravity, and 1.4 is a good number to aim for. You can see both of these numbers in the stage list at the right side of the screen in the VAB (and SPH) and there's a toggle to switch between surface and vacuum values. In atmosphere, the air gets in the way and reduces your rockets' power, but powerful lifter engines like the Mammoth and Mainsail are designed to produce lots of power even at sea level to haul your rocket off the launch pad. Vacuum-optimised engines like the Terrier and Poodle are nowhere near as good at sea level, but are more efficient when in space; use those on your upper stages. You'll get less delta-V in atmosphere but you should make sure that your TWR on each stage is above 1 and preferably above 1.2 in surface mode to ensure your rocket will make it into space without wasting fuel. Around 3400m/s of delta-V should be enough to make it into a low (80x80km) orbit of Kerbin, but it never hurt to have a bit more than that in case your launch profile isn't particularly efficient. The best way to launch a rocket is with a gravity turn- launch straight up until you get some speed up (100m/s should do, but it can be less if you have a lot of thrust to spare) and then start gradually turning to the east to gain orbital velocity. Drag in the atmosphere bleeds delta-V so launching up will reduce that loss, but to stay up you'll need to go sideways to pick up orbital velocity and in the upper atmosphere drag is minimal. Check out the Gravity Turn mod which automates this whole progress, you can learn a lot from watching it try (and occasionally fail) and use that information to improve your own technique and your rocket designs. To build your rocket, start at the top: what size of fuel tank are you trying to put in orbit? Bigger is better for refueling purposes but if you're just using plain stock parts (no mods or DLCs) then 3.75m is as big as it gets, so try using the second-largest Rockomax 2.5m tank and see how you get on with that. One possible design for a dockable fuel tank would be: Bottom- Clamp-O-Tron Senior port (2.5m version) > large monopropellant tank with 4x RCS thrusters > 2.5m battery > Rockomax 32 fuel tank with some solar panels in the middle (small deployable or just static would do) > large reaction wheel > large RGU (if you have unlocked it) with 4x RCS thrusters > C7 fuel tank adapter (2.5m to 1.25m) > Clamp-O-Tron port (1.25m version) > nose cone on the top. It should be flyable enough to dock to a space station with either docking port and will also have plenty of fuel in it. Docking ports can be used as decouplers if you right-click them and select 'enable staging' - you might require advanced tweakables to be switched on in the game settings to see this option - so you can stick the top of your final rocket stage straight onto the larger docking port. For a 2.5m fuel tank of that size, you're probably going to need a Skipper engine to make it into orbit and move it around with any kind of acceleration. Don't forget your reaction wheels, but you can skip the RCS and probe core on the rocket stage. Your first stage will probably have to be a 3.75m one using a Mammoth engine, with some form of additional boosters on the sides. Useful tip: if using solid boosters, set the radial decouplers to enable crossfeed and stick some fuel tanks on top of the SRBs which will provide extra fuel to the core engine and then dumped when they are empty along with the spent SRBs. Struts are required for heavy rockets with big boosters to stop the boosters wobbling themselves loose and causing destruction and when using additional fuel tanks on top of SRBs, use the move tool to slide the boosters down so that they get jettisoned properly; sepratrons with ~1-2 fuel should be enough to throw them clear if they don't drop away on their own. The biggest rocket I've ever built is below- it launched 610 tons of fuel tanks into a 150x150km orbit around JNSQ's 2.7x larger Kerbin, requiring over 5000m/s of delta-V. Most of the parts were from Near Future Launch Vehicles which adds 5m and 7.5m fuel tanks, and the whole rocket used 7.5m fuel tanks, with eight(!) strap-on liquid fueled boosters that were each 5m wide and had a combined first stage thrust of 87 meganewtons- that's 87,000kN! Monstrously large, hideously expensive and I can still smell the overheated electronics as my (pretty good) PC struggled to cope, but over 600 tons in one launch!

I WANT ONE!!!

@Nertea just added the antenna feeds part of NFX back in (it was previously conflicting with another mod but I've stopped using that now) and I'm getting an issue with ExtendedAntennaProgression relay dishes all having the same range. The parts in question are effectively clones of the 88-88 antenna but rescaled and act as extremely powerful relays, but I think being copies of the 88-88 is causing the NFX antenna feeds patch to treat them all as 88-88s and give them the same range (even though the largest ones should have ranges in the tens of light-years!). I suspect the order of the patches may be to blame and will experiment with this to see if I can fix it.

