rogerawong

coming out of warp sometimes it makes the craft hop and tip over. Sometimes it makes the craft fall through the world.

It's neither. It's an "unoptimized game loop" problem that causes the game to saturate a single CPU core and not really use any others. It skips frames and suffers time dilation effects because its single compute thread running on a single CPU core literally cannot complete all the necessary game calculations in the required 16.6 ms per frame needed to give the video card new frames 60 times per second. There is nothing wrong with your machine specs. It's a result of KSP2 being in an early access stage where game design and mechanics are still the software engineering priority over "make the game run smooth". The tldr; is, With any average video card, CPU core clock speed is the single most impactful number right now that determines KSP2 frame rates over the number of cores. A CPU with 8 cores that runs at 6Ghz would run KSP2 better than a 16 core 4 GHZ CPU. If you run liquid helium as a coolant to get your CPU to 9 Ghz, you would have the fastest KSP2 computer. But again, you're only having to throw so much single core CPU clock cycles at it because the game is so inefficiently programmed. Performance hopefully will improve vastly as the early access gets closer to release.

I think that's a record. I gotta go back and see if you posted your first launch to see what mission you designed to get enough science back to unlock the orbital survey module in a single go. You sandwiched the rover between the de-orbit booster and the launch vehicle?

Duuuuuuuuuuude. Epic!

You save a few hundred dV depending on the rocket by starting 300 feet above the launchpad.

Whatever the issue turns out to be, I bet it has to do with quaternions.

Performance is great as long as you place a limit on yourself on how many vessels you have in orbit. When I only have 1 vessel, the game is so fast, the clock runs faster than real time. When I have 5 vessels in orbit, the clock runs around real time. In my second game, I'm limiting myself to 5 vessels maximum. It means progress will take more time in-game, but I will spend way less real time flying ships, and that's the real time sink.

I'm trying to add KSP science region maps to our wiki topics, but none of my JPEG or PNG files are getting uploaded. I fill out the fields and then click **Upload**, but I'm just returned to a blank upload form and no files get uploaded. The upload form ( https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Special:Upload )has a warning at the top: But I see other people have successfully uploaded new file in the past few days. See: https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Special:NewFiles How are they doing this? What is the new process for successfully uploading image files for use in the wiki?

I added it to the wiki a month ago, but was waiting a while before pasting my region map from orbital survey there and then I forgot. https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Gilly#KSP2_Surface_Research_Locations

This issue seems to have been resolved.

If you were just doing Gilly, the lander has almost enough dV to get back to Kerbin all by itself!

I restarted the campaign (woah, I forgot how many million FPS you get at first!) and progressed to Mystery Signal on Minmus and Lil Chonker. I have a fairly typical tech level for this point in the campaign and just unlocked NERVS. So I thought to myself. "Well, let's do both missions at the same time, because Lil Chonk is /totally/ worth the 35 science points reward." (sarcasm). So, got to work with a 260-ton lander with 4 poodles, several reaction wheels (because landers have to be maneuverable) and a couple NERVs for Minmus orbital burns and landing. We don't have landing gear long enough yet to clear poodles, so we're going to use some medium horizontal stabilizers as landing struts instead. Should be fine in the low gravity of Minmus if we touch down softly. 13 mainsails and 12 skinny solid boosters for the launcher, with little rocket engines on top and bottom to safely carry each stage away. And away we go (thanks to K2-D2 for controlling launch profile leaving me to concentrate on rotating the vessel to ensure each asparagus stage could drop cleanly). It turned out that the Kerbin TWR of the lander was about 0.50, which just coincidentally was very close to the TWR of the final stage of the launcher. So this meant I could just perform one continuous burn from LKO to Minmus and the projected trajectory would still be fairly accurate. I'd use up some of my lander mass, but that's why the lander is 260 tons and not 200. I like to put my vessels into polar orbits because it means with enough time I can reach any particular point on the body. This was no different. On reaching Minmus I gave the vessel a high AP and burned to change my inclination to 90 for about 50dV. After settling into a 16 000 m orbit, the landing site was only a few orbits away. This is a completely manual landing, thanks to Micro Engineer that gives you separate readouts for vertical and horizontal velocity. I've come to learn that the ideal burn for landing has you saying "too fast, it's gonna crash, too fast" until about the last 10 seconds. Also look at the pretty green reflected lights on the skin of the lander near the glowy bits! So pretty. Good job KSP2 devs. I had like 4700 dV remaining after the landing. So I scopped up all remaining science on minmus and head back to orbit for a Kerbin return. But, why waste dV on a direct burn when you can gravity assist off the Mun and return back for only 98 dV? Yes, I did that. Landed in the mountains, which I had yet to visit on Kerbin, so performed some science there and recovered the vessel! Yeah. That was TOTALLY worth 35 science points.

