Mattasmack

I'm really enjoying my career playthrough in Beyond Home. I haven't made it to most planets yet, but the ones I've visited are polished and do, indeed, feel more alive than the stock game or other planet packs I've tried. It makes the game feel new again to this old-timer. That said, I do have a question: after opening the launchpad on Lua, I assumed I'd be able to recover vessels there as well as launch them, but I can't seem to do so. Is that intended behavior, or is there a problem on my end?

Thanks for the insight! Also thanks for the link to Astrogator, I wish I had noticed that mod a couple of years ago. I kind of like the idea of not having a delta-V map. I'm looking for a new solar system to explore, it makes sense that I won't know everything about a planet before I visit it the first time. I'll start building a new modded install of KSP around this planet pack when I get back to my home computer (I've been traveling recently).

Hi all, I just happened across this mod and I'm eager to try it, but I have a few questions about how it plays with other mods / how it's intended to be used first. For context, I've played KSP since 2012, though I've drifted away from it in the past few years and have hardly glanced at the past few releases of the game. I'm drawn to the claim that this mod makes its planets feel alive; the lack of that in stock KSP is, to me, one of its main shortcomings. I'd like to be able to pretend that the kerbals I send out are actually doing things, and that there are things to be done on the planets they go to, but I usually can't suspend my disbelief that far in stock. In the past I've usually played in career mode, since it provides direction and structure to a game, but my last couple of attempts to get back into KSP fizzled when I realized I'd have to grind science from all of my home planet's moon(s)' biomes to unlock enough parts to go interplanetary. It sounds like this mod, with starting space centers on both a planet and its moon, does not intend for there to be an early-career low-tech phase. Does it work well with career mode at all, and if so what's a good way to handle the early tech tree? Is career mode even needed to impose progression on a game in this solar system? Are there other career-mode mods that play well with this planet pack, e.g. Strategia and contract packs, or do they get confused? I like to play with a life support mod and some sort of colonization / off-world construction mod, since these help maintain the belief that my kerbals are doing something in their bases while the game isn't focused on them. I see that this mod supports Kerbalism, but that's more hardcore than I like to get with life support. Does this mod play well with USI life support and colonization mods? Or are there others that would be a better choice here? Are there other mods that folks would recommend to use with this planet pack? Propulsion or other parts packs that prove handy on some of the other worlds? Anything that really enhances the experience? Thanks!

Ah, working as intended in my save then. Thanks!

Am I right in thinking that this mod requires the old KAS (0.6) rather than the new KAS 1.0? I was playing with only the latter installed and wasn't able to connect any SEP experiments to the central station; after I installed the old KAS as well I was able to do so. (I also have a bajillion other mods installed, so I thought I'd ask since it could easily be a conflict somewhere else that caused the behavior.) My understanding is that the old, 0.6 KAS is going to go away soon when the new version is officially released shortly.

I'm interested in seeing how this tech tree turns out! ETT is my preferred tree, but compatibility with CTT would be really nice if it brings compatibility with more mods. I'm curious to see what you do with the early tree for the aircraft branch. I've never gotten far in an aircraft-first career game; there just didn't seem to be enough science available on the home planet to make it practical. I do hope you return to pinwheel-type layout of ETT, though. Once feature I like about ETT is how it puts standalone technologies into their own standalone branches (e.g., antennas get their own branch, and solar panels, solid rocket motors, etc.), and once you've done that I don't think organizing the whole tree into uniform tiers or tech levels makes sense any more -- it sort of makes a false equivalence between totally unrelated techs that happen to be in the same column. Probus's layout really emphasizes that these branches can be tackled in any order.

I've been playing KSP with mods recently (including graphical ones) so maybe I'm remembering stock graphics through rose-colored glasses, but I really didn't think they were so bad as to be deal-breaking. My problem with the planets in KSP has always been how dead they are. As I recall, my reactions to landing on new planets was usually along the lines of "Wow, a new planet/moon, cool ... this place is really desolate ... I wanna go back home! I'm homesick!" Sending bases always seemed kind of depressing, as they were destined to just run out of resources and/or break and be abandoned. (Eventually, every solar panel on an active base/station is likely to be run into!) There would be no lasting impact on the location of the base, and no impact on Kerbin other than some science points. Having things happen on planets to make them seem alive or at least changeable should be helpful -- weather, scatter that indicates the presence of life or even moves, tectonic activity and other things yall have suggested. In my current save I have MKS, KAS/KIS, and ground construction; I hope they will make base-building feel fulfilling rather than empty, though I haven't progressed far enough yet to actually use them. Seeing some change to the planet around the base would make it feel more meaningful -- even if it's just the accumulation of trash, though I'd hope for a more positive impact than that. Having terrain that actually has small-scale features might be helpful too, and it might even make using rovers interesting. Adding more planets is definitely not helpful, if they are just more of the same.

