Panzerbeard

Hate to bump posts, but is there really nobody else with this problem? I've tried doing a fresh install and that hasn't helped, I really can't think of what might cause it, given that the Alt key IS working, and the game detects it for everything except copying.

Well, anyone with "Bob" in their name immediately gets assigned to Bobforce-Alpha, my station building & maintanaince team. Sadly they were all killed while trying to land my first attempt at a cargo spaceplane. RIP in peace, Billy-Bobrey, Billy-Bobbert and Bob, you will be missed

Mods installed: Toolbar ActiveTextureManagement Antenna Range Community Resource Pack Custom Asteroids Custom Biomes Distant Object Enhancements Environmental Visual Enhancements Fine Print Firespitter.dll Improved Chase Camera KAS Kerbal Engineer KSP Advanced FlybyWire NASAmission NavyFish's Docking Port Alignment NEAR ORSX Precise Node Procedural Fairings Protractor RCS Build Aid Better Atmospheres + all requisites (RSS, Texture Replacer, KittopiaSpace, BoulderCo) Rover Science SCANsat SelectRoot Stage Recovery TAC Fuel Balancer Kerbal Alarm Clock Karbonite Module Manager 2.5.1 Log file here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/sh6dlp2npw91yad/output_log.txt?dl=0 Windows 7 x64, 32bit version of KSP Now, I don't really know if this should be in the modded support or not, because I actually had this problem in the base, unmodded game as well, but since the install IS modded I figure it's best to put it here. The problem I'm having is that I can't copy parts with the Alt key anymore. The game definitely detects the Alt key, as I can still adjust trim, force surface attachment and everything else that used that key, but copying doesn't work. I've tried to narrow it down to a specific mod, but even after deleting all installed mods and running with the base game, it still doesn't work. Has anyone else come across this problem?

Thanks again for the replies, all, I think I know everything I need now, cheers Yeah, I kinda didn't explain it clearly, my apologies. I've actually resolved the problem now, for some reason launching using launch clamps was causing some phantom forces and making my rocket want to keep pulling northwards. I assume it was a bug, although I can't seem to reproduce it anymore. I guess so, but if you've got multiple tanks on the bottom stage it's going to want to burn from the highest tank first, and when I simulate it by emptying the tanks with tweakables, the CoM shifts further down until the bottom tank starts emptying. I kinda assumed it'd be best for the CoM to continue rising all the time. I may just use TAC Fuel Balancer, it'd make this whole thing a lot easier.

Well, I can now get things into orbit well enough, thanks all. The problem I'm having now is launching to an inclined orbit. Equatorial orbits work fine, but when I try to tilt over at a slight inclination for, say, a Minmus launch, it just wants to keep drifting until my inclination is way off, to the point that It'd be more efficient to launch into an equatorial orbit and do my plane change there. I'm not sure why it's stable for equatorial ascents but not for even slightly inclined ascents.. Any thoughts? I make the upper stages larger because otherwise the CoM is too low and it keeps wanting to flip out. Since the payload is really light I can't see any way of keeping the CoM high without using larger upper stages. Unless I'm missing something?

It's the mach effects that put me off FAR, mostly. I'll probably move on to it at some point, once I'm comfortable enough with NEAR, but I'm not a big aircraft guy, really, I dabble occasionally and I'll probably build a couple to use as test beds for contracts, and for the location-based contracts from Fine Print, but I'm mostly rocket-focused. Maybe a basic spaceplane for the sake of trying out the shiny new cargo bays. As long as aircraft can work within reason I'm fine using NEAR for the time being

There are a lot of mods that I always install immediately, but the bare minimum that I simply can't imagine playing without would be Kerbal Engineer and Kerbal Alarm Clock. Actually, I suspect that I've got so used to KER by now that I probably wouldn't be able to put together something as simple as a mun landing+return mission without either using it or calculating dV by hand. I've become a slave to math, where I once shoved fuel tanks, rockets and boosters onto a pod with reckless abandon. Gone are the days of throwing things in a vaguely upwards direction and saying "that'll be fine, right?". I don't know if this is a good thing.