@Falki Feature request: When opening the Orbital View window from the taskbar: if any map data is available for the body the current vessel is orbiting, select that body as default. if only one type of map data is available for a body, select that map data type as default. if both region and visual data are available for a body, select the first item as default (visual). If you click "View Map" from a comms part in the Parts menu, this is already done for you. But I frequently open Orbital View from the taskbar instead of browsing parts to open it from the Part menu. Every time I open Orbital View, I have to select my current body, and then select the map type. The clicks add up. This would be a great quality of life improvement for me!

If you fly exactly due south from KSP at Mach 0.8, about 1.5 hours later (mission time) you will end up very close to Kapy Rock. I figured I'd start the campaign over again. So this is my low-tech plane with lander can. The vertical stab is on the underside of the vessel to allow for a peril-free drop. Of course, no Kerbal mission is complete without an explosion. There is an explosion in the video. Almost to Kapy Rock! Video of the approach and drop!

Zhetaan, still absorbing the breadth and depth of what you wrote, but quick note that I really appreciate the time you put into this knowledge transfer. Thank you.

Hey all! I designed a methane/hydrogen space plane with fairly decent seeming flight characteristics. Take off speed around 60 m/s, climbs very quickly to high alt. My current profile is: Climb to 15 000 m ASAP near Mach 1 Lower AOA to about 5 degrees over horizon to gain speed. Progressively lower AOA to 0.5 degrees over horizon as altitude rises. At around 19,500 m when speed begins to drop off from peak of ~1050 m/s, start hydrogen engine and raise AOA back to 4-5 degrees over horizon MEC when AP is at 105 000 m, drop AOA to just follow prograde. Glide above 70 000 m and then circularize. Orbit achieved! My question is, would there be a benefit to having a more ballistic flight profile to sacrifice top speed for altitude before starting the vacuum engines? For example, if I tried to maintain a higher AOA during air-breathing flight, and got up to 24 000 m, but my velocity was only 600 m/s slower, would that potentially save me more dV in the vacuum engines by not burning them at all in the thicker 19 000 m - 24 000 m atmosphere? Youtube video of current flight profile:

Mind-reading sorcery!

@Falki Another decimal point significant digit / units related bug. Have a vertical velocity 1.0 m/s or above. Set vertical velocity to show two significant digits after decimal. Allow vertical velocity to fall below 1.00 m/s. Units should show mm/s, but instead remain at m/s, for example 999.99 m/s. Also happens at the transition between positive/negative values: Have a vertical velocity of 100.0 mm/s. Set vertical velocity to show two significant digits after decimal. Allow vertical velocity to fall below 0.00 mm/s Units should show mm/s, but instead change to m/s, for example -1.00 m/s Coincidentally, the units stay correctly at mm/s crossing the 0 threshold if you do the opposite and climb from a vertical velocity of -100.00 mm/s to a positive velocity for example 100.00 mm/s.

1. With the mod loaded, save the game, and then re-load it. If you also have Microengineer, you should be able to verify that the vessel status should have changed from "landed" to "orbiting" or whatever is reasonable. 2. If that didn't work... you'll have to use a text editor to open one of the savegame files and change the word "Landed" to "Orbital" or "Flying". I saw Matt Lowne do this in one of his youtube videos to fix this problem.

There is a mod that fixes this bug by detecting if any vessel has "landed" status but not near the ground, and fixes it. It's called "Community Fixes". Get it!

Made a jet plane that had the lander can. got really slow near the rock and deployed a bunch of parachutes for a "vertical landing" of the plane.

Yeah. Almost all those structural bits like trusses and girders are only fit use outside of atmospheric conditions, they are extraordinarily draggy.

Fantastic features, Falki!

I got KSP2 when the For Science update came out, and was like "What wobble are they talking about" until it happened to me. Put a rocket on the launch pad, and then kraken came and entire cylinders of my rocket started oscillating backwards and forwards in resonance until it blew up right there on the launch pad. I've since had other experiences where upon loading a game, parts have been moved inside other parts, or a part just randomly snaps off while in orbit, or suddenly a ladder or something that deployed just fine suddenly is "blocked". And my 10-kerbal-to-Eve craft shook itself to pieces in orbit as well.

Framerate in KSP2 is rarely a function of your video card, and more a function of the highest clock speed your CPU can achieve with a single core. Pause the game -- if your framerate is suddenly much faster, then you know it's the CPU calculations slowing things down and not your video card.