Scarecrow71

There are multiple mods that can help you here. Flight Plan Maneuver Node Controller K2D2 Interplanetary Calculator MapView Focus and Targeting

There are several reports about warping under acceleration not being accurate. Which needs to get fixed before interstellar comes online.

I attempted to edit the JSON autosave file this morning, change the value of the Temperature tags for the OKTO and the cargo bay involved. No dice; the temperatures were immediately reverted back to their pre-edit values. This tells me that something else is going on here, and I don't know what that is OR how to correct it by editing files. This is a bug that really needs to be checked and taken care of. A link to the JSON file on my Google Drive: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ONknS1x6FFn61sX-XE6IFwUoVkrtt-8H/view?usp=sharing A link to the META file on my Google Drive: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z22D4O0uUGI7raIfCwPxTNbKAQResktU/view?usp=sharing

Still working on the orbital build to go to Duna. Yes, I know, I could probably do this in one launch. But I'm lacking some needed parts, and this gives me a chance to practice docking and building in orbit and such. Anyhow, I was able to get a second power arm attached to the Sekhmet I hub, as well as a communications hub. Two images: The first image is what we have in orbit currently, while the second image is a sneak peek inside the fairing at the end of the communications hub. For the first time in playing this game - over 1000 hours in KSP1, and 200+ in KSP2 - I used an engine mount. I wanted to have an antenna of some kind at the far end of the truss, but I needed to have a fuel tank and an engine to get this up there. I also needed to move the fuel from the existing spare tank to a new one (the existing spare tank is where the actual fuel tanks/engines for the interplanetary flight are going to be), so I used an engine mount to "hide" the antenna and keep the ability to have other parts on the thing. Once docked, I moved the fuel from the existing tank to the new one at the end of the communications hub, and then quick-saved so I could jettison that fairing to give a show of what it will look like. Gotta say that the engine mount is going to be getting some serious use in the future from me! I have but 2 gripes with this. The Sekhmet I hub wiggles all over the place. It will not stay true to any SAS direction, instead choosing to wobble around said direction. This is making docking difficult, and I'm finding I have to come in a little hot (to the tune of > 5 m/s in order to hit the target dead on). That stupid temperature gauge is annoying. I'm in orbit, not the atmosphere; I shouldn't have an overheated part. I may have to edit the JSON file and adjust the temperature of both the OKTO and the cargo bay it is inside of (I checked yesterday, and both of these are > 200 in spite of being in orbit). I still have to add: Interplanetary fuel tanks and engines A lander module I might add some habitation modules (Wayfarer's) in the event there is a mission to create a space station. Please do NOT spoil that for me; I do not want to know in advance if there is or not! Let it be a surprise!

Not in this case, however. I've tried reloading and restarting the game, both to no avail.

UPDATE: Specific to the issue I reported above with the parts overheating but, despite being in orbit, the temperature gauge doesn't go away. I looked at the JSON file this morning, and I can confirm that the temperature is not being altered once you get to orbit. I have 3 OKTO probes on my current orbital build, and they all have different temperature readings. The 3 values I am seeing in the JSON file are: 107.98793029785156 222.61271474642166 287.09805297851563 I would have expected all three of these readings to be similar, but they are not. All 3 of these OKTO probe cores are contained within a small cargo bay, and all of them were lofted into space in the Cockleshell fairing. I did check the temperature readings of the 3 cargo bays I have on the craft: 114.32187500775198 220.7256515237905 287.09805297851563 As mentioned above, it does not appear that the system is cooling parts off once they are out of the atmosphere. While the craft is moving at orbital speed, it is not under thrust AND it is not in the upper atmosphere (as defined in the game); it's current altitude is ~100km above sea level. Much like in the KSP1, I would have expected the temperature of the parts to drop once reaching orbit (or, at a minimum, once thrust in the atmosphere reduced enough to not produce extreme heat). I can provide a copy of the JSON file from the saved game if necessary.

Have you quit the game and restarted? That sometimes helps. Even quicksave/load might take care of it.

I was trying to hit what you've got there, but I don't think I have enough of the tech tree unlocked yet to do it with a singular launch. Getting to Duna and back should get me the rest of Tier II unlocked (I'll have science from Kerbolar orbit, high in space over Duna, low in space over Duna, atmospheric sample while landing, and Duna surface science). I'm not overly concerned with not getting a singular launch here. This gives me a chance to practice building in orbit!

Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: MapView Focus and Targeting; Flight Plan; Maneuver Node Controller; K2D2; Micro-Engineer; Interplanetary Calculator| Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 11 | CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 3900 12-core | GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Super | RAM: 32G While playing this morning, a probe core inside a closed cargo bay which was inside the Cockleshell fairing started overheating during ascent. Started around 30km, and never stopped. The image below is from LKO at ~100km some 3 days after launch. I've quicksaved and reloaded; no avail. I've exited the game and restarted; no avail. The heat gauge remains even though the craft isn't in an atmosphere (and really shouldn't have overheated to begin with during ascent).