Reduce the friction and brake force on your nose wheel(s), that will help with planes swerving side to side on takeoff or landing. Leading edge slats that deploy upwards are a good way of getting more lift at lower speeds and are less likely to push your nose down than trailing edge flaps. Good aircraft design makes a lot of difference- angling your wings up by a few degrees and adjusting the height of your wheels to give your plane a slight nose-up attitude on the runway will make taking off easier as it boosts your angle of attack and so your lift; for landings, if you don't have airbrakes unlocked then use whatever control surfaces you do have (elevons, winglets, tail fins) and set them to deploy when you brake, this also works if you have two or more tail fins. Keep your centre of mass in front of your centre of lift at all times or your plane will want to flip around and fly backwards- this can require some experimentation with fuel flow priority. I made a plane a few days ago with about 12 parts in it and elevons as wings, it didn't fly terribly well but it would spontaneously lift off the ground at about 35m/s because they were angled upwards and the gear was adjusted to a few degrees nose up. A recent SSTO spaceplane I made was well over a hundred tons on the runway but still rotated and took off before passing the end of the tarmac beside the spaceplane hangar for the same reason. Use the stock aircraft to practice flying and landing, they're there for a reason. Start with something small, like the Aeris 3A, and once you get the hang of that move on to something bigger and/or faster; landing a plane isn't easy but practice will help.

Your links are broken, drop the /view?usp=sharing from the end and they should become hyperlinks. You've also shared the wrong player.log file as that one is full of stuff for RSS and a big pile of exceptions at the end. To me, your description sounds exactly like what I had where the game would freeze on screen but would continue to run and often resulted in explosions as whatever I was flying/driving at the time kept going and crashed. It only appeared in version 1.8.1 and beyond and 1.7.3 was unaffected by it. The cause was a DX11 graphics crash; the solution was to update my graphics driver software, and it hasn't reoccurred since then. Update your graphics drivers and see if that resolves the issue.

If everyone who's commented on this thread could post their mod lists, that would at least allow a comparison to then get a short list of possible causes. I suspect some kind of incompatibility when you updated the game to 1.9.1 from an older version (1.8.1 or earlier) may be to blame, check that you have the most recent versions of all your mods.

First of all- virtually all planet packs use Kopernicus, and Kopernicus is NOT 1.9.x (any version of 1.9) compatible yet. You can't use planet packs in 1.9.x and you'll have to roll back to 1.8.1 to use them. Secondly- rescaling the solar system will almost certainly break your save game. Anything orbiting the Sun will be in the completely wrong place, and anything orbiting planets also has a good chance of ending up inside them. You'll need to start a fresh save. Third- if you want a ~2.5x rescaled solar system, your options are either a) Sigma Dimensions and Rescale!, or b) JNSQ. Sigma/Rescale is the simpler option, it just makes the stock planets bigger and has configs from 2.5x to 10.625x (apparently that makes Kerbin the same size as Earth) and tweaks things like gravity and atmosphere heights to match; it's fairly memory light both in terms of mod size and RAM use while the game is running. It can also rescale planets from other mods, although I haven't ever done that myself so can't tell you which will work and which won't. If you just want the stock planets to be 2.5x bigger and that's it, this is the way to go. JNSQ is a rather different mod: it completely redoes the stock planets so they look considerably different to stock, adds a number of new planets and moons and is 2.7x larger than stock. It's a great mod, I'm currently using it for a career game, but it's a big beast of a mod: almost 2GB in size, the biggest mod on CKAN; it uses quite a bit of RAM while the game is running, so less powerful machines won't cope well/at all with it; and it doesn't work with Sigma/Rescale or most other normal planet packs, however there is a version of the Grannus planet pack specially made for JNSQ. If you want something a little different and have a powerful enough PC to cope, I highly recommend you try JNSQ as it's very well made and having a totally different Kerbin might make it a bit easier to adjust to the difference in scale.

Not true- I got one that had glowing blue lines. @jbdenney on rare occasions asteroids have glowing lines on them, it’s purely visual and makes no difference to the asteroid’s properties (mass, ore content etc) but they look nice. I think it’s a 4% chance or something like that? From what I’ve read there was a ‘magic boulder’ that floated around Ike in a very early version of the game, which was subsequently removed and then when asteroids were added the ‘magic boulder’ effect was added randomly to some rare asteroids instead as an Easter egg.

