ASnogarD

Personally I dont mind the Devs breaking saves, I would rather lose saves or even short term ability to use mods than have the developer spend too much time trying to avoid save /mod breaking changes or worse put features on hold because they could break saves/mods. I feel the changes usually bring in enough new toys to play with that re-building is fun again. This also ties into the devs tying themselves down to a specific release time, they shouldnt be too pressured to releasing updates in a rough estimated time frame as this can lead to rushing features to have something to show, and pulling out stuff as they wont be complete in time for the due date... unnecessary pressure at this stage of development. I do feel feedback on progress, or snippets of what the devs are working on are sufficient at this stage.

Personally I dont like some of the part mods , but as they dont effect my game I am fine with others using them. Parts I take exception to are basically the ones you put together to make a replica of a ship from real life or some show. Why ? Because all the actually designing part is taken away, you just slap the pieces together and have a cool looking craft with no real effort... but that is my opinion, I personally rather create a craft with generic pieces and try create something cool rather than slap pre-modelled pieces together. I dont mind the more stock like parts some mods offer, the parts look like stock but expand the potential of what can be created. Its a bit like getting a blank canvas and having the paint and brushes to create a masterpiece, or having a canvas with the outlines of someone else's masterpiece and just paint between the lines by the numbers. BUT as I said, it doesnt effect me what others use or dont use in this game so its all good.

Perhaps I am missing something here but installing user made mods on the Steam version of the game is the same as usual, copy mod into gamedata folder and run game. As for the free expansion issue, well I only got to be aware of the game when I saw the Steam presentation for it and I thought that looked interesting and after watching some vids I picked it up, so I didnt get the option to buy now and get expansions for free in my opinion (so I am obviously a lesser customer in Squads opinion) as the game wasnt too widely advertised at the time (perhaps more an issue in the scope I tend to hang around in)... so when expansions come I will just ignore them, and if by any chance the expansion adds stuff I personally would consider core then I will ignore Squad as a developer (stuff like say add resourcing in as a expansion is core, but new systems beyond Kerbol is not core). Personal opinion.

Is your steam in the Program Files ? If so you can try making a 2nd Steam install directory...a feature Steam introduced a while back, and try re-installing KSP there. I am using a Steam ver. of KSP with Kethane with no issues, so it isnt due to it being on Steam.

Doubt it, its more like polishing the rough texture work originally in place, and the space centre changes wont be so dramatic at launch, mostly while building and at the tracking station.

I finally got my 3 full Orange tanks to a LKO without using a drop of the cargo fuel , and the 2 nukes have nearly all there own fuel for orbital changes. This craft didnt fall apart if I went 100% thrust, or forget to toggle gimbals , it didnt random launch stacks off when the stutter from the physics calculations kicked it a bit, didnt wobble like a landed fish, didnt spin like a deranged catherine wheel, didnt fly like a space worm in orbit. I nicknamed the craft Tall Tom , it is virtually max height allowed... it starts off at about 1000 tonnes and delivers 135 tonnes with plenty of fuel in the 2nd stage (I stage early to keep the stage in a de-orbit trajectory and complete the orbit with the payload nukes) and clocks in at 374 parts including payload fully decked out. It sits relatively still on the launch pad (engines dont do the samba while waiting for the launch) and isnt overly complicated to launch... has a slight spin when you disable ASAS to do your gravity turn but nothing too much to deal with. One drawback... attaching other types of payload other than the current one may be a issue... worst case scenario is I have a dedicated heavy fuel delivery system. Still seems crazy to need over 18 orange tanks of fuel to deliver 3 orange tanks of fuel. Not much for most of you guys but I have been fighting to try get some lifter to lift that particular load as a personal challenge since I started KSP, did other things but always came back to try yet another design idea... finally a design that can be used, maybe improved but at the moment I am happy