I started working on an interplanetary ship so I could go deal with the Duna signal mission. I tried a few times to build something to just launch from the KSC, but nothing I created ended up with enough dV to get to Duna's surface and back. So I decided to try building something in LKO. I started with a hub (a probe core and a bunch of docking ports), and then sent up the first of two planned power arms (which are just a bunch of solar panels and some batteries). So I give to you the start of Sekhmet I: As stated, there will be another power arm, followed by a communications hub, a fuel hub (the current tank/engine is there currently to swipe any leftover fuel from the hubs that get sent up so I can then transfer that to the real fuel hub once it gets up there), and then a lander. The real downside to this image is the stupid heat gauge that for some reason will not go away in LKO. I've saved, loaded, quicksaved/quickloaded, quit the game and loaded. The thing won't go away. The overheating part? A probe core. When did it start overheating? In the atmosphere...while it was shielded with a fairing. And people say the heat system isn't broken.

That is an excellent suggestion. I will look into this! You should still have plus and minus keys though?

This is an overly-used argument as to the state of the game. And it's pretty darned unfair to hang an opinion about a game based on a singular website's metrics when we have beaten to death the fact that if you don't play on Steam, or you launch the game other than through the Steam launcher, you don't get tracked in the stats. The numbers aren't accurate because data is missing. Strictly your opinion. I agree that it is better; I disagree that it's far from good. I'm liking it, and I think it's good. Can it be better? Yes. But that doesn't mean it isn't good. I cannot argue with you here. While the collection has been streamlined, it's still "Click this button to get the stuff". Again, no argument from me. Some of the bugs that were squashed came back, which is concerning. I have found that I have to turn heat way down and use heat shields far bigger than necessary to prevent overheating upon re-entry. The big issue with this is parts heating up while they are inside fairings and/or otherwise shielded from heat. Again, we cannot rely upon the stats of active players to tell us the story of whether or not the game is good or should be played.

To answer @The Aziz's OP question: yes, I actually do use the truss parts. Mostly when crafting satellites, as I tend to stick batteries, solar panels, and antenna on them. It's a bonus that they strip a lot of weight off of the probe (overall) as this then helps the rocket not be too top-heavy (which helps in preventing it from flipping over during ascent).

I'm using approximately the same profile I used in KSP1: Launch and stay vertical until reaching 95ish m/s speed. TWR is >= 1.5 but <= 2.0 At 95 m/s turn over 10ish degrees east At an actual altitude of 4000 m, turn over 20ish degrees east. Maintain TWR set above When the Ap hits 20km, begin to turn over east until reaching 45 degrees. This step has to be done slowly as craft might flip over if you go too fast When the Ap reaches sub-orbital (>= 70km) turn over east until reaching 20 degrees When the Ap reaches 100km (I generally shoot for 101) kill thrust and turn completely horizontal to ready for circularization burn Keep in mind that I am attempting to maintain a TWR between 1.5 and 2.0 the whole time, but there are times when it dips below or goes over. It's a bit of guesswork with the throttle as there is no "one size fits all" setting. And if I get distracted during launch? Poof! All my plans go out the capsule's viewing port.

For starters, I responded to your sentence(s) in regard to ease of using kerbals vs. probes. Nowhere in what I quoted did you mention a first landing AT ALL. Go re-read what I quoted you on. Secondly, what I gave was an example conversation. Substitute whatever celestial body you want for Mun...or just keep taking what is being stated out of context to prove your own point to yourself.

Which I actually mentioned in my post, had you bothered to read the whole thing. I literally pointed out that we have no idea how many bodies will be in any new system, nor how many will have an atmosphere. Please use the context of my entire post if you are going to try countering it.

I gotta whole-heartedly disagree with you here. Truth be told, I think it might be easier to learn with a Kerbal than with a probe. "So, I landed a probe on the Mun, but I can't take a crew report." "Yeah, they can't do that. Kerbals can, though." "Oh. What about a soil sample?" "Kerbals can do that. Your probe needs an extra piece that you may not have unlocked yet" "Ok. What about planting a flag?" "Another thing the Kerbal can do that the probe can't." "What good are probes if they can't do any of this stuff?" "Um..." Kerbals and probes, due to the lack of life support, have the exact same function in the game. The major difference is that Kerbals can do stuff that probes either can't OR need extra parts to do. Far easier to learn with a Kerbal than with a probe.

In the current iteration of KSP2, I agree. There are only 4 bodies that have an atmosphere - Eve, Kerbin, Duna, and Laythe - so having an aerobraking tool would become useless rather fast. Once you try to use the maneuver on a given body a second or third time you will probably never use it again for that body. I could be wrong and someone else's mileage may vary, but I can't see it being very useful after the first time it is used. Now, once we get to interstellar...could be a different story. We have no clue how many other celestial bodies will have an atmosphere, or what kind of atmosphere they will have. An aerobraking tool may be useful there...but again, the amount of use may be limited.