Careful here, it sounds like you're applying real-life logic where you need KSP-logic instead. Radially attached parts produce drag, period**. All that matters drag-wise is how they're angled to the vessel's direction of travel. Location does not matter; you can tuck them under another part for esthetics, but KSP doesn't know that that ought to keep them out of the airstream. In fact, if tucking them under means they present a larger cross-section in the direction of travel, drag will actually be higher. (As an aside, this often comes up when putting solar panels flat on a cone-shaped part like a 1.25m -> 2.5m adapter. In real life, the panels would add almost no drag if laid flat on the underlying part. In KSP-logic, such panels are seen to be angled to the rocket's direction of travel, and they produce significant of drag and lift. The lowest-drag orientation is to make the panels vertical, regardless of the shape of the part they're attached to.) ** (unless contained within a closed service bay, cargo bay, or fairing, of course.) Back in the pre-1.0 souposphere days, aiming for 45 degrees at 10km really was universal, along with an optimal TWR of 2. With the current aerodynamics, the design of the rocket matters much more. If you design your rockets fairly consistently, you might be able to find a single launch profile that works well for all your designs. But others will have different experiences.

I can't see your rocket too clearly in that screenshot but I'd say, yes, it's possible you have that much drag. Radially-attached parts add drag. Size changes between stack-mounted parts (e.g. a .625m engine or decoupler on a 1.25m tank) add drag. It looks like you have lots of both of those. And SRB casings, even after burn-out, are pretty heavy for their size (high ballistic coefficient) so they probably aren't decelerating much in that picture. Johnny Wishbone's advice to try F12 is good too -- it's also possible that you're getting excessive drag from a bug; the aerodynamic overlay would show you that if a whole lot of drag is coming from one unexpected place. (And BTW, you're likely to get better/more answers in the 'gameplay questions and tutorials' subforum.)

Not to reignite that controversy (but here I go anyway), but much of the criticism I saw of the 'tier 0' buildings, including the barn, was justified. It would be a neat Easter egg to have it appear somewhere else on Gael, but I wouldn't want to see it at the KSC. (Sort of like the original KSC buildings in stock -- having them out there as a second KSC to find is cool, but I wouldn't want to go back to having them be the KSC.) That reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask: In stock, when you find an Easter egg you get a little bonus through the world first milestones system. I've only gone to one anomaly in GPP so far, on Iota, but I'm pretty sure it didn't trigger any such bonus. Is that something you have any control over, and if so can you bring it back? Although the reward wasn't large, I always liked it as it gave me just enough incentive to go find and visit the anomalies.

Oh, thanks for mentioning that! I was a bit confused about why I had so many possible contracts referring to station crews and adding modules and whatnot, but none to put a station up in the first place. I ran into the same problem with the space telescope contracts in ResearchBodies, I think -- references to Kerbin in the contract cfg files were keeping them from showing up.

I was bummed when GPP updated right before I went on vacation for a week, so that I wouldn't be able to play it on my gaming PC. I decided to give it a shot on my wife's budget laptop, which we took with us, and it's been working surprisingly well! This machine has a 2.3 GHz two-core CPU and only 6 GB RAM (with 256 MB shared with the integrated graphics), and I'm able to run KSP with GPP and about 50 mods in total. No visual enhancements mods, of course, and I turned down the in-game graphics options. It's been working fine for this brand-new career save, though I haven't yet upgraded the VAB so I also haven't launched anything with more than 30 parts yet. And in a few days I can move the game over to my PC and finally see the planets as they're meant to be seen. Thanks, Galileo & co., for this wonderful mod! I've been playing KSP since the 0.18.2 days and didn't realize how stale the stock solar system had become for me until I tried out this one. With that and running my first heavily-modded saves, it's almost an entirely new game.