First up Johnno , thanks for taking so much time to try help out. I agree the adaptor issue is due to height, but not because its is swaying in the wind (I dont believe wind is even in the game), I believe its more a force that cascades from the top of your craft downwards adding more force to the connections in a unrealistic simulation of taller rockets exert more downward pressure on its components. Unrealistic because it seems to have 'tiers' of height, and doesnt seem to take weight into consideration.... basically if you cross into a new height 'tier' you will get more pressure no matter what structure or how heavy the structure was that got you to that height. This would explain why the connections were 'fine' when I added 13.5 tonnes extra to the craft in a manner that did not raise the overall height of the craft. I did strut the small grey tanks to the orange tanks before but while that stopped the engines from doing the samba on the launch pad, it also caused the stack to fall off on the pad, so I removed those struts... I spent a few hours trying to fix the design without resorting to massive strutting of everything. Believe me I wasnt like 10 min design and toss my hands up and come rant, I spent hours... add struts here, launch, observe the effect, remove strut if ineffective, repeat. I think Squad will either have to strengthen the connections the decouplers / structural pylon (engine mount part) to unrealistic proportions to offset the 1 connection limitation, or work out how to allow for multiple connections (docking ports dont count)... and Squad definitely has to fix the connections between components. A Rocket doesnt typically act like a tower of plates a waiter/waitress is hauling off to get washed. Would be nice if Squad could also add a method to watch replays of launches, and visually show stresses on the craft as it flies so the player could look at the replay and study why the craft fails... getting told a link failed between a orange tank and some other tank on a rocket with something like 18 orange tanks doesnt help that much. Think of a colour overlay over the craft in flight that shows green for structurally intact going through yellow, orange , red colours showing the crafts stress points. Note: This isnt a rant at Squad, the physics are a mess due to PhysX which is just meant to simulate debris in explosions, not calculate Newtonian laws in real time. The part connection issue is also understandable as I dont think Squad intended us to make such large unusual designs... the connections would be mostly fine (except the wobbly rocket syndrome) if we stuck to standard rocket design doctrines.

I hope this works... dont usually upload files http://www.megafileupload.com/en/file/433193/Lifter-with-Fuel-Proto-WIP-craft.html I taken Mechjeb2 off, and there shouldnt be any mods on there but installed on my client is : Mechjeb2, Chatterer, Kethane, Engineer. If you are going to fly it, 1 is the control group to disable gimbals and as its TWR is a bit over 2 I launch at 75 % thrust...any more and it drives its arse through its payload. It has no batteries or generators (all from the capsule), and 100 units of mono prop only... just to see if I could use RCS to stop the spin of the payload. Its still a usable lifter, I mean granted I could just take off a orange tank, 2x symmetry it instead of 3x and that should be more than sufficient as a 100 ton lifter ...and about 274 parts total (IIRC) including the test payload so pretty slim on the parts for such a heavy lifter. I mean to cut it down a bit more too... taking struts off and checking if they are redundant or not. Thats my goal, a relatively slim lifter that isnt part heavy (or rely on mods) that can lift a decent amount ... 143 was the upper limit, and it nearly does it. I cant do a efficient gravity turn with the slow and annoying turn my piloting skill isnt too hot to manage all those corrections....and by the time I get to the payload the spin is just insane. Its the weird issue with the adapters that really stumped me... and made me wonder how many of the illogical structure fails were caused by 'weird' issues.

Well knowing your penchant for struts the craft would probably look like a spider shat on it, and kill my PC loading the result into the VAB (just kidding... probably ).

