Bothersome

I did, I spent about 3 days installing and starting over. Been working fine since removal of TACLS. I forgot to mention I'm using 64 bit mode though. I know you guys will blame that for it. I just can't go back to 32 bit for one problem mod. Well, as you say, maybe it is on my end somewhere if you guys have not run into the problem. Think is, it was working fine before the last TACLS build. And I hate to go back to the previous build because he did such a good job on the new way/rules.

Well, I'm enjoying your version pretty good. I'm currently playing it in Realism Overhaul in career mode. So, I use it as a reward for getting all that research done. And I love that warp drive thingy you done there. It save tons of time but you still gotta work out how to navigate. Just the right touch for early warp drive tech. Using the planets gravity, I can save tons of dV. I still haven't figured out how to make use of some of the other stuff like microwave transmitters and whatnot (I checked it out in a sandbox save). I haven't yet unlock reactors in my career game yet.

I'd just like to say that MJ 309 is working pretty good for me again. Here is my most complicated rocket so far that MJ can put into orbit for me. I'm using RO (FAR, RSS, DRE, etc). The payload is a 15 ton module from Station Science. The rocket started out very spegetti like, wanting to wobble even sitting on the launch clamps. After securing the rocket more, and adding some fins at the top to help push the nose into the desired location, MJ had no more problems with getting it to orbit. The rocket is a bit under powered below 45km and it starts sliding in the wind a bit. But MJ done a fine job of compensating. My current mod list for the curios. Generic Mod Enabler - v2.6.0.157 [D:\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\MODS] RealSolarSystem7.2 Advanced Jet Engines DeadlyReentry RealChute1.2 RealFuels TweakScale ProcFairings RemoteTech FinalFrontier Interstellar PorcParts EngineIgnitor StationScience MechJeb2 FerramAerospaceResearch NovaPunch RealismOverhaul

I found a quirk that I think is in RT2... 1. Make sure you have a satellite connection to launch area. 2. Make a small rocket (solid rocket booster) with a probe ready for launch on pad. 3. Bring up the RT computer and select RAD + then launch, or launch and select RAD + or prograde to surface. On my system it would make the screen black but you still have interface control and looks like control of the rocket still, but no visual. ESC then go back to Space Center screen is still black and cannot select anything. ESC for menu and exit to main menu and reload save, problem persists. Must exit KSP all the way then go back in to save game. Anyone else?

Has anyone else had any problems from TAC Life Support (0.10.0.12) in RO? I had another game not loadable so I got down to brass tacks and found the culprit. It was TAC-LS causing the problem... And it was only the latest version that did it. The last "test game" I did was a new game (career), played for about and hour doing odd missions, no crashes. Exit KSP (all the way to desktop) and then go back in and it would not load my save. Nor would it load a previous save (quicksave renamed to persistent). Output logs showed a failure where TAC-LS was trying to delete Jedediah??? And he was supposed to still be alive. Anyway, taking out TAC-LS allows the test game to load and it allows my real playing save to load also. This was a few days ago. I just thought I'd mention it. I had been watching the TAC-LS thread and nothing seems to be posted there and if others were having issues with it, which I'd suspect they would be if they used it and the problem was rooted in TAC-LS alone, they would have said something by now. I'm thinking it's just a combination of TAC-LS and some other mod that RO is using. It's be really nice to get this worked out because life support kind of is needed for realism.

Yea, I'm using build 308 also and notice it's not as good as the release version, especially for bigger crafts. In RO, it is critical to stay within the gravity turn profile and that profile needs be close to where the nose is pointed into the wind. Anything more than 5 degrees off below 25km is asking for trouble. Some of the figures I've been toying with are in the attitude settings, turn off auto-adjust and set the parameter at the top to 0.35 to 0.5. The lower the number the tighter MJ tries to keep it. However in 308 there seems to be some kind of delay or chasing the path action going on. I know the rocket is built well because SAS can hold the angle very well without shaking or chasing. Yet when MJ 308 is running on "use stock SAS" it's some kind of terrible. Also in RO, I found using a 1k start gravity turn and 60% turn profile with the end of the turn at 240km. Rockets should have a start TWR of 1.30 and have a TWR of about 2.0 by the time it gets to 20km. The TWR should not exceed 7.5 at any time lest you risk breaking something. So you need to set your thrusts to max TWR (7.5 at empty tank weight) and then load up as much fuel as you can until TWR is at 1.3 for lift-off. That the first stage, other stages you can get by on less starting TWR but you do need to get moving once you get into space, I personally like TWR > 1.0 climbing to 7.0 for upper stages.

For me, here are a couple of special moments that I just happen to capture in a picture. One day I shall return and land here and look up at the Jovian planet in the sky. Sometimes, things just don't add up.

