Carraux

You will have both versions in your game directory. KSP.exe is the 32 bit version, KSP_x64.exe the 64 bit version. It's all your choice, no auto detect.

I understand that Early Access was neccessary to get the funding done. The team was small (and absolutely inexperienced in software developmant and game design) but passionate. If Early Access pours in the money (and it did), Squad was able to surve the time of development and it would have gave them the opportunity to hire additional professionals to get the job done. Professionals like design and render artists, sound artists and & engineers, experienced developers and - for me one keypoint - game designers. But they didn't... Never. And that saddens me. The game showed really high potential. But they were never able to make this dream come true. It's still half finished beginner's work. I wish, I could see a KSP version made by a professional team.

Up to mid 2015, Squad had sold over one million copies of KSP over Steam alone. Considering, that we have 2016 now and that they sell the game over their website too, I think it is fair to estimate the total number of sold copies up to 2 million (possibly more). Game costs now 40 bucks (I bought it for 20), so the total revenue should be around... ...more than 50 million US dollars.

My usual KSP session last for about 2-4 hours. KSP crashes at least once in a session.

The never hired professionals, as far as I know. And I doubt that they ever will. This is harvester's baby. All and alone.

I cannot stand seeing a Kerbal dying. My space program does not tolerate deaths. If one dies, I delete the save and start from scratch.

That's absolutely unfair. Like eating tacos in front of hungry Jebediah.

Your can try one or all of the following tricks: - Use some SAS! So MechJeb & Co aren't forced to gimbal for every minor wobble. - The amount of wobble is usually determined by how much your command core wobbles (or any other part with "Command From Here" set). And the rocket wobbles around its center of mass, which means that the amount of wobble for a part is the higher the more away it is away from the center. If you move the command core near the center of mass, the core wobbles less and therefore initiate less counter steering. A good place could be right above the center engine of the 2nd stage (between engine and tank) - If you use MechJeb then be informed that MechJeb tends to oversteer on large & sluggish rockets. On launch pad, open MechJeb's attitude menu (2nd from top) and change the following values: Tf range min/max from [0.1/0.5] to [0.01/0.15] Kp from 3 to 30 Ki from 6 to 60 I hope, this helps. And remove your 5000 struts...

Look onto the lower side of the tank. Grab an engine. Change symmetry count to 5 (or whatever you need) and hover the engine over the lower side of your tank between center point and edge, Place them, where it fits your need/design.

Bobcat's Soviet Engine Pack is one of my favorite addons for RO. Why it is becoming depreciated? Is there noone to care about? It would be a shame if we loose this mod.

I have restarted CKAN, of course. The mods were still marked as "AD". But restarting Windows helped. So, thanks for the tip.

Okay, thank you.

ALCOR is a really great pod:

I made a clean install of KSP and thought it would be cool to try the prerelease stuff. Nice work so far, but... .. after realizing that my most beloved mods (RSS & RO) were gone I was wondering: Do RSS & RO not work at all under 1.1 (pre release) so I should not even think on trying to install them? Ot do they work well or is the fun rather limited?

So, what you basically say is, that your rocket flips, because KSP doesn't simulate mass real life distribution and consumption, but instead implements a simplified behaviour. And that your rocket wouldn't flip, if KSP would simulate this in a more realistic way. To be honest: I doubt that, I really doubt that this is the reason, If you look on how the center of mass shifts during fuel consumption and you look on the whole rocket (including engines and payload), the difference is not that much between KSP and real life. In fact, I think it is neglectable. And therefore: I believe that your rocket will still flip, even if KSP would simulate this as real life behaves. A rocket has to overcome a lot of hurdles, from center of mass shifting to loosing mass (continously and sudden) to athmosperic stress and so on. If a rocket can cope with this, it should also cope with the difference in mass shifting and reduction between these two simulation models. This lies well within range. Usually, a rocket flips, because: * Wrong mass distribition, e.g. very heavy payload on a very tall and sleak rocket. As soon as the gravitiy turn starts, the mass of the payload wins. Shorten your rocket and add boosters instead. * No gimbaling, no reaction wheels. Your rocket needs steering. Either this or add control surfaces. Best: Add all of them. * Gravity turn too soon and/or to origid. In this case athmospheric stresses may be too strong. Make gravity turn later and more gentle. * Too fast too soon. Will build up athmospheric stresses, rocket cannot cope with max. Q. Especially deadly with a gravity turn too soon/too rigid. I have some rocket flipping in career mode in the early game, where solid boosters are the engines to go with. They have no gimballing and usually accelerate too fast. I need a lot of fins. The larger the rockets get, the more stable they fly and gimballing engines prevent a lot. At some point I do not need any fins any more. One problem is, that KSP reduces orbit sizes and gravity. It also reduces engine power but I think, that doesn't fit well together. Small rockets tend to be overpowered (a problem often underestimated). P.S.: May we have a look onto your rocket, please? Maybe the the problem lies elsewhere. P.P.S.: There is a way to simulate fuel consumption and mass shifting very close to real life. You need some mods, though. You should download and install: * Procedural Parts: Tanks in the shape (cylindrical, conic, etc) and in any size you want. No predefined lego-like shapes and sizes. Customize them to your own will. * Real Fuels: Here you have real fuels with real masses. Choose your fuels according to your engine type (now redefined). It also enables the feature to have only one compound in one tank (eg. oxidizer only), so you can stack two tanks (fuel and oxidizer) and have the mass distribtion and fuel consumption like in real life. And if you really think, this is even not real enough, you may also install: * Real Solar system: Real sized solar system * Realism Overhaul: Addon for Real Solar System: All environmental values like those in real life. Real gravity, real engines with real restart limitations and ullage behaviour. Needs the Real Fuels mod. This config is what I usuall play,