Many thanks for the replies, all; sounds like my problem mostly lies with my gravity turn and going overboard with fins , I figured it best to get the extra control authority since I don't have reaction wheels yet, but they just wobble the craft around far too much with SAS on, and for some reason I seem to get some rolling out of nowhere when I turn it off? Either way, I guess that'd be fixed by removing the fins anyway, so thanks for the suggestion of removing them. I'll also build up a little more vertical speed before turning. I'm dreading airplane/spaceplane testing. I fear I may run out of kerbals. Yeah, I always do use gimballed engines for my upper stages, unless I've got a lot of torque. I generally add the fins more for stability than for extra control for the most part. That was extremely helpful, thankyou for that. I'm curious, though, what is it about the parachute placement that's causing problems? Is it just the additional drag acting too close to the CoM?

So, I've been playing KSP for quite a while now, I wouldn't say I'm great at it, but I generally know my way around a rocket- but I've always been flying with stock aerodynamics. I thought I'd start a new career save with NEAR installed, and now I just can't get into orbit with anything approaching efficiency, grace, and non-explodeyness. I've gathered that high CoM and low CoL is favourable and that I want a lower TWR than stock (I aim for around 1.3-ish). I also know that I need to follow a shallower ascent path than I normally would. Knowing all that, however, I still can't get into orbit consistently. As far as I can tell this should be able to get into orbit perfectly well; it's got more than enough dV, the centre of mass is above the CoL in each stage, I have as much control authority as I can give it (I don't have reaction wheels unlocked yet, both engines are T45s with gimballing, though). However, after I start my initial tilt to about 5 degrees east after launching, it'll slowly tilt over to horizontal and I can't keep it pointing up high enough to stop the rocket falling before I leave the atmosphere. Other designs just fail entirely or wobble around so much that if I do end up in a stable orbit I've wasted a lot of fuel and am nowhere near equatorial. I see that I'm going to have to completely relearn rocket design and flight, but any advice would be appreciated

There's no one right answer, honestly, it depends on a number of parameters. Your best bet would be to use this: http://alterbaron.github.io/ksp_aerocalc/ Obviously, you'll need to be in Jool's SOI already to know your exact orbital velocity, so the calculator isn't ideal for planning ahead, but it is (mostly) accurate from my experience. Just be aware that if you have a lot of lifting surfaces like wings the calculator will be less reliable. Also I don't think this will work with FAR or NEAR.

Actually you'll find that the dV needed for capture is in fact less than that of the Mun. The intercept is a little trickier to get, but capture, landing, and returning are vastly easier.

I'd like to see a little more activity in the KSC and world in general, yeah. They can be entirely cosmetic and non-interactable, that's fine, but it'd go a long way towards making Kerbin feel more less desolate.

So, I didn't see this on the Already Suggested List, but my apologies if it's been suggested already. I feel like it might be useful to rotate the camera around the CoM during construction, maybe as a toggle. I'm sure we've all had times where we've had to fiddle around awkwardly with the camera while placing parts, especially on the underbelly of spaceplanes or in cargo bays, and often it's just easier to rotate the entire spacecraft than it is to try to get a good camera angle. Allowing you to freely rotate around the CoM on any axis should make it a lot easier to see what you're doing.

In all fairness, the air doesn't feel like air either

My solution: It works, they're happy and they don't get in anyone's way

These are on the already suggested list, I'm afraid: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/44952-Already-Suggested-List

Thanks for the quick reply; So if I try to stay at around 2G constantly, I can just use d=½at²? Would I not need to take the gravity turn into account, though, since I'm not going to be burning straight up after 10km?

So, I'm curious, now that we have these "Activate engine X at Y altitude at Z velocity" contracts, is there any easy way to figure out roughly what altitude and velocity I'll be travelling when a stage has finished? I use KER, so I already know the dV, TWR, ISP and Burn Time of each stage, but I can't quite figure out the math behind distance travelled and max velocity during the course of a stage. If I didn't have to deal with non-constant acceleration, and drag, and so on, this would be simpler, but I'm not entirely sure how to figure it out- especially with the gravity-turn to consider (or maybe my sleep-deprived brain is missing something blindingly obvious). Obviously I want to design my first stage to run out when I'm at the target altitude and velocity, without wasting fuel, since the idea is to be as economical and efficient as possible, so does anyone have a way of figuring this out? Cheers, Ash