The RCS is there to try arrest the spinning in orbit, not turn the craft... I am trying to troubleshoot the spinning issue. The craft is fine until 1st stage separation (about 15 000 m at about 400 m/s ) , then its a slow and annoying spin until my apo is at 200 000 m , then I separate the 2nd stage from the payload... the payload spins out of control and blows 100 units of mono prop without managing to stop the spin. So I tried to adjust the payload by messing with the struts, didnt help so I tried changing the payloads profile... which caused the odd issue of the adaptor causing the ship to fall apart. Power to orbit is fine, given I can perform a reasonably decent gravity turn there should be enough delta V to get the payload to a point it can circlise the orbit... it has plenty of fuel even without using the cargo. The issue is the spin on the payload, which is what I cant work out... the payload is balanced as far as I can tell with the mass of the 3 orange tanks spread out evenly, and the bottom of the payload craft is heavy with a large grey tank and nuclear engine. The craft isnt behaving in a manner that would indicate its top or bottom heavy, and I cant see how one side can be heavier as the 3 tanks are symmetrically attached (unless having odd number of tanks would cause spin in orbit ? Why ?). The spin isnt manageable at all...its like if I had attached a engine horizontally and fired that at full thrust (obviously I didnt). EDIT: Replying to FITorion : there is 18 blocks of RCS thrusters on the payload alone , there is also a capsule with a Kerbil inside so that provides torque for the payload (usually) so SAS would be redundant in this version of the game (I would imagine it is ?). ... and still doesnt explain why changing that adapter would cause my craft to fall apart on the pad without even firing the engines.

Why does Manley who is pretty well known for being a bit of a expert in things spacey, has a tutorial where he tells you to throttle back between 150 m/s and 200 m/s until you reach 10 000 m where you start your gravity turn... then you throttle up again. (pretty certain it was Manley , then again I have watched a tonne of tutorials)

I actually did pull a lot of struts out prior to trying to change the adaptor, the payload had struts attaching each tank to each other and from the top of each tank to the main body of the payload craft, and the bottom of the tanks to the body as well... I took the all out and the tanks sagged away from the body so I added 1 set of struts from the body to the tank to stop the sagging... other than that set the payload has no other struts on it. The struts you see now are from the lifter to the payload... ie when the payload is released there is only 1 set of struts and they only go the short distance from tank to body in a straight line. I guess a test sans payload would eliminate the payload as the culprit but I am pretty sure it is the cause of the spin... but it is the odd case of why does that adaptor cause my ship to fall apart ? EDIT: Not disregarding Whackjobs advice, and will take that into account on future designs... may even re-re-design this one with that concept in mind.

Yeah yeah I know I complain a lot, but after investing way too much time I think I have cause I spent a 4 - 5 hours working on a lifter to get my test load of 145 tonnes into LKO, the lifter I made gets to a height of 200 000m straight up... I cant gravity turn because the craft develops a nasty spin when I detach my first stage which is a heavy 9 mainsail engine with 9 orange tanks of fuel, the 2nd stage is still controllable but the spin gets worse...and by the time its just the payload its completely unusable...even with mass RCS thrusters. The craft is about 840 tonnes in weight, the payload is 143 tonnes approx. and to troubleshoot the spin problem I thought the top of my craft was causing some sort of drag, so I swapped out the Rockomax brand adaptor 02 for a Rockomax brand adaptor (the flat adaptor for the more streamline version)... my craft fell apart at the pad, not once ...every time, so I put the old adapter back on and the craft flew to 200 000 km but with the usual spin issue. I swapped the adaptors again, and again the craft fell apart on the pad... How much does that adaptor weight, hmmm... the flat one is 0.08 , the adaptor that causes my ship to fall apart is 0.1. Aha you noob the extra weight is causing your ship to fall apart...stop raging at Squad and L2P... ... so I added the short big grey tanks...each at 4.5 tonnes, on the 3 orange tanks of the payload... in other words adding a massive 13.5 tonnes to my craft, this ship should fall apart for sure... *sigh* nope, craft was just fine... well too heavy to fly but didnt fall apart, so its not weight of the payload... ... changed the adaptor again and craft fell apart. Why ? Screenshot of the craft... My point ? The calculations are so odd, they defy logical deduction to troubleshoot any craft other than a basic rocket (I cant say a thing about spaceplanes / planes as I have never been in the SPH). It seems cause and effect is not accurate... my other tri engine craft dont spin, and why does a particular adaptor in that position on the top of the craft cause pylons at the bottom to fail ? Extra question: Why would the payload which has 3 full orange tanks attached in symmetry to the centre stack with a nuclear engine spin so much that even mass RCS cant stop ? There is no issues with the weight to one side...or if there was then the craft should flip rather than spin logically. I am 90% sure its the payload that is causing the spin the whole craft experiences but the winglets keep the spin in check until thin atmosphere where the tri mainsail engine 2nd stage sort of keeps the spin manageable due to thrust vectoring... but the payload nuclear engine cant deal with it. (Its spinning not flipping by the way) PS : Sorry if I seem to complain a lot, I do spend a lot of time going over videos, checking other peoples designs, watching tutorials... my other craft fly well but I really wanted to make a relatively low part count heavy lifter to get at least 100 tonnes easily to LKO , as a standard to limit my station / base designs... currently I am limited to about 40 tonnes. I use cross strutting, taking pains to keep symmetry as much as possible even with the struts, use grey tanks to prevent overheating, asparagus when possible, stitch strutting when needed, limit thrust and pilot the craft manually (MechJeb2 is there for the information, I like to see when I hit a certain target apoapsis without jumping to map mode)... mods is Mechjeb2, Kethane, Chatterer, Engineer and LSI alpha