Agreed. While there may be times I'm in the mood to follow the American or Russian or Japanese space program, the game is called KERBAL Space Program. Not "History of Real World Space Flight" or some such. Let me define how my program works.

To expand on what I wrote above, here's the list of mods I use to go interplanetary: MapView Focus and Targeting. Shameless plug, but things get too cluttered when trying to select an actual celestial body without this. Transfer Window. Once you have the target selected, this little beauty shows you the current phase angle, target phase angle, and the projected dV needed (might not always be 100% accurate). It then lets you warp to the transfer window...although it sometimes overshoots the angle by 1/10 of a degree. Flight Plan. Similar to MechJeb in that it can create the maneuver node for you. Maneuver Node Controller. Allows tweaking of said node in small increments. K2D2. Similar to MechJeb's "Execute Node" function. I trust it implicitly for burns...although using it for landing isn't recommended (there are known issues with landing using this mod, so son, you're on your own with that). Here are links to the forum threads (in spoiler!) for all of these: For the actual dV requirements, as has been mentioned, the existing maps and calculators for KSP1 are still applicable.

I don't trust KSP2's ability to correctly calculate dV in the VAB (or anywhere else in-game, for that matter). I consistently have seen where the VAB will calculate one value, then at launch I'll see something else, then if I reload the game I get completely different values. I think there is a floating decimal point error somewhere in the math, but I'm not a dev so that's just a wild speculative guess. If some is good more must be better, right? If that's the case, go with the cockatoo and bring all the kerbals!

Not sure if it was mentioned in this thread (I did read it, so sorry if I missed it), but what docking port is having this issue? In a sandbox game I have where I'm trying to build a massive space station, I am using the large flat docking port (forgot the name of it), and I have had no issues with decoupling, docking, undocking, redocking, etc. But I have noticed that when I use the Clamp-O-Tron (the larger of the 2 with this name) I do sometimes have issues with it not realizing it should be able to dock but isn't. Just a thought?

So, this may be either an unpopular opinion OR it may be just my singularly-eyed view of the Kerbal world (korld?). But there is something in KSP2 that just bothers me, and it's a problem I've faced since the very first days I picked up KSP1: building vertically vs. building horizontally. Let me explain. In order to get out of a planet's atmosphere, you have to build vertically. Long, thin, spindly...whatever term you wish to use, we have to build that. Due to aerodynamics, we have to produce ships that reduce as much drag as possible so as to reach more optimal speeds, with better gravity turns, and then easier time to get into orbit. This is true in early game stages such as initial lift-offs from Kerbin, but then is really noticeable during late game when you are attempting to get out of the soup that is Eve's atmosphere. Even Duna's atmosphere can produce some drag, so building vertically is needed. The problem comes with landing on a celestial body, and this is where I am really bothered with how KSP (both 1 and 2) handle things. In order to land properly, and to insure you don't trip over yourself and not knock a lander over, you have to have a wide base. Or, you have to have built horizontally. This is especially noticeable when you don't have mapping techniques in play to show you where the flat pieces of terrain are, such as if you are landing in a crater on the Mun or on one of Eve's mountains. Heck, even dropping into Laythe's ocean you should have a wide base so as to displace enough water to keep your craft bouyant and floatable. Both of these building techniques are, technically, do-able in KSP. The problem is that KSP (again, both 1 and 2) doesn't seem to encourage horizontal building. All of the parts/pieces are designed to be stacked upon one another, and the game physics punish you for trying to build outwards. Either fairings end up too janky or heavy, or you have to over-strut things. Sometimes the CoM ends up being a problem and ships flip during ascent, or you can't ever seem to get enough thrust to even get off the ground. Or you produce so much drag that you can't possibly fly. Yes, I am aware that some of these may simply be a result of not using large enough engines or some such; don't harsh on me for that as I am aware that not everything that happens is a result of the game itself but is, at times, a result of incorrect builds. Again, the game encourages vertical builds. The parts aren't really designed to go outwards from the center, but rather upwards in a stack. It's actually pretty darned limiting when it comes to building because you can't be as creative as you want to be because you simply cannot put part A onto part B in configuration C to create ship D. Please don't ask me for specific examples; I simply am not going to go through every single part and list out how I want them to interact. I am trying to make a general point/observation here. Maybe it's me? Maybe I'm not capable of seeing a larger picture here? But I can't help but have this feeling that building horizontally is sorely lacking in the game, which limits our ability to really stretch our imaginations and build some wacky stuff.

Well, it was intended to be a joke about how difficult precision landing is, coupled with how quickly KSP2 thinks people can do it. But it was not as funny as I thought it would be.

Wait. Precision landing exists? I gotta tell that to the Kerbonauts.