Krzeszny

Are you sure it's the corrected version? In my last post I wrote that FTP tanks had broken mass values. Well, it turns out that they were mostly fine, but it's your patch that breaks the mass values for tanks such as the 2.5m extra-large ones - all the huge 2.5 tanks have 1.667t dry mass, and it makes LH2 tanks weigh 0. Also, most but not all of the FTP tanks spawned with your patch installed aren't full of fuel by default (if you go through the parts list, look for ones with a value and (max: X) in the description.) The tanks seen in the screenshot are partially empty by default: Here's a spreadsheet that shows the dry mass ratios and fuel mass ratios for the non-patched FTP tanks and stock tanks and the suggested changes: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRB7qTuA5QGTE47vcz3xpQ8tIlWJob7G_5aIiyVpigQSpXya1GpmAB5TgQdWDMTez87m47_af30XxFU/pubhtml Conclusion: Only 7 FTP tanks are somewhat unbalanced or have unrealistic volumes (although not by very much): Oscar-Cap (too large volume) Oscar-C (too heavy) FL-T50 (too heavy) FL-T100-FTP Dome (too large volume) Rockomax FTP-8 Dome (slightly too large volume) S3-12000-FTP Dome (too little volume) S3-2400-FTP Nose Cone (too little volume) It's not as bad as I thought it was (I had thought all FTP Oscar-size tanks were OP before I realized it was because of ReStock+ which balances the Oscar tanks) The v3 patch unbalances some of the tanks way more than the problems listed above. Since the Oscar tanks are incompatible with ReStock+'s 0.625 tanks rebalance, I suggest making it so that the extra 0.625 FTP tanks are hidden if MM detects that ReStock+ is installed.

TU apparently has a MM-configurable in-game texture switching feature. @Skonks Do you have an idea if it's possible to edit the metallicness in-game?

The dry masses of these tanks are completely broken. So are wet masses. Empty FTP tanks used with cryogenic fuel (LH2/Ox as well as LH2 without oxidizer) weigh 0 kilograms! Not only that, but with LF/Ox the dry masses are also off, making bigger tanks weigh less than smaller tanks. Info: the stock dry mass of any LF/Ox tank (probably any) is 11,(1)% but it's sometimes rounded. (The "(1)" means "111111111" etc.) In the meanwhile, the dry masses of cryogenic tanks should be around 12,138% according to stock and NFLV tanks. Fun fact: 12,5% for Mk3, Mk2 and Mk1 (both liquid and mixed), 11% for Mk1 and 9% for Mk0. Examples: 2.5 m tanks: FTP's added Rockomax tanks all have the same dry weight. The stock FX-32 tank weighs 2t while the smaller FTP FX-48 tank weighs 1.666t. A bigger tank weighs less! The 1.5x Jumbo and 2x Jumbo tanks weigh less than a Jumbo tank - also 1.666 t. This means the dry mass of the biggest tank is 2.5% instead of 11%. This is broken. 1.25 m tanks: FTP's 1.5x FL-T800 (called FL-TC00 which should be called FL-T1200) has 3.19% dry mass and weighs less than the FL-T400 which is 3 times smaller. 0.625 tanks: also around 5% dry mass or less. 3.75 m tanks: same as 2.5 m. Bigger-than-Jumbo tanks weigh less than the 3.75 Jumbo tank. @linuxgurugamer Can I help you to make a patch for the rest of the tanks? Looks like not only the CubeSat tanks were broken.

Tharsis's extended model has an error caused by the animation Speaking of extending nozzles, would it be possible to have different Isp with the nozzle extended and retracted? Maybe it's a good idea for a future update.