Yes, KSP fuel tanks differs from real fuel tanks, but not that much, if you look on one fuel tank only. KSP too drains tank at a constant rate. The difference is that the mass of both fuel and oxidizer are handled as one mass, so when this mass gets burned, the center of mass of the tank will NOT shift. In reality, the COM shifts, because fuel and oxidizer are stored in two different tanks (usually the oxidizer on top) and burned with a different ratio. They also have different mass/volume ratios. So mass is not distributed equally in the stage. On the other hand, this mass shift is not that big, if the tank is empty, its COM should be slightly more at the bottom of the tank, because usually the internal fuel tank is bigger than the one of the oxidizer. In the end, the difference is not that big, I think you can neglect it (we could go even further into detail and look into the difference of a half drained fuel/oxidizer tank getting accelerated (mass at bottom) and floating in space (mass evenly distributed) but I think that this realisitc level of simulation is not needed). But there is a big difference: If you stack several fuel tanks in KSP. Then - yes - the upper tank will be drained first, shifting the COM quite much. But (and this is a big "but"): If you would do this in real life, you would choose the very same drain order for the tanks and would get a very similar shift of the COM. The thing is, that no one does this in RL and that's the point, where your problem may be. Instead of stacking several small tanks, you should choose one big fuel tank instead. Your distribution of mass and the shift of COM then is much, much closer to reality. And if you think, stock KSP is missing some big tanks or you like to have good tank tweaking/design, I strongly recommend you use Procedural Parts.

But the graphics quality could be improved. As I bought the game, the game wasn't finished. Neither was the graphics. What was quite ok for that time. Now with the game being finished, the graphics could get finished too.

[quote name='Scotius']I suspect SQUAD finally hit the 32-bit memory usage border. They still can squeeze some new stuff in, but anyone playing with bigger mods (like part packs or cosmetic overhauls) is pushing it as it is. Add new planets, and we will run out of space for mods. Until 64-bit version arrives, we can't hope for much more content than 1.0.5 gave us already.[/QUOTE] The memory problem wouldn't be a memory problem with a proper implemented memory manager/texture cache system. This wouldn't be that hard to implement. I think, that with a load-textures-only-on-demand system the memory fingerprint could be reduced to a mere 25-33% of the current load. Currently KSP has more or less the same memory demands as Skyrim...

[quote name='Vermil']Earlier in this thread, in the post that was supposed to be about my 'Angel', I boasted a lot about my 'Vulture' moon rocket. Well here it is, in a more proper presentation. [COLOR=#333333]In my manned pre-v1.0 programs, the single-seat, low-tech CrazyRocket was eventually succeeded by rockets built with much more modern (and bigger) components. I think the 'Eagle' followed directly. It was a failure. It did do some moon missions, three I think, and successfully, but it was really scary to fly and land. It originated as a 3-Kerbal crew, scale-up of the successful CrazyRocket_E lander, but saw substantial changes with every launch. To no avail. It remained dangerous to fly. I went to a clean slate again and designed a spectacular success. I've never had a moon-rocket that was so nimble, stable yet agile, easy to fly, easy to land and impossible to crash, as the Vulture. As the Eagle was essentially 'dead' and the Vulture "ate" it, it got its name. [/COLOR][url]http://i445.photobucket.com/albums/qq176/Vermil_01/Kerbal%20Space%20Program/Vulture%20B_js.jpg[/url] Here is the launch of one of the early Vulture rockets. This is a Vulture_A, identifiable by the smaller, shorter solid booster rockets. [url]http://i445.photobucket.com/albums/qq176/Vermil_01/screenshot191j.jpg[/url] And here is an image of the Vulture in its element, in a very low Mun orbit, looking for a landing site. [url]http://i445.photobucket.com/albums/qq176/Vermil_01/Kerbal%20Space%20Program/screenshot246j.jpg[/url] Looking at the Vulture (pre-v1.0 game) today, here landed on Mun, with a kerbal descending the ladder, seeing how elegant and functional it is, it's a mystery how I came up with its v1.x replacement, the Firebrand (which is rather crude). Did the heat shield really have that much impact? [url]http://i445.photobucket.com/albums/qq176/Vermil_01/Kerbal%20Space%20Program/screenshot253j.jpg[/url] One important feature that the Vulture introduced in my lines of rockets, is the quad landing struts instead of the previous triple. I've never looked back. Quad is much more stable and well worth the added weight.[/QUOTE] Nice lander design! I like it. But is there a reason why it is so... huge? Do you know you can go to Mün with much less?