I want the joins to be much more sturdier, its ridiculous how engines wobble on the bottom of a tank or how the single point of connection rule forces the use of single decouplers / point of attachments but are so weak as to fall apart unless stitched together with masses of struts. Trying to make anything other than trashcans with engines is toying with masochistic tendencies, the sheer frustration is enough for me to stop recommending this title to my mates... in fact I tell them to wait a bit and see how development goes. I have spent hours carefully putting craft together, strutting logically but with intent to keep it to a minimal yet what happens to the craft defies logic... a single engine out of 9 identical engine stack will randomly detach...why? a craft created symmetrically will spin like crazy, even when its only 1 rocket with a symmetrical payload...even RCS couldnt stop the spin. a craft could fly to orbit one run, and fall apart on the launch pad the very next part with no changes done at all... and visa versa happens as well. I dont care if you need to add a 'baby' mode to keep the 'challenge' for the rest, I suspect most just hyperedit their designs into LKO and just have fun flying the thing around, but lets not make the game about struts and more about making and flying spacecraft... or sort out the part tree system to allow us to make stronger connections. Most of my none standard designs fail, but not because of fuel shortages or engine power...or even that they are so silly they couldnt fly at all... they fail because 1 decoupler fails to hold, or a Pylon lets go, or the connection between 2 tanks simply gives up at that physics calculation interval, or the flipping engine simply drops off on the pad... very rare is it something I could look at and go 'ahh its because of that ...' I watched Pleborian launching some of his stuff, he didnt even change things some runs....just restarted flights until the damn thing worked, a roll of the dice and the craft reached LKO. I think the tolerances are too strict for a game, this isnt a simulation of Nasa really otherwise we could only be able to build the standard issue rockets (boring but efficient)...no moonbases, no interplanetary vessels...just satellite launches and space station refuels .

I gave up... After failing with that lifter I tried a more normal one... first time 1 out of 6 identical stacks fell off at the launch pad, I added more struts and this time a stack , 1 of identical 6 stacks decided to break off and fly free right through the pay 1 min and 13 secs in the flight. Why 1 ? Why 1 min 13 secs into the flight will 1 , one , uno , ich , ein stack fail... wouldnt all the stacks fail because they are all the same? Another try later, and the ASAS module collapses on itself despite having 8 struts connecting it to the fuel tank and have another 8 struts connecting to the probe component... need more bloody struts ? I put struts to stop a fault, one flight it works next flight it doesnt...same flight profile (straight up)... I added more T45's to my cluster to see if I could get more control , even a SAS module and a 5 degree incline is understood by the game to mean flip over and fly straight down and refuse any further instructions. ... tested the very same rocket with a manned capsule and the craft controlled perfectly. I give up for the time being, game is too finicky for me to deal with on a really hot muggy day, deleted the lot and will start fresh some other time.

