jimmymcgoochie

Check the settings file, there’s an option called ‘unsupported_use_legacy_shader’ which if True will use the old terrain, set it to False if it isn’t False already. If you’re running KSP version 1.9.1 try turning the terrain shader option up in the in-game options from the main menu > settings > graphics, this might cause reduced performance though.

Nice save @Chequers and another useful lesson learnt- always save the game before attempting a landing! Also, radial out will make your rocket stop descending without affecting horizontal velocity, it’s a good idea to use that mode when landing too as it will avoid any wobbles if you’re descending slowly like with holding retrograde. Now, do you have enough fuel left to get back OFF the Mun again?

If it can do multi threading and use all the processor cores instead of just one, performance should be drastically improved physics-wise. No more 4FPS at 0.2x speed when trying to do a two hour transfer burn with a big interplanetary ship would be fantastic, I once left my PC running for nearly an entire day to do one of those and even then it still missed the target and I had to do a course correction. KSP was made years ago and things have moved on tech-wise since then, so KSP2 will probably be considerably faster even if you load up some mods and planet packs and build a 3000 part super station or six as it will be built to use all the latest hardware tricks that KSP just can’t.

You- No need to make things complicated. Also you- let’s use the entire periodic table of elements to make parts with slightly different properties depending on what we made them out of. As has been repeatedly pointed out, KSP is NOT a mining simulator. While there are mods that use different resources and more complex production systems, these are not part of the core game and are completely optional; I don’t use anything beyond a handful of additional fuel types (hydrogen, methane, uranium for reactors and argon) and most of those were added to the stock ISRU or have a single specific part to make them. 30-60 different ores with different properties is ludicrous. Have you actually played KSP in career or science modes? Even the stock game includes plenty of different scientific experiments and there are whole mods dedicated to adding even more- from dust analysers to multispectral imagers to long-term studies to particle collider in space- so I don’t see how there isn’t enough science in the game. As for survival, there are a range of different approaches from the simple (Snacks!) to the more complex (TAC-LS) to fully realistic (RO); adding any one of them will prompt cries of “Too hard!” from some players and “Too easy!” from others depending on which type they prefer or even if they use one at all. There is no point in the developers trying to add a complex production system when it would scare off new or more casual players and modders will do that anyway. KSP2 is being designed to be easy to modify, so the stock systems will be simple and unobtrusive yet still completely functional on their own. We’re getting space colonies and engines that run on nukes, what’s more science-y and survival-y than that?

I found the problem- changing engineID = LH2 to %engineID = LH2 has done the trick, the engine can now be toggled between the two fuel modes at will. Interestingly, it still works even though the DisplayNames don't match the engineIDs. The only problem now is that the plume and sound effects don't work when it's in hydrolox mode, only methalox; everything else in the two ModuleEngineFX-es is the same so I'm at a loss to explain why this is happening. There are also two toggle/activate/shutdown engine options when assigning action groups but that's something I've seen before with other switchable engines.

I tried making the DisplayNames the same as the EngineIDs but all that did was remove the methalox option entirely. Various tweaks using AFTER/FOR/NEEDS didn't fix it either, this has gone beyond my C# abilities so I might just stick with the blanket switch to methalox or blatantly steal borrow someone else's idea of duplicating the parts and altering the stats that way, which would result in two copies of each engine using one fuel each. It's less elegant, but I might be able to make that work.