I know I saw a message about where Career related request would be put at the very lowest of the To-Do list. But I have a request that if you find that you're looking in that section of code anyway, we need the contracts where they want you to test something in orbit or sub-orbital, the altitude needs adjusting. I don't know if each contract has to be edited or is there some factor the contract generator is using, but the numbers are too low to be an orbit or even sub-orbital. So far, the career mode play has been very well, if you leave all those orbital and sub-orbital contracts alone. Thanks for your time.

I just had to pipe in here on this subject !!! I don't think it's made too hard if it is accurate in it simulating reality closer. First time I docked in RO I was wondering why a slight mis-alignment wasn't pulling me like it used to. Then I thought, "finally, somebody made docking like it's supposed to be." Things dock well when they are aligned. Now, maybe a mod showing you your alignment would be useful, but let's not make docking gamey. Just my opinion.

Thanks HoneyFox, I'm gonna grab that one right now!

Sure, I wasn't aware I'd double posted. My net connection has been very flaky of late. Thanks. You're right again about the cause of the problem for EI. I took out Kerbal Joint Reinforcement thinking that the delay in 10x to 1x time traversal was causing it, but it wasn't the culprit.

I'll give you a little heads up on these crashing issues... It might not be the mods that are causing the problem. Here is what happened to me. Playing in Career mode on RO and all the other goodies, KSP64 crashes (again) to the desktop. But it was the first time it crashed in about 8 hours playing. What I was doing was making a lot of short launches to get science from testing parts. I was switching back and forth from a landed relay probe that was sitting on the runway trying to find a stable platform to keep those damn antennas from popping lose every time I switch ships (no success yet btw). Anyway, it crashes on a change ship attempt and then it would crash every time I tried to go back into my saved game. Well, guess what, it corrupted my save by KSP not finishing writing the save file. So not all the data was in the save persistent file. I fixed it by first taking out Kerbal Joint Reinforcement mod because that seems to be whats causing my engine ignitors to be wasted (this a workaround btw). Then I started a new career save and then exiting KSP and moving my quicksave file over to the new game along with crafts that I wanted to keep along with a few files for personal records for the Kerbals. Once I got back into my new career save, I load from the quicksave that was moved. All is ok now (I think). So just a heads up here, it's not always a mod problem. It might have been a mod that caused the start of your problems but you can't always blame a mod if KSP won't load a save. Start a new game and see if it works then.

Thanks guys, to work around the ignitor wasting, just had to shut down engine and then reactivate it before it's needed. I'll install the procedural parts. I didn't install it because it wasn't on the required list. Thanks again for the heads up.

I'm having a couple problems that I was hoping someone might give me a clue on... First my mod list so you'll know what I'm running... Generic Mod Enabler - v2.6.0.157 [D:\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\MODS] RealSolarSystem7.2 Advanced Jet Engines DeadlyReentry EngineIgnitor RealChute1.2 MechJeb2 RealFuels FerramAerospaceResearch KerbalJointReinforcement TweakScale ProcFairings RemoteTech FinalFrontier Interstellar RealismOverhaul TacLifeSupport All of them are at latest releases as far as I know. Anyway two problems,... 1. Where are the pressurized tanks that the EADS Astrium Astius II engine uses? It says I need pressurized tanks but I can't seem to find them. Did I miss a required mod or something? If I already have the tanks, how do I pressurize them? 2. When you have an engine that still has a TEATEB left to ignite it, if you go to 10x time warp and then come back out of time warp to 1x, it seams to waste the igniter. Is this a bug that hasn't been tracked down yet? Is it an Engine Igniter problem or one of RO? Thanks.

I would just like to say that I decided to add this to my KSP install. Yea, just one more mod. Got so many now that I have to run in 64bit to even get the game to run. But let me say, I started a new Career mode game and the play has been fantastic. Especially since adding this Final Frontier mod. Now it really feels like accomplishing something. So far everything seems to be working great. My mod list all are up to date as far as I know... Generic Mod Enabler - v2.6.0.157 [D:\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\MODS] RealSolarSystem7.2 Advanced Jet Engines DeadlyReentry EngineIgnitor RealChute1.2 MechJeb2 RealFuels FerramAerospaceResearch KerbalJointReinforcement TweakScale ProcFairings RemoteTech FinalFrontier Interstellar RealismOverhaul TacLifeSupport

Everybody would like to have a KSP that simulates/playes more closer to real physics, even Squad. But the crux of the matter is that they started on and maintaining a 32bit program. IF you just simply make the planets real sized as in known physics about planets, then you all of the sudden are going to need large textures and elevation maps. Those maps and land layouts might be procedural generated, but they still take up active memory the more detailed they become. And you will need to make them more detailed because in real scale, those polygons can get pretty large and then it doesn't look well done there. So Squad ran into memory problems early on and decided to reduce the scale of planets to have much less memory requirements. Why does Squad not add every nice part that they can dream up? Memory issues again. They need to also allow some extra overhead for people that want to add mod packages too. The source of the problem comes straight out of the decision to keep 32bit KSP. What I think Squad needs to do, is dump 32bit and make only a 64bit version that can handle the memory requirements. 64bit computers are cheap enough now and anyone still on 32bit needs to get upgraded anyway. The 32bit hold-outs are causing the game quality and capabilities to suffer for all of us and I'd imagine that most of us are already on 64bit hardware by now anyway.