So... How do I make more bombs pulse units? Installed this mod in an otherwise stock KSP 1.9.1 and there doesn't seem to be a part for making the pulse units anywhere. Having such a hard dependency on MKS for producing the pulse units would be a major blocker for me as I don't use MKS and don't plan to start doing so any time soon. It also doesn't help that this mod doesn't list MKS or CRP as dependencies either here or on CKAN so most of the resource parts don't work in an otherwise stock install. There should be some way to make pulse units out of ore, even if it requires a huge amount of ore and a huge amount of power to make them (1000 of each, for example). Edit: after poking around in the mod folder it seems there's a patch to make the stock drills also able to mine metallic ore and uraninite, but that will still require CRP so that should be listed as at the very least a recommendation.

For purely stock parts, use fuel cell arrays to power the converter and drills and a couple of RTGs as backup power, just in case. Converters can produce more than enough fuel for the fuel cells to power the converter, and if that sounds like it breaks the laws of thermodynamics, it’s only because it does. If you want to dip your toe into mods: Near Future Electrical adds nuclear reactors for extremely high power production (up to 6000EC/s) but also with extremely high costs and requiring a lot of radiators; Near Future Solar adds massive (size and weight) solar panels that can produce up to 500EC/s at Kerbin and which will still power a moderate sized base out at Jool; and I think Stockalike Mining Extension adds some additional fuel cell options as well as more mining parts which in some cases more power efficient than the stock parts, but also larger and require more total power input.

I’m firmly in the “take your time and do it justice” camp, having seen games developers (from small indie companies to major studios) push out games or updates that didn’t work right and then fix or pull them in embarrassing U-turns shortly afterwards. With such a big and passionate following for KSP, botching the release with a half finished or underwhelming game would be a good way to get saturated by complaints and bad publicity. And even if there were delays before, having a global pandemic to deal with takes priority; take as much time as necessary. KSP isn’t going anywhere and will still get worked on (1.10 due in just over a month) and the thousands of mods for it are still available and will also be worked on by their maintainers/creators.. @kerbiloid I know of at least two mods that add Orion drives- ‘Project Orion’ and ‘Stockalike/Stockish Orion’ I believe. While it’s disappointing to see the release knocked back that far, it’s still going to happen and it’s not like we’re stuck with nothing until it finally gets released.

Game freezes but sound continues? Big list of d3d11 errors at the point of crash with gradually reducing numbers? This is exactly the same as the crashes I was having a few months ago. The solution for me was to update my graphics card drivers, that completely resolved the problem and it hasn’t reoccurred since, try updating your graphics drivers and see if it also works for you.

I tried to open that log file but it was too big for a tablet to see the whole thing and scrolling to the end would take too long. Do you have any errors near the end for d3d11? I had trouble with graphics crashes in both 1.8 and 1.9 but updating the graphics card drivers solved it, try that and see if it helps.

I’m guessing you’re using steam? If you’re going back to such an old version, your save games won’t work. Copy those and keep them somewhere else (out of steam’s control) then completely uninstall the game and reinstall version 1.0.5, that might do the trick. It’s also possible that 1.0.5 isn’t compatible with your machine as it is a very old version. Out of curiosity, why are you trying to install 1.0.5 anyway?

What exactly is the problem here? You’ve given almost no information at all except “planes don’t fly straight and roll when I turn”. Planes are SUPPOSED to roll when they turn, it’s a lot more efficient to bank the wings and let aerodynamics carry them round than trying to force it round using the rudder; and unless you have an identical rudder underneath the plane adding full yaw to one side will naturally cause the plane to roll as well because that single rudder is applying a rotation around the plane’s long axis in exactly the same way that ailerons doesn’t to roll the wings. KSP aerodynamics and flight controls don’t work in the simplistic “press left, go left” style of some other games, it’s a physics based system that will require real pitch, yaw and roll control inputs to work properly. Although I would hardly call KSP’s aerodynamic systems “realistic” since wings are effectively flat boards rather than aerofoils, and produce lift solely by their angle of attack- angled up they provide lift, angled down they provide downforce and you aren’t flying anywhere. FAR (Ferrari Aerospace Research) is a lot more realistic for both lift and drag and adds wing stalling and engine flameouts if the airflow is sufficiently bad, with air drag based on aerodynamic profiles rather than the stock system which looks at parts only and can apply huge drag to parts that are inside the plane.

