jimmymcgoochie

Here’s hoping the KSP2 will be updated this year with real authentic genuine actual KSP2 gameplay!

There’s nothing in 1.12.3 that would stop you using a planet pack that works with other 1.12.x versions, or anything from 1.8 up really- get a 1.12.3 compatible version of Kopernicus and you should be fine.

That’s a scatterer bug, try going back to scatterer v0.0723 as it doesn’t seem to happen with that one.

Can you post screenshots of what you’re doing? Either right-click a part with cargo storage space (e.g. SEQ-3 container or a crew pod) or switch to cargo mode via the blue button in the top left of the editor, then select the part you want to put into storage and drop it into an inventory slot.

Kerbal Konstructs and various mods which use it (TSC, KSC Extended, Kerbinside etc.) allow multiple physical launchpads to be plonked down just about anywhere and even entire bases can be created. There’s a second, rather different way to get multiple launchpads though- Kerbal Construction Time.

“KSP crashes after loading” can be caused by several different things- an exception in the load/compiling process that stops the game from running, your PC running out of RAM, a Unity crash… We’ll need the logs to say for sure, here’s how:

Hi there, We’ll need some more information to get to the bottom of this- KSP version and a mod list are most important, however the log files may also help. Here’s how to get them: These issues look like something has been corrupted in the KSP files, so you might need to make a new copy of KSP and reinstall your mods there.

KSP might run, but you’ll most likely need to turn the graphics settings right down, avoid nearly all mods and be prepared for the frame rate to tank if you happen to look at the ground. Try to avoid high part counts, turn physics delta-time up as high as you can to make the game run closer to real time and whatever you do don’t crash! (The frame rate thing happened to me when my GPU died, despite 32GB of RAM the game slowed dramatically when I looked down, just because it was using the built-in graphics thingy to render instead of a dedicated GPU.)

There are a few tricks that can increase your delta-V: Simplify, then add lightness. Do you really need that part? If not, get rid of it and save some weight. Is it really practical to do such a complex mission right now, or can you get away with a simple orbit of Gateway with the occasional coincidental flyby of a moon when the orbits align? Can you get a gravity-assisted capture or aerobrake when you arrive? Try to find an encounter with the biggest moon you can so that its gravity will slow you down relative to Gateway itself and so will help you brake into orbit. The alternative is going for a really low periapsis and using Gateway’s atmosphere to aerobrake, but this is a high risk strategy as you could a) burn up, b) overdo it and fall into the planet or c) get wrecked by radiation, assuming Beyond Home has magnetosphere configs for Kerbalism and you’re using the radiation system. Orbital assembly will allow you to build something larger and heavier than your biggest launch rocket can handle in one flight. You can also launch partly fuelled tanks and then send up a tanker to fill them up later. Trying to cut the corners on transfers doesn’t work very well or very often. Stick to the proper transfer windows and you’ll save a lot of delta-V which means you can build a smaller, lighter mission. Doing long voyages with Kerbalism is hard, but still feasible- here’s a ship I made to attempt a Grand Tour of the stock system, landing on every planet and moon (except Jool, obviously) in one trip: It was huge, slow, laggy, weighed thousands of tons once complete, it didn’t even make it to Moho and I had to skip the Mun and Minmus on the way home too, but it got everywhere else and had decades of supplies for its crew of two. It’s all stock parts too, with the exception of the life support bits that Kerbalism itself provides. There’s no need to build something quite so gigantic for a simple interplanetary mission, but you do need to keep an eye on the life support and also on the crew stress as stressed-out Kerbals have a tendency to accidentally dump food/water/oxygen overboard. Keep the crew happy with a spacious, fully pressurised ship and tick enough of the boxes to avoid stress buildup and you can run missions that last for years- add in the active radiation shield and radiation detox unit that you unlock late in the tech tree and you can run missions that last decades, just as long as you pack enough supplies.

Are you trying to play the stock tutorials in RSS? Because they won’t work.

I think the problem is with the wheel angles- try rotating them so they’re pointing “down” and it might work. KSP wheels are a bit weird and only a small area at the bottom of the wheel actually generates any traction, so rotating them so they’re oriented correctly could make it move. One other thing- traction control is BAD. Traction control reduces wheel torque to stop the wheels spinning when you have low grip- great when you’re driving your car on an icy road, not so great when you’re driving a rover on a low gravity moon with questionable wheel friction and traction. Friction control to maximum to get some grip, traction control down below 1 (preferably below 0.5) so you actually move when you press the keys. Oh, and make sure you set the wheel controls to something different than attitude control: by default they’re both set to WASD which makes low-G driving nearly impossible, so set your wheel controls to e.g. the arrow keys instead so you can use them both at the same time.

