GateCrasherVI

I will never forget KSP or what it facilitated in me learning for the rest of my life. Coupled with youtube and wikipedia (and countless old real-world rocket science webpages) KSP shone a light on something that had always been a miserable experience for me. Math! I never had anything that I cared about relating abstract mathematic principles to, and no one to offer cool things that the numbers could correlate to. I later found myself calculating real world fuel and rocket efficiencies. I forced myself to do my first moon landing / docking mission manually, pre-planned on pen and paper. I built many space stations throughout development of KSP prior to release after that first success was behind me. And through my new passion for space I saw the International Space Station pass overhead one evening for the first time in my life and it broke me in the best way to have experienced just a little of the magic we're capable of through this obtuse tool of numbers and math. I honestly don't think I would've ever become as interested in space, orbital mechanics, and rocket science like I have since discovering KSP. I remember mentioning on facebook how much I hated math in school and what a nightmare it was for my family when math homework came home with me from school, and Felipe mentioning he'd had very similar experience in school. It turns out that many of us who thought we were just terrible at math in general just needed to find the right way to relate to the values and interactions and can actually be really good at particular calculations. I don't know if I can ever fully express my appreciation for what the KSP team (new additions sourced from the community and old founding members) has given me. In a way, it gave me a new lease on an area of higher learning. It's right up there with the rudimentary electronic engineering practice of MC, or the computer aided drafting practice in Doom2 level editors. But I'll wrap this message of well wishes upon your departure from the project up with this... Thank you so very much! Rest well knowing KSP sits in an all-time hall of fame for fun yet educational gaming experiences I hope your new interests are met with all the exciting fulfillment of players' first orbital docking.

I'm here to report the same issue. Substantial framerate drop (from 60fps vsync max settings down to ~20fps) in fully upgraded VAB. I say the fully upgraded VAB because I don't seem to have as much trouble in the teir1 VAB in career mode. 'Will try the suggested toggling off of "VAB crew" and hopefully it'll be a functional work-a-round for the time being.

I just wanted to stop in to both confirm this as a continuing issue and reiterate one of the solutions I (and others) have discovered since the problem just happened to me a little while ago and made me question my sanity. Problem: Upon opening KSP, many settings.cfg parameters revert to undesired settings. Changes applied manually (via editing the file contents) don't stay and was immediately recognizable as unresolved since the resolution kept changing itself back to windowed and a different aspect ratio. Solution: Plug your joystick back in and re-open KSP =) Settings changes now began to save and reload properly Causes: This part is pure speculation on my part given my admittedly casual scripting / troubleshooting experience. As others have said, something to do with the way KSP recognizes controllers / joysticks configured as part of the games settings (including keybindings) will throw up a false flag "error" of sorts, and - seemingly as a compatibility safety feature for settings conflicts - it reverts to some other settings.

Has anyone happened to have compiled the instructions and file "key" (which textures go where and what they're names outta look like) into something like a PDF? I may go ahead and get this done if I have the time just for ease of offline use without ugly "save webpage"s which never look as good as the original thread & site.

'Been using your skybox for a long while in my "cinematic KSP instance" and it's still my favorite. You're work with Nassault is wonderful! Someone recently shared the link to this thread with me so I decided I'd show a bit of support for some of the coolest artwork. It has been in large part the inspiration for my getting into video editing and hopefully soon 3d modeling. I finished my first real attempt at a short story in KSP I made as a christmas card for my little brother. You're truly one of my best creative inspirations! =)

[Checked if this was mentioned already in the "Things Already Suggested" thread since missions have been a thing for a little while now but saw no evidence of it. If I missed it somewhere, I apologize.] I think contract goals could do with larger multi-part missions that involve activities from numerous of the currently available contracts. I think there is an impressive variety of things to do in there. Navigating through the contracts based on difficulty stars and part names feels a little tedious and obscure.Perhaps the interface for missions could categorize them into side-tabs like 0.90 uses for part categories in the assembly buildings. Categories something like this; Science "Tasks" / "Contracts" Various Data Collection Exploration Tasks Rescue Explore Area Flag Planting Equipment Tasks Part testing Space Missions Forward (Surface) Outpost Extra-Kerbin Satellites Rover Deployment Space Station I like the depth of some of the 2 and 3 star missions, but with the current difficulty indicators of 1, 2, and 3 stars the contract office UI feels a bit more like a grocery shopping-list than glorious 'asplodey space programs aspirations. Maybe even some color-coding of difficulties would help know whats what. But things are already getting kinda busy in the icon department of KSP with all the new resources and currency. These categories could give a more obviously rewarding long term goal as well as smaller tasks to keep you busy while you work your way up to the giant leaps. Maybe the larger Space Missions could have subcategories of contracts which effect the overall performance of the mission but don't dictate its success or failure.

Isn't a T30 with lower ISP and gimbaling basically just a T45?