2.5 hour transfer burn to OPM’s Neidon, only the game ran so slowly (3FPS and about 0.2x speed) that it actually took 11 hours to complete and was massively off course by the end of it, requiring another hour-long correction the next day. That was before I discovered that you can activate physics warp in space using alt + .

Aside from the fact that KSC is built on a large and flat plateau with plenty of space to take off or land even the largest planes, what exactly are you building that can’t take off from the runway? If you really can’t accelerate to flight speed with that runway then try strapping on some solid boosters and firing them up for takeoff or angle your wings to increase lift at lower speeds. And as for the tracking station- the level 3 range is more than adequate for the stock solar system, and if you want more range just increase the multiplier in the settings.

I work in software, currently working on a project that started almost 18 months ago. At the time the project lead thought we could knock it out by June. LAST June. Now, nearly a year later, we're still working on a considerably scaled back version which is going live to a handful of users with greatly limited functionality and will still take considerable development work after that initial release before it matches the existing system's functionality, never mind improving it. Software development takes time, even simple problems can take a lot of time to fix and in case you haven't noticed, most of the world is stalled due to the current pandemic; the team I work in already did a lot of working from home so the transition wasn't as difficult as it could have been, but it still takes a lot of getting used to. For a bigger team working on something as huge and hotly anticipated as KSP2, it's entirely natural that delays are happening particularly in light of global events. I'll take a late but fully developed game over a hastily delivered but poor quality one every time, it just means I have more time to play KSP before the sequel comes out.

A few of those seem like good things to have as stock features- the transfer window planner and KAC for sure, otherwise doing interstellar missions would be vastly more difficult (judging transfers to other planets 'by eye' is hard enough, never mind other solar systems!) and KAC is one of the best QoL mods out there in my opinion as it makes it much harder to miss a critical maneuver node. I also use SCANsat as it's a way to get some science and some nice maps in a more realistic way than the default resource scanner and the rather cumbersome KerbNet system, plus the new parts in the most recent version look really nice. I rarely plan my own maneuvers any more, letting MechJeb do the hard work for me including rendezvousing and docking, but it consistently tries to fly into the targeted planet/moon rather than just to it and the aircraft autopilot has a tendency to make sudden violent maneuvers resulting in the detachment of various wings and other lifting surfaces. Science Alert and x Science are helpful to a point but Science Alert doesn't seem to do alerts when you already have some of the science completed and sent back to Kerbin and x Science often gets confused about what experiments have or haven't been completed and where they can be performed (it repeatedly suggested that I could do an experiment on Kerbin's surface that only works in a solar orbit, and on many occasions seems to lose all the experiments I've already completed and thinks they're not done when they are). Some of the others, though, are mods that I haven't used or tried but dropped- KAS was useful up to a point, KIS not so much, but since Breaking Ground added something broadly similar, I wouldn't be hugely surprised if some kind of Kerbal inventory was added to KSP2 with deployable science stuff or possibly related to colony building; I don't see a huge need for lots of science parts if the science system is the same as KSP ie complete the tech tree without even having to leave low Kerbin orbit, but if there are different types of science that different experiments can gather than I'd expect an expansion of the stock science parts; life support I'm not bothered by at all as I don't use it, the only one I've tried before is Snacks! which is as basic as it gets; base building isn't a priority to me given the emphasis on colony building in KSP2 which would almost certainly include base building parts in it too as a precursor to a full-on colony.

<snip> Also, Cadbury Dairy Milk all the way. That Cailler wrapper is too pale (and also a bit too obscure) and while Milka is nice chocolate, a quick search (online, not in a shop ) confirms their 'squares' are actually a lot more rectangular than those in the picture, whereas they match Dairy Milk much more closely.

Sounds like target practice er, a rather risky proposition considering how high up that rooftop helipad is, the thrust force of a hovering rocket/plane/helicopter and the noticeable lack of safety rails of any kind. Also sounds like it would be more difficult to do than you might think, and while it would be a nice touch it would be something a lot of people might not find.