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here, but I think you're having some trouble docking with large space stations/ships because you're trying to make the entire station rotate to point the docking port at whatever you're trying to dock to it. Space stations are big and heavy, they won't rotate easily and can be broken to pieces if you try to rotate them too fast. Unless you're docking something else big and heavy it's going to be easier to move that docking craft around the station to line it up with the docking port you want to dock to. The Docking Port Alignment Indicator (DPAI) mod is a great tool to help with docking, it shows you where you're pointing, where the target port is pointing and what direction you're going relative to that target port and makes docking a whole lot easier than doing it by eye. Another alternative is using MechJeb's docking autopilot which does all the hard work for you- using that with the DPAI turned on is a good way to learn how to dock manually. If you're determined to rotate the entire station, you can still get them to line up at a range of over 2km by following these steps: 1) Once you get within 2200m or so, you're inside the game physics range. If you have a large station with a high part count, you'll probably notice the game pause for a little while (it can be almost unnoticeable or last for a few seconds) as it loads the station into the physics calculations. You can then switch between your craft and the station using the [ and ] keys. 2) Switch to the station, right click the port you want to dock to and select 'Control from here'. Assuming there's either a sufficiently skilled pilot or a drone core with level 3 SAS on it you can then double-click the ship you're trying to dock and then tell the SAS to point at the target. The station will (very slowly) rotate to point the docking port at the target. 3) Switch back to your ship, make sure your navball is displaying target velocity as opposed to surface or orbit. Point retrograde and fire engines or RCS thrusters to keep your approach speed at a safe level- you don't want to crash into the station! 4) When you've slowed down and are reasonably close (300m or closer should be fine and ~5m/s is slow enough) right-click the docking port you want to dock to the station with and click 'Control from here' Again, with a skilled pilot or level 3 SAS you should be able to point to target the station itself. Keep getting closer to the station. 5) When you're ~150m away from the station you should be able to right-click on the station's docking port and select 'Set as target'. Switch to the station, target the other docking port and TURN OFF target tracking- it can get a bit strange if you're controlling a station from a docking port at one end of a large ship or station which can cause a lot of unwanted rotation. Keep the SAS switched on to keep the station steady. Switch off your main engines, you don't want to accidentally accelerate and crash into the station! 6) Switch back to the ship, slow down gradually until you're about 20m away and going at 1m/s. Make sure your navball is still set to target mode and use the translation controls (HNIKJL) try to keep the prograde marker right in the middle of the target marker to stay on course. Once you're within 10m, turn off target tracking mode on the SAS and just leave it in the default stability mode, guide the ship in the rest of the way SLOWLY using the translation controls to adjust the position of the prograde marker and the rotation controls to adjust the position of the target marker- both should stay aligned with the little dot in the middle of the navball 'wings' until it's within about a metre or so of docking. When you're that close, switch off SAS entirely and let the magnetic pull of the two docking ports pull them together- they might not dock perfectly and end up at a slight angle but they should be able to resolve it without any input from SAS or RCS. If not, back up to about 5m and try again.

@Nertea I'm trying to make a patch that makes the cryo engines switchable between using liquid hydrogen and liquid methane but have run into a problem that I can't solve. Using the patch from Kerbal Atomics that adds fuel switching to the NERV as a template and combining that with the existing patches for Cryo Engines to run on LF/Ox and the NFLV methalox patch, I've made the following patch that *should* make the Stromboli engine switchable between the two fuels: It looks like it worked in the part description as both modes are listed correctly with the right stats, but when I actually try to use the Stromboli the toggle button doesn't do anything- it always says it's on "Primary" mode and doesn't seem to have any delta-V with hydrolox in the VAB. Strangely enough, it seems to be trying to burn both hydrogen and methane at the same time and actually does produce thrust from both modes independently in flight- shutting the engine down stops the methalox part with the sound effects and plume, but not the hydrolox part. Also strange is that the methalox engine burned liquid methane:oxidizer at a ratio of 30:1 rather than 3:1 as expected. Is there something obvious that I'm doing wrong? Forcing them all to use methalox was easy enough to do but the mode switching is proving to be a real pain, any advice would be appreciated.

Did you even bother to read the page above and/or the first page in the thread before posting?The new engines are NOT THE SAME as the old engines; methalox patch affects ONLY the old engines and NOT the new ones. Write your own methalox patch if you want to, it isn’t difficult as you can use the existing patch and just change the part names and ISPs for each to match the new engines.

Aside from what voxels have to do with the periodic table I dig up some ‘Ore’ with a ‘Drill’ and put it in an ‘Ore Storage’ before it goes into a ‘Converter’ and makes ‘Other Stuff’TM. Why does that need to change exactly? As I said in another thread recently about changing fuel types, KSP uses simple and broad terms like liquid fuel and ore because the details don’t matter. I don’t really care if my rocket is made of carbon fibre, carbon steel or carbon-dysprosium-livermorium alloyed long as it goes where I point it and doesn’t explode, so what’s the use in adding a stupidly overcomplicated “real” manufacturing system requiring industrial resource exploitation across multiple planets to get trace amounts of unobtainium tetrafluoride and requiring hundreds or even thousands of parts to get those resources, not to mention that nobody really knows what materials would be needed to store metallic hydrogen in the quantities needed for an interstellar torchship, when I can just use ‘Ore’ to make ‘Other Stuff’TM with a simple set of parts, using names that are easy to translate into various languages, can be understood by almost anyone and allows wide re-use of the same basic resources like liquid fuel being used for both jets and rockets. We’re getting metallic hydrogen and fusion rockets as stock parts in KSP2 so some new resources will also be added with parts and production methods to match, expect those to be more ‘fusion fuel’ than ‘tritium-helium3 doped with deuterium’. KSP is a game about flying rockets and NOT about simulating a solar system wide mining company.