Brief update: I’m currently AFKSP (away from KSP) due to travelling home for Christmas- and to a potato laptop that can’t even run stock KSP- but I plan to be back in another 10 days (travel restrictions dependent!) and will pick this series up again when I get back. On a sort of related note- I made an actual contribution to RP-1! It’s not a huge one, granted- just fiddling with the prices on the ProbesPlus dishes to bring them in line with stock/ReStock instead of being pointlessly overpriced- but still…

@SciMan KSP doesn’t model underwater thrust very well and using jet engines above the water to move a ship isn’t particularly efficient (also BG robotic propellers don’t work underwater at all as far as I’m aware). This mod is mostly focussed on buoyancy (how “floaty” parts are) so I don’t expect it to make much difference in terms of propelling ships as you’ve mentioned, however there might be some boat/ship/submarine based mods which have more effective aquatic propulsion options than slapping some big jet engines on the back and hoping for the best.

You should probably install the RO parts mods- ROEngines, ROSolar, ROCapsules etc. If you want to use RP-1 too, the express install on CKAN is the quickest and easiest way to set it all up.

We had a tiny sprinkling of snow late yesterday evening, just enough to form a tiny layer on the bottom of car windscreens, but still- white Christmas confirmed!

How can The Destroyer possibly go bigger than Apollo2? KSP just couldn’t function with something bigger than- oh…

Beethoven wrote boss music before boss music was a thing. See: (Give me a piano, a copy of the sheet music and, hmm, maybe a year or so, and I might be able to play that. Maybe. Though it would cut into my KSP time for sure…)

Children of a Dead Earth could be what you’re looking for- uses realistic physics for orbits etc. and delta-V is a key consideration so KSP skills can come in handy, also has a campaign mode with lots of different missions.

There’s a mod that can split long burns up to avoid this sort of issue- it’s called Maneuver Node Splitter and it does exactly what it says on the tin. As for when you’d want to do so, there’s no hard and fast rule but generally speaking you want to be burning as close to prograde as possible for as long as possible- if you’re more than 30 degrees off prograde at any point then you should probably split the burn; if you have to point further than 45 degrees of prograde, definitely split that burn. Burning in a direction other than pro/retrograde will produce cosine losses, where you out in 1m/s of delta-V but your overall velocity changes by less than 1m/s, effectively meaning that some of your fuel gets wasted. Long burn times will produce a lot of cosine losses and so will waste a significant amount of fuel, so splitting your burn into several shorter ones can save you some delta-V. There are other things to consider too, like planetary atmospheres (or even surfaces) that can get in the way if you do a long burn- the first part of the burn will be pointing “down” towards the surface and so will reduce your periapsis to a potentially hazardous level- and if you’re using mods that involve engine reliability or limited engine ignitions (e.g. Kerbalism or RO) then you need to balance the longer, less efficient burn against the risk of engine failure and/or a hard limit on how many burns you can do.

Try deleting the ModuleManager cache files (ModuleManager.conficcache, .configSHA, .physics and .tech tree) and reloading the game? A mod list would help.

Those are city light effects, meant to make Kerbin look a bit more Earth-like by adding (fake) street lights on the surface. You can disable them in the EVE menu in-game or by deleting the city lights part of your EVE config (in your case inside Boulder Co) if you don’t want them.

Time to node is stock, time to burn is part of the advanced burn indicator which is available in the main menu settings- it’s totally separate to advanced tweakables though.

What version of scatterer are you using? Try rolling back to 0.0723, there are some issues with the newest versions which could be causing this but which may be solved by downgrading to 0.0723 instead.

Please, please, PLEASE learn to use wheel friction control! Traction control will not help when you’re on a steep slope in 1.7g gravity and turning it up high will make your wheels essentially useless. Friction control high, traction control low is the way to go.

This. Cubic struts are very light, surface attachable and have nodes to attach stuff too- I use them all the time to attach things which wouldn’t otherwise be attachable in a stack; the only real downsides are the increased part count and possibly some stability issues if you have heavy stuff attached to other heavy stuff via a tiny little cubic strut (so use normal or autostruts to fix that!). Engine plates also have some annoying issues with autostruts (they keep appearing and they keep mangling engines attached to the outer nodes) so I don’t tend to use them much, instead I use cubic struts.