That rover design is wonderful! And my hat is off to you for driving them so far. I used rovers in a couple of my Caveman runs, and I never really want to do that again.

I just ran into this bug for the first time (trying to demolish some old pods of rescued kerbals) and came here to see if I could find anything about it -- and it's already fixed! (And installing the latest version from CKAN did, indeed, fix the problem.) So I'll just say thanks for this great mod, it adds so much to KSP to be able to change and fix things in flight!

And if you're currently working on the 90-science tier of the tech tree, I suggest going for the nodes with the OKTO probe core and solar panels next. It sounds like you're concentrating on crewed flights currently, but it's easier to send probes to Mun and Minmus first (the rockets for them can be much smaller) and they'll give you enough science to unlock further nodes to make crewed missions easier.

To clarify -- do you have the tech tree unlocked up through (including) the 90-science tier, or the one before? Also, are you playing with any mods that impact gameplay that we ought to know about? If you are attempting a landing on Mun, I recommend going to Minmus instead. Its SOI is a smaller target to hit from LKO, but you can do it and the delta-V requirements for landing are significantly lower than for Mun. If you almost have enough for a Mun landing, you should be able to make it on Minmus. (Also, the lower gravity means everything happens more slowly when landing, which makes it a bit easier to do if you don't have much practice landing on airless bodies yet.) In any case, I also recommend posting pictures and/or .craft files of your moon rocket. You should be able to do it with the tech you have; seeing your rocket will help people give you relevant advice. In terms of science, have you also exhausted high/low space above Mun and Minmus? How about high above the sun? (You just have to pop out of Kerbin's SOI briefly, then go right back in.)

Aw shucks, thanks! When the next release comes out I'm finally ready to try the challenge on hard mode.

Well here goes! Once I got started, it turns out I had a lot I wanted to write about. Full album of images here (without descriptions currently): Imgur album Launch 1: Launch 2: Launch 3: Launch 4:

For the 1.2.2 release I decided to revisit this challenge on moderate, but do it in as few launches as possible without using planes or rovers [1]. It took me a while to get around to finishing the challenge, but I got it in four launches! Launch 1, crewed atmospheric hop: I used several Flea boosters with some hot-staging (burning off previous stages) to get to the upper atmosphere. Bob acted as pilot, because his ability to reset goo canisters reduced the number of them I needed to carry. Launch 2, crewed SSTO: Science payload consisted of several thermometers and barometers, so that I could return all science rather than transmit, and one goo canister. Bob piloted again, and I launched from the runway to gather science from that biome as well. Launch 3, uncrewed Mun orbiter with return: With the first small engine (Terrier) and probe core (Stayputnik) unlocked I was able to get beyond LKO. Made an orbit around Mun and got science from high above Kerbin and low and high above Mun. Science payload consisted of a couple of goo canisters, one thermometer and barometer, and the science canister for returning results. The ability to hibernate the probe core proved essential, as I didn't have solar panels unlocked yet. Not having SAS or reaction wheels was a novel experience. Launch 4, uncrewed Minmus lander with return: This one was based on the OKTO core, so I finally got to use SAS! I landed on six Minmus biomes, getting thermometer and barometer readings from each, plus goo experiments from three of them. At this point I was able to unlock all of the 90-science and below nodes, with 85 science left over. I can provide screenshots if anyone's interested, though I think to most regulars on this thread this is old hat and I've already documented an earlier moderate run in 1.2.1. [1]: My purpose in setting myself these rules was to try to avoid the things in KSP that I find tedious: long cruises that I have to babysit craft through without time-warping, and doing more-or-less the same mission over and over. Disallowing planes and rovers let me avoid long atmospheric flights or drives, and minimizing the number of launches would, I hoped, keep them from being repetitive. My strategy was not entirely successful, as I found myself reverting and using quick saves fairly heavily to optimize each launch. So next time around, I'll disallow those too!

D'oh! I thought I had seen that post before, and I searched both forum and internet for it before giving up and asking here. Didn't search very well, I guess. The solar panels must be key to getting that design stable, it's otherwise similar to what I tried and found to be unstable. I guess that makes sense, and with KSP's drag model it works even with the panels tucked way in. Thanks!