@ gchristopher, that's some interesting thinking you've done there. In hindsight, I would have used TONS as a payload but defined as detachable or unloadable only. You cannot count the craft that brought it. Only what you can leave up there. This would do away with weird fuel mixtures and it would be more understandable for those of us who play Real Fuels mod. I'll admit that your method is more rewarding towards efficiency than payload. But economy can include the definition of "amount of work done for given price." Personally, I think, twice the payload should have a bit more reward than what Log10 is giving. It's not rewarding enough for my liking. Perhaps the original formula is a bit too weighted for payload. Can you come up with something a little more rewarding for payload?

DundraL, that is an impressive craft you made there. I can see some REAL work went into engineering that thing. Kudos man.

I'd like to make a suggestion to RO that I believe would be a realism enhancement. Please make the gimbals on engines (the ones that have gimbals) limit settable while in the VAB/SPH buildings, like the way you limit thrust. This would resolve a lot of problems of auto-pilots jerking the rockets around when the fuel tanks are almost empty. For instance, I need a rocket engine to have a certain thrust so that I can get an initial lift rating to say 1.3 TWR, but as the fuel runs out, the TWR climbs to say 7.5 (just an example) but because the gimbals are set to 5 degrees, it's too much and causes the tall rocket to bend too much. Many a times, I only need 0.5 degrees of gimbal. This would fit reality because as the space administrator, I could always order these engines with these limits set or have my crew program these limits in before launch. What do you think?

What about using radar? Could you land then?

Ah, my mistake, I was thinking "Plane SSTO", not the rocket variety. Yea, I know a rocket SSTO is possible.

I think this is an interesting challenge. I'll be watching to see if we have geniuses in our midst. I'll not attempt this challenge as I do not believe a real SSTO plane is possible. Not given the current fuel properties. I play in Realism Overhaul, which is basically Real Scale System with fuels and engines matching that of the real world. 7500 meters per second is a lot of push you're gonna need to get an orbit. This is after you get out of the atmosphere. Oh and that little trick that you might think you can get most of that while still flying in the atmosphere won't do you any good when your craft burns up right out from under you. Granted you might find a way, IF you leave out Deadly Re-entry, but then why bother if you don't go as far as you can with simulating real physics?

I might can give you something to chew on about using MechJeb to launch and guide rockets to the moon. When you want to launch a rocket to the moon, you want to do it at certain times that will help with the alignments and timings. When I launch "into plane of target" (you have to set the target first, let's use the moon as an example), it is best done when a launch sight is crossing the plane of the target and that plane is lined up for flying due east (90 degrees). For example, to go to the moon, you should launch from Cape Canaveral, and when it is aligned with the moon's plane (which is only once per day). You will also only have an optimal timing window of once per moon revolution which I think is every 28 days. MechJeb, when set to launch into plane of target, holds off launching and sets a timer countdown. But the launch happens when it is exactly aligned. I've noticed that the planes will be off a by a few degrees because MJ is not taking into account the time the rocket needs to get into space. The usual cost is about 50 dV about half way to the moon for a re-alignment. If you do a manual launch, I think a 2 or 3 minute "ahead of schedule" launch might help with the alignment issue. If you intend to circularize your orbit before burning off to the moon, then the optimal timing thing is mute. On my particular rocket I'm tweaking now, it is designed to go to the moon "in one shot". I won't have a circularizing burn after getting to orbit. It will continue burning until the apoapsis is at the moon's intercept. This is why my timing needs to be optimal.

I'm not trying to argue or anything, but I'll give you the reason for the thinking behind the score system. 1. If you say, fuel + ox / cost, then someone will post an infinite glider that can take a five gallon can of gas to orbit. 2. I wanted more usable fuel in space for when you play carrier mode. You need some gas in space to help with far missions. Taking up tiny amounts means more work to get enough there. Most newbies don't like to have to dock 10 times just to get a planetary craft enough fuel for the missions. 3. A school bus is more efficient at taking kids to school than a Volkswagen Beatle. Even though the Beatle is way more efficient on gas, you can get more work done with the bus. The same should apply here. 4. The purpose of the challenge is to get the best craft posted that gets the most work done for least cost. It seems to me, you guys are having a problem with the title of the challenge.

So you're trying to say what? That a person playing on carrier mode wouldn't want a system that could put huge amounts of fuel in space in one shot? That they wouldn't care about the cost? That's the point of it. What's the best way that's still cheap to get it to space? And what score system would you propose that would reflect that?