@Nertea I agree with your reasoning for the non-deprecated engines if your intention was to make some of the engines overpriced. It's weird in career mode, but understandable. I can't say the same about Osprey and Buzzard, but more about that later. I'm not sure myself why I mixed up realism with balance. Ok, that works for most of the engines, but does it justify having 2 similar engines, of which the objectively worse one costs twice as much as the better one? LH2 Rhino - LH2 Etna. I'm almost certain you've mixed up those 2. Ocelot, not Walrus has the highest SL Isp and Walrus is the Skipper replacement. You couldn't have meant to say that Ocelot replaced Skipper with 1400 kN of thrust, because Skipper has 650 kN. At the same time, Walrus, not Ocelot clearly replaces the Skipper with 750 kN. By the way, how did you know off the top of your head that Walrus had the highest TWR? The tooltips/descriptions don't show it (and because of that I never consider the engine TWR and only stage TWR while building rockets.) On another note, expansion ratio is just a pet peeve of mine and it's the most noticeable with the Ocelot. But I can live with it Osprey is just like Corgi (4250 credits), but it costs 24000 credits and is 33% more powerful. What's wrong with that? I also think the model was good enough - the huge nozzle gets the most of the focus of the viewers, not the missing plumbing. Buzzard, while looking realistic enough (the biggest combustion chamber from all of the engines), had 2600 kN of thrust which was probably the reason you called it OP (right???), but the Cryo Engines restock-patched Rhino has 3400 kN of thrust whilst being cheaper than the Buzzard. If Buzzard is too OP to be in the mod, Rhino should be too OP for CryoEngines, compared to Etna. You see, Rhino doesn't just stop at the Etna-crushing better thrust. It's twice as cost-effective as Etna, has a higher vacuum Isp than Etna and much more gimbal range than Etna. Rhino makes Etna useless, save for a TWR difference. Hence, Buzzard is way less OP than the LH2 Rhino, don't you think? Unless I"m missing something. Balance aside, when it comes to the attachment node problem I reported above (with the screenshots), the solution would be to remove the central large bottom node from the part's model (that's under the central engine attachment.) I can't imagine anyone using that big central node, as there's probably no point in directly attaching parts to the bottom of an empty engine adapter - not only that particular one, but any engine adapter without configurable height. Plus, parts can attach to engines directly, so why have that central attachment point at all? Furthermore, I think the description of NFLV should be updated to include the info that NFLV is intended to be used in conjunction with Cryogenic Engines and the patch which isn't on CKAN. And lastly, what are the orbital maneuvering engines from NFS (wait, not Need for Speed) NF Spacecraft intended for? Is there anything that makes them better than the stock engines? I'm just wondering what's their purpose, as IRL, monopropellant engines are used for simplicity and TWR, so it seems like they should be much cheaper than Terrier/Schnauzer/Poodle/Corgi, yet they're more expensive, especially the biggest, most-efficient one. O-601-4 gets 560 kN and 337 Isp for 12900 credits. Corgi gets 750 kN of thrust for 4250 credits. You said yourself that Corgi was well-balanced. Am I mixing up realism and balance again? I'm not sure. The orbital engines seem neither balanced (more expensive but worse than stock), nor realistic (impossibly-high Isp.) I also don't get it at all - why would the LF/O patch make them as OP as everyone says in this thread? The stats don't change. 3 out of 4 don't have alternators, have worse gimbaling range, worse Isp and maybe better TWR - I haven't calculated it - than the stock enignes (but I'm not sure how important the TWR is when the Isp is worse.) They only use a different type of fuel, and all of them seem rather underpowered with 315 top Isp, while the biggest one keeps the 337 Isp - still worse than the cheaper Corgi and comparable to 2 Poodles. By the way, the patch doesn't change their descriptions, which mention that they're monopropellant engines. Sorry for bothering you about realism again.

I found a bug with the Adapter 75-L2 Lower Stage Engine Mount. It's not possible to mount an engine (any size) in the middle slot in any configuration (holding Alt or not.) The mounting slot for the engine is there but the 7.5m central slot blocks the smaller one. There's a workaround to mount it in the central 7.5m slot as seen here and move it with the move tool. I'm not sure if this can be fixed at all, it might be KSP's fault altogether.

This may be unnecessary to change it, but I think that 3 of the NF modules miss some modularity, mostly because of how much they have grown over the years. The rocket engines and the 5m+ fuel tanks, the orbital engines and the command pods - these part categories don't seem to synergize enough to be bundled together and feel more like separate mods. The same could be said about the antennae and the probe cores as well, but they're almost guaranteed to be used on the same spacecraft, unlike the former examples. Near Future Spacecraft could be divided into Near Future Command Modules and Near Future Orbital Engines. Near Future Launch Vehicles - into Near Future Rocket Engines and Near Future Superheavy (or Near Future Heavy Something.) Optional - near Future eXploration - into Near Future Communication and Near Future Probes. The separation of these mods could be too much work, but it's just a suggestion. By the way, what are some reasons to consider using the orbital engines from NF:S over the 'Poodle', the 'Terrier' etc?