How did those returning probes work out for you? Were they stable heatshield-first? I tried using a similar stack (0.625m heatshield, octo probe core, experiment storage, parachute) and it flipped. (And due to bad design on my part, the probe core ran out of battery before reentry so I couldn't actively maintain orientation.) Luckily for me the parachute has pretty good heat tolerance, and the experiment storage + parachute survived entry from Minmus (after the probe core blew up due to overheating) with an initial periapsis of ~34km, though it took three passes through the atmosphere flying parachute-first. But that's not how I would normally want to do it!

... and I guess I'll follow that up with my Moderate difficulty level entry. (New KSP version -- 1.2.1 -- new Caveman challenge entry!) In my last playthrough on Normal difficulty, I thought I got a lot of mileage out of the Mun rover (har har), so I was more directed this time around in unlocking the technology needed for that as soon as possible. I went first for technology nodes along the bottom of the tech tree (more science instruments, probe core, solar panels) and top (bigger fuel tanks and smaller engines). No planes this time! But the lower science returns meant I wasn't getting enough from readings transmitted home, so I finished off with a Minmus lander that contained a return stage with the science canister. I am now thoroughly sick of driving rovers on hills on low-gravity moons! Documentation in the imgur album here: http://imgur.com/a/MvBIl , but to sum up I did the challenge in ten flights, thus: 'Flights' 1-3: capsules deployed to launchpad and runway to pick up science from those biomes. These didn't even move at all. Flights 4, 5: crewed suborbital flights for atmospheric and low-space science Flight 6: crewed orbit and Mun flyby All uncrewed probes from here on out. Flight 7: Mun lander, with enough fuel to hop once after landing to reach two biomes. Flights 8, 9: Minmus and Mun rovers Flight 10: Minmus lander with science return. The lengths some of you are going to to complete the challenge on hard or super-hard modes are really impressive! I thought I might have to assemble my last flight on the launchpad, more due to the part count limit than due to weight, but I was quite relieved that it wasn't needed.

I think the challenge is meant for any difficulty level. There are different versions of the forum signature flair for different levels, or at least there were for the earlier KSP versions. What difficulty level you choose is up to your abilities and how much time you want to put into the challenge; nobody has to do something hardcore and technically impressive if they don't want to. I did the challenge on normal difficulty because I was looking for something to do in KSP 1.2 while mods got sorted out after release; I wanted to try the new features and see how well wheels worked in this version, etc. And that's OK! (And my motivation shows in my submission; I wasn't very efficient and kind of wandered between different play strategies as I went.) I think I caught the bug, though -- I'm starting a new run through on moderate now ...

Thanks for starting this thread! I thought I'd try the Caveman Challenge while waiting on mods to update (Kerbalism, mostly) and I just finished up. Normal difficulty, 100% stock. I didn't remember to take many screenshots during the playthrough, hopefully there's enough documentation there. I started with contracts and crewed flights around Kerbin (and one flyby of Mun), and dinked around a bit to try out planes and the new science canister thing. But I got most of my science from probes to Minmus and finally a rover to Mun that all transmitted their results home rather than returning. Imgur album here. This was fun and a nice change of pace, but it was getting a little tedious by the end and so I'm not tempted to have a go again at a higher difficulty setting.

I'm in the process of setting up a construction / fueling station around Minmus and I've been pondering the same thing. I haven't flown any missions from the station yet in-game, but I've been using KSPTOT (Trajectory Optimization Tool) to explore options for making interplanetary transfers. A two-burn departure (similar to your option 2) is definitely the most efficient way to go, but probably requires using something like KSPTOT to find the burns. What I've been simulating is a craft starting from Minmus's position in orbit of Kerbin. (... with Minmus deleted from KSPTOT's database; otherwise the craft starts in the center of Minmus and everything falls apart!) So the effects of Minmus itself are neglected. An optimized two-burn departure for Duna takes only 370 m/s, while a single-burn departure is more like 630 m/s. In the two-burn scenario, the first burn drops the craft to an orbit with low periapsis around Kerbin, and also includes a small normal component for plane change and a small radial component to adjust the time when the craft hits its Kerbin periapsis. The second burn, at Kerbin periapsis, is almost purely prograde. The single-burn departure turns out to have a lot of radial component as well as prograde, because Minmus' orbital period is long and isn't in the best position when the transfer window comes around. (This is probably close to as good as it gets for a single-burn departure; if Minmus happens to be on the wrong side of Kerbin when the window comes around you could end up fighting Minmus' orbital velocity.)