Launch a smaller rocket with only one or two tourists in it. If you have any probe cores unlocked you should stick one on the front of the pod so you can put a tourist in there instead of a pilot. It will take more launches to do it that way but it’s still cheaper than upgrading the VAB and launchpad. Remember parachutes!

Shock cones. They can take a lot of heating, suck in huge quantities of air (one cone can supply 4 RAPIERs at full speed) and they also look good. What more could you ask for?

Finding problems like this can take quite a lot of time and effort to figure out; well done for fixing this one. Hopefully you won't have any more trouble, but if you do give me a shout and I'll see what I can do

@TRD_Theddy if you type '@' before someone's name it will tag them, like I just did. They'll get a notification that they've been tagged so they know to pay attention (or deliberately ignore you ). Can you get to the folder? The file is a .txt file so any text editor including notepad should be able to open it. AppData is a hidden folder so you may need to enable 'show hidden items' to see it- on Windows 10 it should be at the top of any windows explorer page. If you still can't get to it, try opening the file called KSP.txt inside the KSP directory itself, it contains some log information (but less than Player.txt) so it might help. I tried installing Shuttle Orbiter Construction Kit in KSP 1.9.1 and it worked fine for me with B9 part switch version 2.16.0, I suspect something other than SOCK (nice acronym ) is causing the problem. Try removing SOCK and see if the problem continues- if it does then something else is to blame, if not then SOCK is causing the issue. 1.9.x refers to any version of 1.9, you're probably on 1.9.1 which is the most recent release.

Which mod did you add that caused the error? What version of KSP are you using and what mods are installed? It's possible that the mod requires a newer version of B9 part switch than you currently have installed, or you haven't installed a dependency, another mod required by the mod you just added to make it work correctly. Are you sure that the versions you have are the correct versions for your version of KSP? This is a common source of problems. If you're on Windows, stick this in windows explorer: C:\Users\your_username_here\AppData\LocalLow\Squad\Kerbal Space Program (swap your_username_here for your real username!) Open the file called Player.txt and try to find the same B9 Part Switch error in there, it might tell you which mod tried to look for 'Optab' which will make it a lot easier to fix the problem. Even if you can't find the error message, upload that file to a file sharing site and put a link to it here, reading log files isn't easy if you don't know much about how computer code works.

This should probably be in the 'tech support- modded installs' section of the forums. Your node is probably in the wrong place, to travel out from the Sun you need to have the maneuver node positioned so that you burn 'forwards' relative to the Sun and exit the planet's SOI ahead of it; to travel towards the Sun the opposite is true and you need to position the node to burn 'backwards' relative to the Sun. Going somewhere that's orbiting the Sun higher than where you are almost always requires the node to be on the night side of the planet, so watch out for that if you're using ion thrusters as your solar panels won't help you!

Expect metallic hydrogen to be JUST metallic hydrogen, not 'metallic hydrogen with a little bit of deuterium in it'. Likewise fusion engines will probably use just 'helium-3' rather than 'helium-3 and deuterium/tritium'. The current NERV in KSP uses liquid fuel anyway, and there are mods that can change it to run on liquid hydrogen e.g. Kerbal Atomics (which tries to make ALL nuclear engines run on liquid hydrogen instead of liquid fuel, even those from other mods). @Bingleberry's suggestion of having fuel switches as an advanced tweakable option sounds like a good way of doing it, but this would also require fuel tanks etc. to also be switchable. Alternatively it could be an option in the game settings to allow fuel type switching. The option to switch fuel type could be unlockable in the tech tree, with the default being liquid fuel when the part is unlocked and the ability to use another fuel unlocked later. Liquid hydrogen as a rocket fuel isn't particularly energy dense so you need a lot more of it for the same delta-V compared to other fuels despite the greater ISP it offers. I still expect the same resources and fuels to be present in KSP2 but would be pleasantly surprised to have the option to switch to another fuel type as a stock feature.

As the FAQs on page 1 clearly state, the engines etc. are in Near Future Aeronautics. They aren't lost, they just got moved to a standalone mod.

You've deleted the localisation files, which makes me suspect you've deleted a lot more than you should have. Those logs also seem to be full of problems with resources not being defined so it's possible your game files have been corrupted in some way. Uninstall and reinstall the game again, then verify the game files in Steam- right click KSP in Steam and click Properties, then the Local Files tab, then 'Verify integrity of game files'. Once that's done, try running the game again and see if it works.

