Eric S

That is one of the things they did, there were other things that were done to improve memory consumption. There's also other improvements and UI changes that weren't even mentioned in the patch notes, at least one long-standing bug got fixed, etc.

Hmmmm.... maybe uninstall and reinstall? I only suggest this because I'm having no problems, and I always do my updates (non-steam) as a fresh install. Rename the old directory from "KSP" to "KSP-[version]", unzip the new version, then rename it KSP. I then copy/paste any save files I want to transfer over, so if things blow up, I can always go back to the previous version to finish up my missions and/or wait for fixes.

From what I've seen, if you build something and then move it, it can only attach by the same part, so I'm guessing that probe was built from the bottom xenon tank up.

Definitely sounds like the way to do it. Just waiting won't help, since the in-place satellite is orbiting at the same rate of rotation as the planet, so it isn't moving (relative to the planet).

True story: It was once predicted that there would be no more than one million automobiles at a time in the US. The reasoning was sound, but forgot to take the way the future changes into account. The reasoning was because they estimated that not more than one million people would want to become chauffeurs, and at that time, operating an automobile was more of a job than something you just did to support what you normally otherwise did. Did they learn from that? Nope, "they" (whoever they are) also predicted a seriously smaller market for computers of all types. Even as straight forward as cars are to drive now, they're still improving. We've got autoparking cars, and there are states already considering licensing Google's self-driving car.

It would be nice, I was experimenting last night and was stuck with either having to throttle down a mainsail or have a less efficient lift because of inadequate TWR.

Probably the same issue that's caused problems elsewhere, try adding scale=1 to the config file.

I haven't tested it, but it's been posted elsewhere. in addition to rescaleFactor=1.25, you need to set scale=1 if I remember correctly.

Nope. I'm using maneuver nodes more and more, even with those tools. It lets me pull off missions with tighter delta-v budgets. True story, on my last trip to/from Duna, I wouldn't have made it back if I had trusted Protractor because I had used the wrong number for the delta-v to reach low duna orbit from the surface. Because I checked it's answer with a maneuver node, I realized that it was transferring me weeks early for an optimal tranfer which would have resulted in needing a course correction that was larger than my remaining fuel. By playing with maneuver nodes, I usually wind up with much smaller course corrections and much more accurate arrivals. Protractor is only an approximation in most cases, since Kerbin is the only planet with a circular orbit, and Protractor doesn't compensate for that.

The transfer isn't where you save delta-v from getting a precise transfer orbit, it's the capture. If your transfer is accurate enough that you don't need to adjust your periapsis, then you save all the fuel you would have spent wrangling your periapsis where you want it.

This rubs me the wrong way (as do some of the others, for the same or similar reasons). It's possible that something in this category may use a support file of some sort. Not to mention the fact that this would prohibit READMEs. It also means that they'd need to make sure the server implements transparent compression, as some people still live in the world of metered internet usage, and downloading uncompressed stuff would be less than optimal.

Depends very much on my mood and how much excess delta-v I've got.

It is. With FAR enabled, normal aerodynamic drag is removed, so MechJeb can't compute the terminal velocity and goes all out, the same way it would on an airless body.

Moreover, from what I can tell, the forums don't actually allow for storage of the files. The only craft file that I uploaded to starport was done because someone else asked for it, and only after I tested the forums to make sure that the craft file was too large to post it there. Really, that forum is a place to advertise craft files that are located elsewhere, and because of limitations on message sizes and attachments, that's all it can be.

Hi there. steps 1-3 sound fine, but there's a bit more to it. As you get more velocity, you want to pitch over farther so that more of your thrust goes into orbital velocity, and less of it goes into pure altitude. It sounds like what is happening is that when you reach your apoapsis, you have to burn too much in order to raise your periapsis, which in turn raises your apoapsis farther. Basically, the longer you have to burn around your apoapsis, the longer you're burning while not at the apoapsis, which affects both the periapsis and apoapsis. However, if you continue your gravity turn gradually, you'll find you don't reach your apoapsis as quickly, but you have to burn less in order to get your periapsis outside the atmosphere. Turn to 45 degrees, but then slowly continue to turn closer to horizontal as you gain speed and altitude. If you turn too fast, you lose a lot of your energy to air resistance, but as you get past 10km altitude, that diminishes rapidly. If you don't turn fast enough, you'll find yourself hitting your apoapsis before you've built up much orbital velocity. So watch for that and adjust your turn speed. Doing this should get your initial orbit closer to circular, but you'll still need to learn how to tweak it, as the other posts have said. It's also possible that your gravity turn is fine and you're burning too long at apoapsis, but given your description, a gravity turn that isn't aggressive enough is a much more likely culprit.

I'm not in favor of removing .craft files from Spaceport, but absolutely agree to the rest of this, including having some way to search for mods only, not .craft files. Maybe a little automated assist, like stripping certain flags off of .craft-only mods. I've seen a few where the uploader checks off every type of part they used, and that's just not right. Not sure what other automated checking could be done, but even minimal checking is better than what we've got now.

Grats :-) All good steps forward.

Minor update on that, the version of unity in 0.18.3 and later does use SSE instead of x87 FPU instructions. This is probably where the improvement that some people saw in 0.18.4 over 0.18.2, but it wasn't as significant an improvement as I had hoped.

Largest fueltank I'm aware of in any mod is 6.25m, and I can't remember if that's in NovaPunch or KW Rocketry. Definitely one or the other.

Know the feeling, my grand tour developed mystery spin at my first stop (Moho). Fortunately, I was able to determine which section was causing it and send out a replacement. Turns out my drive section needed fewer struts.

My testing in FAR was reaching orbit in the 3200-3500 delta-V if I remember correctly. Quite a bit less than without it. Mind you, even after trying to make things aerodynamic, a few of my monstrosities were still taking 4200 delta-V.

My general rule, which I only apply to myself, is no part clipping functional items inside other functional items. I'm fine with part clipping structural parts, but when it comes down to things like clipping engines inside fuel tanks, that pushes my suspension of disbelief just a little too far.

A little bit of the first three options. If I can drop something suborbital, I do. If I take it into orbit, I'll usually have a probe engine on it with enough fuel to deorbit, or sepratrons. For those cases that that doesn't happen (especially for the amount of debris around the launch pad on my testing save), I've got a powershell script that deletes all the debris.

Fairing Factory would be my suggestion if you want something customizable. Some of the mod packs also have fairings. Either KW Rocketry or NovaPunch does, maybe both. One of the SpaceX falcon mods has fairings, as does the CORE rocketry mod.

If I remember right, the Principia Mathematica spent 900 pages working up to the proof that 1 + 1 = 2, and still got criticized for being incomplete. Admittedtly, the critics were using a different standard of complete.