Hey all! I imagine this has been covered before. And I've also read my fair share of relative forum posts, but I was kinda hoping to get some input and perhaps write up a specific run-down of events and the corresponding calculations. So, lemme get to the point. How does one plan their lander / rover missions? More specifically, I'm wanting to know how to most efficiently calculate the minimum TWR and DeltaV necessary so that the most efficient process is the starting point. We're all familiar with the whole "MOAR THRUST!!" approach to getting things done, or simple trial and error and rough estimation. Lots of fun to be had there. Some of what I want to include in this "Guide to Mission Requirements" are things like... Start backwards with the result you want, for example, "a vehicle landed safely on the surface of a planet or moon", instead of just building the whole thing, from bottom to top all at once in a single go. (Trial and error, might is right. ) Calculate the TWR & DeltaV necessary to get that vehicle home safely. Total the mass of both lander and return-flight stage and use that for the basis of initial launch vehicle minimum requirement. If using LOR ("lunar orbit rendezvous" like apollo was famous for having utilized courtesy of support from John Houbolt ) then calculate "time spent in orbital darkness" for after desired insertion / circularization. A nifty calculation that uses a great many of the basic equations necessary for this kind of rudimentary space flight planning. Through this you can make a considerably accurate estimate of battery life and solar recharging rate requirements. Especially handy for maintaining life-support and kethane scanners operational. With lander, and return vehicle mass now calculate the minimum required TWR and DeltaV for atmospheric escape, circularization, and hohmann transfer and stage the launch vehicle accordingly. Maybe this is going a little too far with things for some people. I just think it'd be cool to have as simple a break-down as possible for say, Minmus and or the Mun, for KSP'ers like my son. I'm just kinda curious if I'm missing anything, or if anyone has a point in the right direction to this already done to some extent.

I've used this a few times, but I thought I'd have access to the GUI I vaguely remember using before to adjust the cloud layer settings. But this time around (even though I've found and tried the "GUI = keypress N" in various config files, I can't get the GUI to come up if it's still a thing EDIT: UGH! Just saw in an above post, that it's CTRL N not just N.... >.< great! Now I know how I SHOULDA been trying to access it, lol =D

I can't for the life of me find the config file for the clouds, just DLLs and a single config file that only has two lines in it. Am I missing something that is obvious to everyone else? I did kind of install rather carelessly. The clouds on Kerbin are keepin me from spotting "home" when I'm trying to get back and carefully aim where I end up. I can explain exactly what I'm lookin' at on my end if need be. But maybe someone has a clever guess as to why I can't find where to turn down the cloud density I'm hoping. =)

Thanks! Thats what I was using, but because of the other errors, I wasn't sure if it was correct. I had seen the mu or "GM" on the wiki, and figured I could probably reverse-calculate what was used to arrive at the various values for any of the planets and determine what value was being used for G. But really hoped someone would save me from that headache and just confirm through thier own previous successes what the correct G was. It's been so long since highschool, and I've literally not once since then needed to or been inclined to do these kinds of calculations by hand. KSP certainly sparks the most healthy of interests I've seen from a game in a long time. The last time I remember really deconstructing something this real-world applicable, it was the 3d vectoring used in the Doom2 level designer on our old Apple Performa2. =) Good times. Greatly appreciated Padishar!

Thank you so much! Sometimes the numbers are just numbers, I'm sure you know how it goes. I knew it had to be a problem with either exponents or conversion that the actual math was being done properly, and equation was built properly (at least one of the more than one dozen pages of attempts I've written out). I appreciate the time and it'll no doubt be the piece I was missing for all this. EDIT= Also, your 2246 is right on the money. I knew the mu was shown on the website but really hoped to have a value for G so that I'm never stuck saying "Well, I'm not around Kerbin anymore" Can you tell me how the gravitational parameter is derived? I was really hoping to understand enough to me fine no matter where I find myself, as long as I have my calculator, pen, paper, and the basic object data and position.

EDIT: Obviously flawed data in my calculation was pointed out. Can anyone tell me, for sure, what the value for G is in KSP? Defaulting to wiki mu values feels like cheating the last 2% of what has been many weeks of study for me. Anyone passing through that can help illustrate the KSP values for a 100km altitude circular orbit? v^2 = GM (1/a) is the proper equation? v^2 = (1 / 700,000,000 ) for a 100km circular orbit * G (would that be 6.67384x10e-11?) * M (Kerbin = 5.2915793×1022 kg) Does all that check out? Kinda writing that backwards for the sake of reading in the order I'm assuming it would be carried out correctly. Because my result NEVER matches what I can actually pull up and see in-game. And at first, I suspected maybe I need to reduce my result by the speed at which the planet rotates, but when I toggle surface / orbit speed displayed on the nav-ball, it kinda defeats the purpose of that and shows that niether value matches my result. ='( If anyone could ever so kindly, just once show me the definitive correct values for gravity / mass, it's going to spring-board me through calculations I've already theoretically solved, including TWR, orbital period, transfer time and deltaV, orbital darkness period for various planets. I've made tons of progress, all thats missing is accurate data. The math works just fine. But....=( i'm sure you see my point I keep finding crumbs of evidence square root is supposed to be used somewhere in this process but get drastically negative results and haven't the faintest idea of what to do with those values.

Lol, totally agreed. I think finally landing safely on a planet was one of my favorite moments in gaming. I played CONSTANTLY for about a week until I finally made a craft that was almost perfect for touchdown. It probably took me five minutes to stop running around the apartment celebrating and sit back down to get out and run around on the surface

Once orbiting the planet you want to land on, fire rockets retrograde. Or "backwards". You'll start to fall towards the planet. As you fall your prograde marker will point towards where you're going to land, and your retrograde marker will point towards where you came from. Point away from the ground, or better yet, the retrograde marker once you're falling straight down. Then before you hit the ground, fire rockets to slow your fall towards the planet. Time it right and you'll float slowly onto the surface, safe and sound. And thats it! Easy to do, hard to make perfect. Landing gear (activated with the key assigned for "gear", usually G) can make your touchdown a little safer, and more reliably pointing the right way to leave again. Bringing as little weight as possible onto the surface (adding multiple stage rockets) will make leaving again easier. Minmus is generally accepted as the easier of the two to land on. The Mun has considerably more gravity than Minmus. OH! And if bad luck puts your landing on the dark side of the planet, you may want to have brought some batteries, solar panels (for keeping things charged) and LIGHTS If you really want an example picture / craft, I can post one