I flew to nearly every planet and moon in the system by hand. Landed manually w/o any rcs. Docked very massiv payloads on even more massive stations. Saved ships with wrong entry vectors... All by hand. And yes, I am now using MechJeb a lot. Because it give me more spare time to have fun, where the fun really lies (at least, for me. That's of course very subjective). I play rockets only, no planes. I like it very much to design a good rocket (which is at least to build the cheapest and lighest rocket which barely can do its job). During designing process, I test & ascend manually. But if I go "into production", MechJeb takes over. I have launched rockets manually hundreds of times manually into orbit so I do not need to prove anyone (including myself) that I am capable of doing it. MechJeb does the stupid work for me. And I am glad to have it just exactly for these kind of maneuvers. What I like most on MechJeb is, that it is not 100% reliable. I think all the people who do not use MechJeb misses a lot of fun. When MJ screwed up the landing maneuver and I have to take control in the last second to saved the mission... Well it's like Armstrong, isn't it? Wooaaahhh....:) [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] [quote name='Ogcorp CEO']Mechjeb makes KSP too easy, LEARN TO LEARN STUFF BY YOURSELF, people, i do![/QUOTE] KSP makes KSP far too easy. 1/4 the size, 1/4 the gravity. Play RSS. You will have to start again from scratch. :)

I too play with rockets only, so the whole aero branch has the least importance for me. My priorities are on electrical power and additional scientific devices (like Hannu). While trying to get all these I go parallel for radial decouplers (they are a must). With this I can go to Mün. First orbital, than landing. After that, I have enough points to obtain fuel lines and solar panels. Radial decouplers and fuel lines enabling the whole variety of rocket design and solar panels make my rocket power indipendent. After this, unlocking the rest of the branch is easy. Usually I make 2-3 landing trips to Mün and after the first orbital mission arounf Minmus I am able to unlock the science lab. With this I am then generating tech points like hamster poo. Except for aero I unlock the more-or-less whole tech tree without ever going beyond Minmus... <Edit> Docking is needed for me for the science lab (although I could go w/o it). This one I try to get after the fuel lines...

Ok, understood. But the magical mass increase bothers me...

And there is another problem I have, regarding restartable engines: Some of them igniting with a real huge BANG. Sounds cool and for me it's the sign that they used up an ignition. Unfortunately, sometimes I hear this bang, when the engine is shutting off. I have checked it, and indeed it did use up one more ignition. In the worst case, I am only able to use the engine MaxIgnitions/2 times... Is this behaviour intended?

I have a problem concerning the TAC Life Support under RSS/RO: Currently, I am building a space station and I have a LS modulue containing enough water purifier and CO2 scrubber for 12 people. Although station is not finished yet, 2 people are already on board. CO2 scrubbing is fine. But I get a lot of waste water. I mean: A LOT. A quick look showed me that I get an additional 120 liters of waste water per hour(!), Fresh water is not diminishing so the mass of the station grows constantly. I thought, that due to massive recycling my 2500l waste water tank would be enough for 1-2 yeats but now it seems that I have to send a waste carrier each day... Is this a bug of TACLS besides RO (so this would be the wrong thread then) or is RO involved? EDIT: I realized, that I should have read the part description more thoroughly. The CO2 scrubber produces a lot of water in the resulting process. Ok. But mass shouldn't increase, right? And is it really that much water?

Once I had the very same problem. My rocket was using up all rcs fuel by going up and down. Like you, it took me hours to find out, that FAR was still trying to assist me... ...in space... After that, I promised myself to never configure FAR and leave it, as it is. After all, a well placed SAS and MechJeb solves nearly all of my problems during ascend.