Some games benefit from an absolute fail-state, certainly. Hell, I play plenty of roguelikes and rogue-lites, and play many games in a "dead-is-dead" ruleset, the idea of losing hours of progress due to failure is not something that concerns me. But I feel like KSP is not one of those games, it's one of those games in which failure should present new gameplay opportunities to you. Failure should have consequences, but those consequences should be an opportunity, not a game-over. I don't know if anyone else had a similar idea, but I've been thinking about this. Let's say you go bankrupt- you do not have the funds for a new mission, and contracts no longer offer you advances (perhaps this could be tied in to reputation? if you're shown to be an unreliable space program, they won't trust you with money up-front?). You should retire your space program, and start fresh, BUT in the same save file; everything remains where it is, all existing satellites, stations, bases, etc, are still in orbit where you left them, and everything you've unlocked in the tech tree has already been learned. However, you don't OWN any of it; you can't interact with, or control the stations in any way, and you can't use the tech previously unlocked. Instead, you have the option of buying them when you have the funds. That big refueling depot around Jool is still there, you don't have to spend all that time rebuilding it, but if you want it you need to pay a hefty sum to buy it. And you have to buy the rights to use any of the parts you'd previously unlocked, effectively making the tech-tree finance-based, instead of science-based, until you reach the point you were at before. Just because the initial space program failed, Kerbalkind doesn't have to lose all its scientific knowledge. You don't need to, literally, reinvent the wheel, you just have to buy the rights to use it. The way I see it, that system provides sufficient incentive NOT to fail, you're forced to work your way up financially, but also makes more sense than being forced to start a new game, both from a gameplay, and in-universe standpoint.

Probably going to be the same as usual, really: -Frequent Quicksaving, but NO loading except in the case of bad bugs -Any kerbal that can be rescued, must be rescued. No respawning, anyone who dies remains dead, and rescue missions must also be manned (more for hilarity than anything else, really..) -No suicide missions, any kerbal sent into space must have a reasonable chance of returning. They can be sent on long-term missions or accidentally stranded, but they must have provisions. (I'm not using any actual life-support mod in any way, it's just more of a roleplaying scenario, really. Space stations will need to be resupplied periodically, and food packages must be dropped to any kerbal stranded anywhere until he can be rescued. I've yet to figure out how long I'll give them, want to find a good balance between challenge and frustration) -No mods except Kerbal Engineer, Kerbal Alarm Clock, KAS for in-orbit strutting/fuel pipes, and graphical mods. -The big 3 are considered to be overseers for their own departments; Jeb for rocketry and stations, Bill for avionics and science, and Bob for surface landings/exploration, rovers and bases. They're clearly too important to risk on dangerous experimental missions, so their role in the space program is to sit around at the KSC eating big dinners, and hitting golf balls off the roof of the VAB. Again, mostly a roleplay thing, plus it lets other kerbals get their time in the spotlight. -No exploitation of anything I consider to be unfair, like infiniglide, intake stacking, etc. I'll also tone back a bit on asparagus-staged pancakes of ships. No hard rules for that, but I want to vary my designs a little bit. -Any EVA fuel used must be deducted from the ship's monopropellant stores (unless it actually does that already? I haven't checked..). Also, no getting out and pushing, except for very minor changes -A planet or moon is not considered "done" until there is a coffee shop, complete with little tables with umbrellas, on the surface

With respect, discussing politics as a gameplay mechanic and debating real-world politics are two entirely different things, dismissing the suggestion on those grounds seems a bit.. silly, to me.

Surprisingly well, all things considered. My first Mun orbiter mission didn't go so well, as I didn't have enough fuel to get back, and my Mun impactor probe managed to miss entirely, but when I finally got around to doing a landing mission it actually went smoothly. I wasn't using any mods or guides, so I did have to figure out most of it as I went along, but I was fairly lucky. Of course, the Mun was flatter then

I quicksave compulsively, just a habit I've picked up from years of playing games on a less-than-stellar computer prone to crashes. I only reload in the event of bugs or crashes, though. If I screw up then it gives me a fun opportunity to rescue the stranded kerbal, and if I lose a mission entirely then that's a learning experience. I've got plenty of free time, so I'm fine with sinking time into something that can fail and leave me with nothing to show for it, as long as I'm having fun. Oh, not at all, we just have different views on what counts as a failure. Death isn't a fail-state so much as a source of amusement, as long as it happens really awesomely

Oh, god, please no. The last thing we need is people whining when the future updates don't perfectly match up with the published plan. I think it's better the way it is, personally.

I think we need better Joystick support in general, really. Unfortunately I think a lot of the problems they have are due to Unity's limitations, not KSP's. (I had a hell of a time getting mine to work properly, I was getting weird input lag all the time, I'm having to use third-party drivers and software to get mine fully functional )