At 6 x symmetry there isnt enough room between tanks, and to place the tanks lower would a) remove any possibility of adding more fuel tanks on top if needed and mean I need to move the de coupler to the orange tank. It has been my experience that if the de-coupler is high on the stack it is prone to simply breaking at random whereas lower on the stack it seems more durable... I have yet to have the craft disassemble itself due to structural failures whereas my other attempts have often had one of the stacks simply detach and go walkies on its own. Why I need the cradle is because a standard tall rocket seems to wobble like crazy no matter how many struts I use between tanks and components... one experiment had over 90 parts with just the centre stack and a orange tank payload, adding the 6 other stacks would of made the craft very part heavy... and thats without a payload. BUT as I said earlier it seems the girders cause the attached tanks to sway / twist so the engines introduce spinning... besides the thing is near uncontrollable in orbit without RCS, without pilot torque even adding a SAS module on top of my ASAS module didnt allow me to control the craft when the engines were offline. Back to the drawing board for me. EDIT: Thanks for the tip, I'll check out the part you advised, Skunky

I put the tanks far out so as to be able to make the 'cradle' with the smaller Modular Girders, to secure my future payloads... just my test Orange tank payload wobbled no matter how many struts I put on from the decoupler -> tank. The radial decoupler with legs did not leave enough space to make the 'cradle' and relying on the stacks as places to hook struts to was useless in orbit. I suspect the Modular Girders XL let the stacks twist a bit which creates spin, my solution I posted early works until there is only 1 pair left, then the spinning game begins... but its manageable but not desirable... I want a more firm lifter, so I can eliminate it from any future payload issues (basically want to be able to say this lifter can lift x tons with no issue...any issues will then be the payloads fault to fix).

Rendezvousing was easy for me... could get to 63 m on main engines relatively easy, it was when I switched over to RCS to finish the dock all hell broke loose (initially I turned off ASAS as it often goes mad and blows all your monoprop in normal manoeuvres) , translations would seem to veer off heading , would seem to be speeding away from my target and mad attempts to sort out the relative velocity would often have me much further away from the target than I was when I first started using RCS. I got the trick of making each craft face a common direction, and switched on ASAS to help with docking so its not as bad as it was...still a slow process. My first successful dock : 20 odd minutes to rendezvous (63 m to target) , about 2 hours to actually dock (at one stage I was over 100 m from the target).

Picture here to explain it better... Initially the red struts wasnt on the craft, so when the stacks marked with blue arrows dropped the green struts broke away leaving the pair of purple circled stacks connected to each other, and they started to sway slightly which initiated the spin which was small enough at the beginning to be controlled but it grew until it was a uncontrollable spin. Still annoying, its nothing really fancy and the craft wasnt rattling or shaking about like some I seen on the videos, just that spin which made gravity turns impossible. I had tested it with a Orange Tank and powerwise the lot got up to orbit with the centre stack having all its fuel left. EDIT: The cluster is a single T45 , with 6 aerospikes ... the stacks on the ring have mainsails, I was / am planning to try phase out some of the mainsails for clusters so that when the initial lift is done more efficient clusters can take over.

I worked out what it was... The usual answer 'Moar struts' *sigh* The 6 outer stacks were attached to each other making a ring of struts keeping it stable, when I dropped my first pair of stacks, the remaining 2 pairs were joined in 2 separate stacks which caused the stacks to sway slightly causing a slight spin that just got worse and worse... had to add another set of struts to connect the 4 stacks after the first pair of stacks got released, this stopped the swaying which was barely noticeable and therefore stopped the spinning. It wasnt specifically 7000 m, it just took that long for a slight sway to start a spin that couldnt be dealt with by the ASAS.

