Temeter

Probably. Airhogging doesn't only work functionally, it also doesn't make much sense since the engines now have a capped speed. Intakes, on the other hand, will now add lots of drag.

You don't need als those parts after 1.0.2. Just don't put your nukes (or the tanks they're attached to) on struts and interplanetary ships should be able to do 3k dv burns without even getting close to overheating. Btw, LVNs survive up to 2500 Kelvin.

Electricity isn't that important, as long as your engines have alternators/thrust vectoring and you bring a minimum of RCS+monopropellant. I already completed a duna mission where I forgot to include solar panels and couldn't power my reaction wheels. The RCS of my lander was enough to initiate all burns and course corrections with lots of monoprop left (includinging the docking maneuver they were added for).

Is this one of those 'i'm too bad to deal with simple game mechanics, so i'm gonna call them broken and cry for a fix' threads?

That question is easily solved by another question: Can you eat an SSTO? Thus the superiority of the hotdog has been proven.

Then it's a bug. 14 Thrust is 100% kerbin atmosphere.

Of course, tbh I can't imagine they''ll get those numbers, even if it's be possible. Just an interesting contrast.

Funnily enough, the Skylon concept is quite a bit higher with 4.5%.

Increase of D/V to 1.0 is around 100 delta-v, which results around ~3400dv to orbit. Old stock was 4500dv, and the engine nerfs compensate that change in no way. Still easier than ever before to get to orbit. You did get to space earliers, so why is this suddenly a problem? Just because it was a tiny bit easier at one point?

So that explains my 2 OoM crahes. Rather strange, especially since stock 1.0 is actually smaller than 0.9 thanks to fixes and magic textures. Have to say tho, I love the gauges and heat effects. Those tools are incredible usefull. Wonder how the construction aero overlay will turn out. edit: Almost 100mb per second on a ok-sized hot ship. Only gauges, heat coloration works fine.

I like the mode because it's a bit of a throwback. Bulding rockets with much more primitive equipment and other limitations is a nice challenge.

1.0 was fun, but it hampered plane construction. There wasn't much difference between a good and a bad plane, even at multiple mach speed at ground level. So 1.0.1 for me, even though i'm not a fan of how the planes feel a slight bit more sluggish than before (that's including not-terrible-planes). As I wrote in another thread, to me the one huge advantage of 1.0 was the SAS/timewarp-stability of planes.

The only thing I don't like about the aero update is that it makes planes less stable due to increased drag/lift. Stable in the sense of wobbly wings/radial sections, especially with SAS/timewarp. On the other hand the construction of an air plane makes more of a difference now, in the original 1.0 almost every plane felt ultra stable (here aerodynamically speaking). In that case you'd have stock FAR integration. And FAR is imo a fantastic mod, but it's definitively not the right thing for stock KSP. The new Aero is a compromiss: It has to be restrictive enough to allow and to some degree necessitate depth in plane construction, but it has to be lenient enough so you can still throw bricks into the sky, provided enough fuel and some special lifters. Of course that's a hard thing to do, there is no right balance. A realistic aero on the other hand 'only' needs to worry about being as realistic as possible.

I would just mine the launchpad for xenon.

Yeah, efficiently controlling the drill based on experience actually makes sense, too. Especially since this is supposed high performance equipment that can extract enough material to fill fuel tanks. Anyone else thinking of Armageddon?^^'

That sounds a lot more as if the implementation (balancing?) of radiators is more complex, not the actual usage.

Heat shields are heavy, I think the 2.5m one weighs 1.8 tons with full ablator.

I've actually seen the LV-909 effect: It only appears when the engine gets hot, and then it stays there for a while. The latter part is actually cool, since it makes sense when an engine needs a while to cool off. What the engines really need are two states: One when they run at low heat and another one when they are actually hot.

Max Maps commented on it, here from the squadcast summary:

That's a bug. But one which doesn't really change anything since your chute would burn up anyway on actual deployment.

I thought so, word was it's in the debug menu (like the overlays you can toggle with F10 to F12). Nothing there, though, also not mentined in patch logs.

Use the aerodynamic overlay, F12. Blue arrow means lift, and if, for some reasons, the upper part of your rocket creates (body) lift during flight, then your rocket will spin out fast. One way to deal with it is to lower the center of lift during flight, notably by putting fins on the end of a rocket.

Not if you keep in mind we're talking about KSP, where repurposing is a very vaild gameplay-concept. Getting actual fuel tanks is a small upgrade, as are lots of parts in the new tech tree.

According to the patchlogs, the old overheating system seems to be removed and replaced by the new heat system. Maybe the glow now only occurs when the real part temperature rises? You can check heat with F10/F11.

This is about an original craft. I noticed the issue in a rather intuitive craft, so it was easy to experiment and recreated the steps leading to the bug. This, or at least the symptoms, are a frustrating isse, which has, including many earlier versions, destroyed some ships i spend up to an hour building without saving. Most ships with these earlier issues included symmetrically placed parts and struts, so I assume the problems is based on a similar behaviour. KSP Version: v1.0.2.842 Windows 64-bit Bug, or similar symptoms, were found in versions reaching at least as as far as 0.23, probably older. As for my PC, that was before a hardware wipe. Mods / Add-Ons: All Stock Steps to Replicate: I picked parts unrelated to the craft I identified the original issue, and all parts can be interchanged. For simplicity, I restrict myself to a Modular Girder Segment XL and struts (not that it got simpler with all the girders, so I numbered them). This works in a new vanilla save, issue occurs regardless of gamemode: 1) Go into VAB, I used radial angle snap in all cases (not sure if matters). 2) Use a Modular Girder Segment XL (1) as central core. 3) Radially place another single Girder XL (2). 4) Now radially place two Girder XLs on Girder XL (2) using radial simmetry. 5) Do the same with two struts, connecting Girder XL (2) with it's radial Girders. 6) Now pick up and place Girder XL (2) back to Girder XL (1), this time in symmetry. Sometimes 2-times symmetry does not creat the bug, higher symmetry counts are more reliable. The debug log shows a NullReferenceException when it is reproduced. Edit: This can be done with placing a single girder and strut in step 4 and 5. What Happens: Now the bugged part can't be placed. Putting the greyed out part besides the craft starts their obvious bugged behaviour: These parts can be clicked, but will move the whole ship, so there is no way to remove them. Parts can be placed on them. This is the simplest version, issues increase when complexity of the situation increase. E.g. instead stacking another Girder XL on the central and reproducing the bug on it instead of the core piece allows you to remove it, including the bugged parts, but sometimes leave their nodes remaining in the VAB, even when starting a new vessel. At times you'll get an infinite spam of null reference exceptions. Other situations result in actually parts placed where you wanted them, additional to the ghost parts, but often in a variety of bugged states. In some cases this can lead to all buttons in the VAB not reacting anymore, requiring quitting the game via task manager. Other Notes/Pictures/Log Files: Picture link (three pics+description, album doesn't for for me): http://imgur.com/ML6YRJ1,b5q5KLw,VCPFajR#0