Generic terms like liquid/solid fuel, oxidiser, electric charge etc. remove a lot of the complexity so new players don't get overwhelmed and also mean the same set of resources can be used everywhere without worrying about what exactly those resources are- they just work. I would be very surprised if that changed in KSP2. There are plenty of mods for KSP that add different fuel types, from simple stockalike versions of liquid hydrogen and liquid methane to real rocket fuels, so expect similar mods to appear in KSP2 pretty quickly after its release so players who want MOAR REALISM can have the real fuels, players who want some stockalike cryo fuels or additional ion/magnetic engine options can have those and players who are just about able to understand fuel + oxidiser = boom can stick with that and not have to worry about hypergolics and kilowatt-hours etc. etc.

Moving away from arguments about what a black hole is or isn't and back to the original topic of this thread... So far we have at least the following planet types confirmed: - Binary pair (Rask & Rusk) which are tidally locked to each other and are taking the 'the floor is lava' game a bit too seriously. - Super-Kerbin type rocky planet (Murble?) with much gravity and some moons, I think that's the ringed planet at the end of the trailer. I wouldn't be remotely surprised to see more gas giants or ice giants, at least one watery planet or moon (excluding Laythe) and solar systems around a red dwarf star, which aren't particularly interesting but are the most common type of star out there, or possibly a blue giant. Binary stars are nice to look at and all, but the odds of them having planets are far lower than single stars as the two stars would either suck in all the material and prevent planets being formed, or else throw them out into interstellar space if they came too close. Maybe a rogue planet in interstellar space could appear in KSP2? As for getting there- metallic hydrogen engines have been talked about a lot as a late-game interstellar drive, but there were also Orion drives and giant fusion rockets in both the trailer and the gameplay demo footage so once you're done exploring the Kerbolar system you should have unlocked enough of those to make an interstellar voyage possible.

1) These sound like engines for aircraft, not spacecraft. Unless career mode is structured so that aircraft play an important role early in the game before rockets are unlocked I highly doubt there will be many additional aircraft engines in KSP2. There might be a few, but it's Kerbal SPACE Program 2 and planes generally don't work well without air. 2) If you want realistic fuels, use Real Fuels. If you want different fuel types that still fit in the stock fuel system, there are plenty of options- liquid hydrogen for either cryo-fuelled engines or nuclear engines; liquid methane for methalox engines; xenon, argon and lithium-powered electromagnetic type engines; engines that run on nothing but air (they don't work in space for some reason ); engines that run on nuclear bombs... That's not even touching on KSP Interstellar which adds everything from fusion reactors to warp drives. 3) Pretty engine exhausts are confirmed for KSP2, at least as far as the metallic hydrogen engines are concerned. I expect the other engines will not be left behind, even if there isn't one with bright green fire coming out the end.

I tend to name the probes etc. after what they're doing e.g. Duna Scanner, Mun Miner or Eeloo Reelaay (no, that's not a typo ). My launch rockets were named after solar system moons with longer names for bigger rockets (smallest was Io, largest was Ganymede) until I realised I had missed a few size brackets and couldn't fit anything between Ariel and Deimos, so I swapped to using stage sizes and rainbow codes like 25(4)-18 Blue Button, which is a 2.5m first stage with 4 boosters and a 1.875m second stage- the colour in the code name comes from the first stage size (2.5m are blue for example) but the second word came from a random word generator and just like the real rainbow codes the name and the object have little or no connection. Admittedly the two largest rockets, with 7.5m first stages, were called 'Black Sky' and 'Black Hole' deliberately- the first because it's so big it blocks out the sun, and the second because funds get sucked into it and disappear forever...

I've been doing some test flights of what I hope will be an SSTO for JNSQ Eve. Features include fuel tanks that can flip from 4 degrees Kelvin (cold enough to liquefy helium) to over 15000K (hot enough to turn the entire plane to atoms) every half second during the atmospheric ascent on Kerbin; no idea why that happens, it was fine 2 days ago and only two very specific parts are affected. Apart from that, tests are going well and some improvements have been made like more solar panels and batteries to provide power for cooling the liquid hydrogen tanks that fuel the nuclear engines, changes to control surface limiters so it doesn't shred itself if I look at the keyboard when it's flying above Mach 2, and radiators to dissipate re-entry heat once landed/re-orbited. Next up is a dry run to Eve in a sandbox game to make sure it works properly, the last attempt resulted in the plane minus wings belly-flopping onto the surface...

I did that too, although my PC hard drive is about 900GB so space wasn't an issue. Running KSP off the SSD makes it load substantially faster (about 50% for the same KSP instance) and I also use the SSD as a mod cache for CKAN which should in theory make installing and uninstalling mods faster, although I haven't been bored enough to test that yet...