Thanks for the calculator. I'm not an expect or a scientist to say how to balance something very well (I've only spent around 100 hours on actually building rockets) or what the ISP should be based on the nozzle and the plumbing, but I'll try my best. I won't post code here, as the values are just suggestions... and I've never used ModuleManager. The Schnauzer should cost around 700 because it has twice the thrust and 5 more ISP than the 390-credits Terrier but still over 2 times less than the 1300-credits Poodle. Maybe 800 because of its impressively-sized snout - er, bell. The Caravel after a research and some consideration has a realistic sea-level ISP because it's an open-cycle/gas generator engine (it has an exhaust pipe) unlike the Skipper. The expansion ratio would counteract the inefficient cycle, hence the vacuum ISP could be the same (or differ by 5 so it doesn't look like a copy) for both engines. However, it costs half as much as the Skipper and I suggest lowering the thrust from 510 to around 400 kN. There's a gap between 260 (Ursa) and 650 (Skipper) and 510 doesn't quite fill that gap... that is, if it should. The Valiant after some more consideration could have 250-310 or 250-300 ISP. The same vacuum ISP or lower than the Reliant, the same sea-level ISP as the Swivel. I've just noticed that the Swivel has a compact double-bell nozzle (like the RS-25 but in reverse). If that's intentional, it's very clever! (If it's not intentional, the second bell shape could be made more pronounced to make it clearer as to what the extension does.) This means that the Valiant has to have a lower vacuum ISP. By the way, if a modeler is reading this, I'd love to see more double-bell nozzles, expansion-deflection nozzles (the shape would look weird for non-geeks so the engine would have to be properly labeled) and extending nozzles - I've never seen any of them in KSP except for the Swivel's double-bell-like nozzle.

I didn't know about that rocket equation. Nice to know. About that mass ratio constant, how can you be sure that 2.5x applies to all rockets and not just LFOx-powered ones (let's call them kerbolox)? Also, the ISP I used was the vacuum ISP, so I imagine the deltaV would be much different and also incomparable during launches, as hydrolox and kerbolox rocket engines have different start and end points when it comes to their ISP's.

You're right. The patch gets rid of the Walrus and Manatee redundancy for those using Cryoengines. Sorry I'll pay more attention to what I'm writing.

20% more deltaV for the same weight isn't a lot lighter, but I can't argue - it is more efficient. Or am I wrong with the 120% efficiency? I tested it with the only equivalent engines, 'Terrier' and 'Hecate' with the same total rocket weight. I'm guessing that tanks, fuel and engines in real-life hydrolox rockets aren't 4 times more expensive than RP-1 rockets, as it is in KSP. LH2 is cheaper than RP-1 in the real world, and I don't think any real entrepreneur would pay for a rocket that's 4 times more expensive for 20% more efficiency because - as I've mentioned - they would probably want to use moar boosters™ instead. I might be wrong on this one, though. I haven't researched the pricing. Thank you for solving my problem. Everyone assumed I was using that patch. This extra patch isn't available on CKAN and I hadn't known it even existed So to sum up what I think isn't quite right: NFLV isn't fully stock-balanced. This was and still is my main point, not the Cryogenic Engines discussion that ensued. 'Sphinx', 'Cougar', 'Lynx' and the deprecated 'Osprey' and 'Buzzard' work well with stock. The last 2 could be readded. 'Angora' and 'Goldfish' are worse than the stock one-size-fits-all equivalent, 'Spark' (but they really should be better: one better ASL, the other one in vacuum). 'Ocelot', 'Porpoise' and 'Otter' are overpowered, even for the asking price (for example, 'Otter' overpowers 'Valiant'), and 'Walrus' is both overpowered and overpriced. 'Walrus' and 'Manatee' are redundant vs stock 'Skipper' and 'Mammoth'. NFLV looks like a stand-alone engine+fuel tank pack. Nowhere does it say that Cryogenic Engines, the patch and ReStock+ are needed to make NFLV work as intended, which I think is a reason to balance NFLV to work better as a stand-alone mod. Even if someone installed Cryogenic Engines, ReStock+ and NFLV through CKAN, they can't get the patch that makes the NFLV engines balanced without knowing to go to GitHub and I'm guessing, that the majority of CKAN-downloaded NFLV users don't know that they should.

