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

If I follow correctly. This seems like one of only a very few ways that would work very well. Not to necessarilly use the satellites we create and put into orbit themselves. But to create a subsystem (and perhaps parts / seperate satellites) that would represent a master controller which would be running a tracker of location coordinates, and direction, sunlight, elec, etc of the scanners in question, and kinda...recreate the scanning results those detectors WOULD be giving us, if they were active. And then applying those cumulative results to the kethane saved info. Or somethin' to that effect.

I could. If it were me working on the Kethane mod. My reason would be something like "I just figured I would rather put Kethane out there functionally as it is, and keep it functional to the best of my ability. And work on background scanning and scanning efficiency as I have time for it." The game itself typically isn't made for things to function outside of a very specific, and frankly, very limited set of circumstances including view distance and "active controlled craft". Some craft at some distances simply aren't functioning sometimes. For the time being, I'm kinda grateful. There have been some unbelievably choppy skittering moments in KSPs rather recent past releases. They've made huge strides in playability (FPS, physics CPU / GPU load). Despite envisioning how much more we could enjoy out of this game =) I just don't think it can all happen at once and am grateful to have what I've got as I'm sure everyone else is as well. Getting satellites to function in circumstances beyond what the game is programmed to allow would be a pretty substantial pain I would imagine. And if someone spent a large amount of time creating a work around, I'd hate to see their work become redundant when in another six months SQUAD implements an entirely new and even more efficient way of handling multiple instances of physics events. Hypothetically speaking of course. It would be cool to enjoy something like that in the mean time. But if it took four or five months to get that workaround implemented and de-bugged...I dunno. It might be quite a big project. To get these satellites working around the clock. Triggering scan mode when a particular craft is active is a good idea. I like that. But without multi point rendering of physics for the scanner itself I'm not sure how reliable that would be. Unless the triggering craft is within the 2k deadzone. And if we did get multiple crafts rendered and all physics'd up, would everyones computer handle it? I know many of us are enthusiasts and could handle quite a lot. But with general playability in mind, its going to be quite a thin line that I don't envy anyone for walking =) Great work Majir! Impressed and having a blast with Kethane as always! I just went back and looked at an old spreadsheet file the kethane guys were sharing as their to-do list. And...things have come quite a long way!

This is really awesome! I love old hot-seat style gameplay. Some of my best memories with my little bro were switching turns on old games designed for one player. Really great to see KSP getting some traditional multiplayer time in Can't wait for more of these!

It was on my key chain, then I lost my keys. So, I've lost my snack bar too. But, when I find my keys, in the words of andrew bird...there will be snacks.

I've been wracking my brain trying to think of a design that will work and I think I've got designers block. I've been staring at my own creations for so long I've forgotten what else might exist out in the world of other peoples designs. But first, here is the station I designed and refined down into two parts (not including the fuel tanks which were the most troublesome to get up there with fuel in them), 8 rendezvous launches later we have....The KSS Achaea! Named after an old text based game I used to dump hours and hours into. On two of the radial docking ports you may notice two rovers. Those are my prototype Kethane rovers Mk1 and Mk2. The Mk1 is using a serious ton of direct port RCS valves on the under side to compensate for its "rear first" landing method which will involve what I expect to be a pretty violent last minute nose down. At any rate! I'm dying for some inspiration on how to improve on these designs, the rovers aren't practical at all. Here is a better picture of the rover in the VAB If anyone has any pointers or ideas they'd like to share I would greatly appreciate the input. I'd like to avoid just scavenging other peoples designs. I was hoping to just get a bit of input / reference illustrations about my design if anyone sees something that to their eyes is obviously going to be trouble for me. Oh! I might add that the launch vehicle + whatever I'm putting up into space has been on average around 375 parts.... I need a much more part efficient launch vehicle. I'm expecting jet engines to be a necessity for future launch vehicles of mine Minimalist mods: b9 (most recent version) Kethane (Majirs awesome 20.2 Kethane resource mod) [Thank you, which ever moderator added the "Modcraft" tag that I forgot. =) ]

Just wanted to drop in and say THANK YOU! I have been checking in at least once or twice a day on your progress Majir. Patiently I might add. I know you work on this plug-in voluntarily and for practically nothing. But I just wanted to help make it clear that for every 1 person out there being impatient and ungrateful there are ten of us who dearly appreciate your effort and will continue to patiently wait for your updates, and support your efforts to improve upon the KSP experience. If they recruit coders like I've heard rumor of the guys at squad doing, I'd definitely support your addition to the crew I was looking over one of the original spreadsheet google docs that was tracking kethane development and couldn't help but appreciate the scope of the project you've taken on Keep up the great work!

Here is how I fix structure rigidity problems from length. The plates can be added or removed for convenience in placing the struts. The whole thing can be repeated to increase the weight distribution if necessary Remember that off-center radial connections (like those struts. or fuel lines) will cause "spin"

Hi everyone! My name is Caleb. I'm 28 years old, I live in Texas. Being so relatively close to Mexico City I'm always thinking about how easy it would be to visit KSPs birthplace. Maybe one day Before KSP I had no idea how "rocket science" worked. I had a pretty above-average understanding of ballistics, but never really had any interest in space travel. But KSP has really hooked me on how awesome it can be! I'm a pretty humble and patient person. Many people say I'd make a great lawyer because I can (and often do) argue multiple sides of any situation effectively and convincingly if given the time to. Lots of people here seem impatient and ungrateful for something that as far as I can tell, they probably shouldn't expect anyway. I know that many things can be implied and sometimes we put our trust in a source, and allow expectations to be created... but KSP is the Devs project. Not ours, despite however passionately we may feel about the subject of financial support of its development. I'm grateful to be a part of the process in any way shape or form. Too few people seem to feel the same way. Its always the angry people who talk the loudest. I do my best to life my life to the contrary, despite how bitter and world-weary many of my views can be. lol Try and take it easy on the Devs guys. They're providing (whether we like how or not) easily one of the coolest things many of us have seen come out of indie gaming in quite a while. So thats me! Caleb. GateCrasherVI. Rocket 'sploder 'xtrodinaire. Excited to be here! Hopefully helping to represent those of us excited to be a part of KSP Keep up the great work SQUAD!