Got my lifter flying straight up , canards flipping back and forth as usual with most craft... drop my first set of tank/engines, going up nicely... then I hit 7000 m my canards are all locked trying to stop a spin...unsuccessfully. This is really frustrating me, I finally got a lifter with decent power, without 7 million struts holding the bloody thing together, it isnt even anything fancy ... a centre stack with 6 stacks in a ring set up in asparagus, the only deviation from the norm is the ring is spaced away from the centre with Modular Girder XL's and a Modular Girder with a Radial Decoupler (to make space in the ring for the payload and stabilising Modular Girders , otherwise my payload wobbles like a Saints Row Dildo bat). The drop stacks are properly spaced apart, and at equal heights to each other, there is no deviation from each other to explain the spin... the fuel decreases evenly between the stacks, canards are placed in the centre stack at the CoM to try prevent spin, and added some more later on each stack... gimbals are turned off on the outer ring (the centre stack has a core of 6 areospikes and a T45). Lifter goes up like a arrow, detaches first set without issues, then at about 7000 m .... my craft get delusional and thinks its a flipping cathering wheel going off.

Hehe, it wont be long until someone comes along and says all the actions on his boat dont show up...all it does is show Thank you for downloading. I do have a bug to report - the text floated from off the projection screen and onto the screen from some low part of the craft. All I done with the mod is copy the Huds folder to the gamedata folder with the rest of my mods, and slapped on the part onto a pre-existing craft, and then right-click show LSI interface, it opened up nicely with nothing on the screen...then the text floated up onto the screen. Am I right in thinking this interface could be used as a action group event that can ...say turn on the lights, or even better turn on specified set of lights? I am thinking slap this on a space station, and then use it to activate components of the station..say strobe lights from the aviation light pack when you dock, unpack all the solar panels when docking a large craft. Will the interface allow for 'programming' actions on such ? Woah, what about servos and rotatrons from the Infernal Robotics mod, or its little extra mod that allows for sliding gantries and rotating docking ports. I better stop thinking, my mind she is blown

I have been messing around, was first thinking of a basic RCS 'bike' type craft... but a few canards later and... ... she has been nicknamed 'Screamer', after the test pilots helped science discover RCS and Kerbin gravity doesnt mix no matter how high you toss the craft down from. Tests suspended until Mun operations have been re-started and Mun based testing is available. She is fat, weighing in at 4.2 tons, has 69 parts including Mechjeb2 and except for Mechjeb2 is all stock. She has 440 units of monoprop stored on her, and a hefty electric charge capacity of about 840 units with fixed solar panel for recharging. She features rear landing feet, a rear and front docking ports, ladders to make climbing to the seat easier, forward lights and 4 short range comm antennas. She is completely untested in space or Mun gravity, and I have no idea how her RCS control will be like with the way the ports are slapped on... most of the craft is more on trying to look pleasing to my eye (as much as possible with stock parts).

You havent used a bi-coupler at the top of the fuel tanks and at the bottom <=>{ ? Game has a rule about looping connections with the parts... you cant have parts form a loop, this would cause the issue you have at the moment.

I would imagine with docking and fuel transfers one should be able to get anywhere in the system, just a case of how much time and effort you are willing to use. I mean, put up a station in LKO, send up huge fuel reserves, send up parts of the interplanetary vessel , send up unmanned re-fuelling vessels, send up unmanned lander carriers... send fuel and lander carriers ahead (or even with your interplanetary vessel ) ... get the fleet to your target destination orbit, EVA crew to the lander carrier and land, refuel interplanetary vessel, get lander back to orbit, EVA crew back to vessel ... return. Lots of work and effort, but not impossible...just tedious I would imagine.