I still don't know what patch you're talking about. I installed the Cryoengines mod and it only added new engines without changing the stock ones. There's a patch that allows cryogenic engines to burn LF/Ox but this can't be it. I'm using NFLV without Cryogenic Engines, as I installed it for the fuel tanks and the engines are a bonus, but they're too good to be left unused. Besides, if this mod was made to work with Cryogenic Engines, it would be called something like "Cryogenic Engines - Liquid Fuel replacement engines (and huge fuel tanks???)" What using hydrolox rockets changes basically is increasing the rocket size 2 times, giving 20% more deltaV but making the rocket cost 4 to 5 times as much for that 20% extra deltaV. Not amazing in career mode. I could just add more boosters™ instead. (I hope it doesn't sound like ranting and the balance suggestions are useful.) Perhaps the NFLV engines and NFLV fuel tanks should have been separate mods in the first place, and then the engines part would have been an add-on to CE, if what you're saying about "the CE patch" is true, but since normally CE doesn't change the stock engines, the NFLV engines are still a stand-alone pack. This is why I'm suggesting balance changes to the NFLV engines, and the revival of the cool-locking 'Osprey' and the 'Buzzard'.

This is a great mod that adds a lot of diversity when designing rocket stages. Building a rocket that takes advantage of cryogenic fuel is a challenge. If anyone's wondering what this mod changes when building rockets with LH2 engines, well, it depends. Cryogenic Engines can make your rocket more expensive or less expensive, but they will surely make it taller. Smaller rockets will always be more expensive and 50% to 100% taller, but big rockets might be either more, or less less expensive (but still taller). It depends on the engines used, so it's worth experimenting. Examples:

Which is why I'm surprised that it ONLY removes NFLV parts from the stock category, without removing the NFPropulsion parts, which obviously have their own CCK categories: Argon engines, Xenon engines etc. I'm not interested in learning Mod Manager and I don't need the No Duplicates extension. I only wanted to report that it doesn't work properly.

I could install Cryoengines but it would make KSP just too complicated and with too many engines for now, and besides, it isn't said anywhere that NFLV is made to work with Cryoengines, so it probably should work without them. Still, why should all stock engines should be technically hydrolox and what patch does that? I only found a patch that converts NF Aeronautics to hydrolox. Based on the description, the Cryoengines mod apparently only adds new hydrolox engines without converting the stock engines.

CCK hides not purchased parts from its categories, unlike the stock categories which allow buying not purchased parts. Is there a way to disable it? Why does it do that?

I'm a huge fan of ReStock but there's something wrong with the balance of some ReStock+ engines. The 510 kN Caravel costs half of a 650 kN Skipper and I don't understand why it has the same vacuum ISP despite a much better nozzle expansion ratio and weighs 33% less despite being bigger. It even has a lower sea-level ISP. Illustrated below. The 110 kN Schnauzer is incredibly overpriced. It costs more than the Poodle while being worse. Terrier: 60 kN and costs 390 Schnauzer: 110 kN and costs 3000 Poodle: 250 kN and costs 1300 Illustrated below. The 100 kN Valiant has the ISP of an SRB: 240/270. It's not a tube; it has a nozzle bell. Is it even realistically low? Not a huge problem, but compare it to the Swivel which has has 250/320 ISP.

Community Parts Titles Extras: CCK - No Duplicates is bugged and has no function. First of all, I don't understand what No Duplicates is trying to achieve. "This patch hides all CCK parts from the original categories". What are the "original categories"? What are "CCK parts"? In my game all it does is hide parts from one of my mods. I tested it and here's what I found: CPT Extras - No Duplicates hides parts (purchased or not) from some mods such as Near Future Launch Vehicles from the stock categories (non-CCK categories). CCK itself hides non-purchased parts from its own categories (the green categories). This prevents me from purchasing parts from specific mods such as NF:LV in the VAB at all. I can only purchase them in the tech tree. What is No Duplicates trying to achieve? It doesn't do anything else in my game than hiding NF:LV parts from the stock categories and doesn't hide duplicates in CCK such as double 'Poodle', double 'Twitch', double 'Mainsail' etc. It doesn't hide any duplicates.

There are some balance problems with Near Future Launch Vehicles rocket engines, so I'll discuss them, starting with the meta: Even the RD-180 equivalent, the Cougar, doesn't have sea-level ISP above 300 (it has only 295). Near future engines should be able to get above 300 s ASL, especiall the RD-based ones, up to 314 s ASL. The highest stock ISP ASL is 295 s just because there are no closed-cycle engines in (Re)stock KSP. All the engines except for the Porpoise, Otter (both too cheap) and Sphinx (it's ok) seem overpriced to a smaller or bigger extent. Look at the ReStock+ 'Corgi' (a bigger Poodle) - 355 vacuum ISP, huge 750 kN of thrust and costs only 4250 credits. Biggest balance problems in bold. 'Angora' - nerfed 'Spark'. It looks better but is underpowered. It has less vacuum ISP than the Spark despite having a much larger nozzle and hence expansion ratio. And it's twice as expensive as the 'Spark' despite being worse. 'Sphinx' has a unique sustainer role with its 260/330 ISP. With RS+ it's a needed high-tech 'Valiant' and without RS+ it's even more useful. Seems like its sea-level ISP is too low, though. 'Cougar' (double-chamber) has a role because of its high ISP but slightly defies the real RD-xxx function. The Cougar is clearly more of a vacuum engine with its 295/345 ISP while the RD-170/180/190 are lifters (hence their ISP ASL is above 310 s). If the Cougar has 345 vacuum ISP, why does it have only 295 ASL ISP? For balance purposes? It's a near future engine, so it could have a higher ISP ASL with a staged combustion cycle, like the RD-181 with 312-339 ISP. Overpriced. 'Lynx' (single-chamber 'Cougar') - same function dilemma as above, has a role because of its ISP. 'Ocelot' is an overpowered version of 'Mainsail' or 'Galleon' from RS+, looks like it has way too high ISP in vacuum, as the expansion ratio seems very low (too big nozzle, too small chamber for the ISP.) I see no role for it if it gets nerfed in vacuum, but it should be nerfed & made less expensive. It could also be completely rebalanced. 'Porpoise is a 'Mainsail' with more thrust and ISP for less credits, or with RS+ a 'Galleon' copy with overpowered ISP (just like the 'Ocelot'), for the same price as a 'Galleon'. I don't see a role for it without a complete rebalance. 'Walrus' is an overpriced 'Skipper'. Differs by 5 s ISP, 100 kN more thrust (and is twice as expensive), so it has no unique role. It has no shroud. 'Orca' is a slightly better 'Mainsail' - 200 more thrust, 5 to 8 more ISP. Probably doesn't fit a unique role - 200 more kN and that's it? 'Goldfish' is a 'Spark' copy. 33% more gimballing, 5 more ISP ASL, 40 less ISP in vacuum, same thrust. No unique role. It should have way more thrust! Look how big the chamber is - it's clearly a sea level-only high-thrust engine. Then it would fit a booster role without the risk of becoming a RS+ 'Torch' because it's way lighter. 'Otter' - WAY too cheap RS+ 'Valiant' equivalent or 'Thud' from stock. I get it, the SpaceX Merlin is cheap (and 9 times more powerful than 'Otter') but 'Otter' isn't stock-a-like for that price. Also, it doesn't fit the Precision Propulsion category. 100 kN isn't very precise and it would need 900 kN of thrust if it were a Merlin replica. Definitely not precision propulsion. 'Osprey' - deprecated, I know, but it looks extremely cool and has a role the way it is. It should cost below 10k and by being 33% more powerful than RS+ 'Corgi' and 300% more powerful than 'Poodle', it definitely has a role. I don't understand why it's deprecated. 'Buzzard' - deprecated also, but it had a role and was balanced (despite being overpriced.) Huge size and thrust, high sea-level ISP. There was nothing wrong with its stats. It's a Raptor equivalent, isn't it? 'Manatee' - it's literally a mutated/randomized 'Mammoth' . It's 12% more powerful and has worse sea-level ISP (by 10) but everything is the same, plus, we have engine plates. What's its purpose, if any? Note - I only compared 'Cougar' and 'Otter' to their real-life equivalents because I'm not an expert. Note - some of the engines cost way too few credits to unlock. The 'Lynx' costs 4 times less to unlock it from the tech tree than the 'Vector' but it's significantly more efficient than 'Vector'. I got interested in the Launch Vehicles NF module for the 5 meter and 7.5 meter parts. The engines have very nice models, especially the 'Cougar'.

The mod that's causing the problem is an extension to CPT, Community Parts Titles Extras: CCK - No Duplicates. It's interesting, since the engines from NF Propulsion show up. It's just the ones from Launch Vehicles that don't. CPT Extras: CCK No Duplicates description snip: If parts are placed in a CCK category, it usually also appeared in the original category. This patch hide all CCK-parts from the original categories. (...) And it's true - NF Propulsion engines have their own custom categories, while NF LV engines don't. It's even more complicated: If the CPT extension is installed, NF:LV engines only appear in Community Category Kit categories. When the CPT extension is not installed... NF:LV engines appear in stock categories, but don't appear in CCK categories unless they're purchased. Note - stock engines do appear in CCK categories if they're not purchased. I will forward this information to CPT... or CCK?

I've just noticed something weird. None of the 11 engines from NF Launch Vehicles show up in the stock spawn list, Filter by Function > Engines. When I filter by manufacturer and select NearFutureLaunchVehicles, they all show up (and more - there's a LV-T60-SV 'Eagle' duplicate, so there are 11+1 engines). They're also shown in community filters (in all engines > all parts/rockets). About the engines themselves, the models are really nice. However, many are too similar to stock engines in terms of performance and just make the spawn list too big. I know, complaining about too many cool parts in a mod is a bit weird. I have a few concerns about the balance and role-design of the engines, including internal balance/realism: LV-T85 'Kite' costs the same as KR-74 'Lynx' and has practically the same thrust, but somehow Lynx has 20 more vacuum ISP and 5 more sea level ISP, 50% more gimballing range and 50 Newtons more thrust. Furthermore, Kite clearly looks like a sea level engine based on its nozzle and 325 vacuum ISP seems like a bit too much. Lynx costs almost as mich as a stock Rhino while having half the thrust, and yet the nozzle is the same size as Rhino's. They're all wildly overpriced - in stock you'd get at least a twice as powerful engine for the price of a Post-Kerbin Mining Operation (from NearFutureLV) engine. With ReStock+ the difference gets huge. Compare ReStock+'s Corgi with NFLV' Osprey: Both have 355 vacuum ISP. Osprey has 33% more thrust than Corgi. Osprey costs 500% as much as Corgi. The engines in Stock get more expensive with thrust, not with ISP (mostly). Eaglet has 350 ISP with a not-so-optimal bell nozzle (and no plumbing whatsoever), and even though it's about as bit as Sphinx, it has 4 times more thrust??? One way to improve the model without rebalancing the stats would be to convert it to an expansion-deflection bell. to be continued On a sidenote, I feel like Kite and Osprey (and Eaglet mentioned above) could use some more plumbing, especially for nozzle cooling. If you're looking for inspiration, check out not only expansion-deflection nozzles, but also double-bell nozzles. I haven't seen any in KSP mods yet.

Not so fast. I turned off some background programs and it hasn't crashed for an hour so far. What I turned off: RTSS (as previously), MSI Afterburner, Steam, Nvidia Share Instant Replay and ShareX. I'll test it for a bit more and then double-check the culprit with and without mods. EDIT: I'm a little bit concerned now. I wanted to work out which overlay program caused the crashing but I eventually launched KSP with all of them and it's not crashing! The only mod updated at about the same time was Dynamic Battery Storage, but there's nothing about crashing in its changelog. No updates of anything I remember, either.

I've just added a fourth folder with crash.dmp to the same link. The error.log tells you RAM usage, doesn't it? Still, according to Process Explorer, Private Bytes RAM usage in the main menu is 16 GB and 17.4 GB in KSC (8.5 GB Working Set in KSC). The game crashes just after a few/dozen minutes in KSC. I'll disable Steam overlay and perhaps Nvidia Share.

I got yet another crash with RTSS turned off. What else can I do?

I just got another crash. nvwgf2umx.dll caused an Access Violation (0xc0000005) in module nvwgf2umx.dll at 0033:5c1042bf. Before that, I increased the paging file to 24 GB initial - 32 GB max and disabled application detection for RTSS (but didn't exit RTSS). The thing is, I was multitasking with many tabs open this time (and only this time). I was also browsing the tech tree just like before the second crash. All 3 crashes were with an XMP RAM profile enabled in UEFI. Tomorrow I'll see if it crashes with XMP disabled, as I suspect it to be a memory problem. Then I'll see if closing RTSS completely changes anything. I added a third folder to the link in the OP, including a third crash.dmp This time it was the same graphics dll I reported some time ago. The last time it happened I downgraded the GPU driver and thought it solved the issue - KSP stopped crashing on returning to VAB after the driver downgrade.