ASnogarD

Hmmm... I guess Munar landings without RCS as I inevitably will hit the wrong way with RCS to try cancel lateral movement after my deceleration burn, so these days I just wave my landers arse around until the retrograde marker is in the middle of the nav ball indication little to no lateral movement and land nice and softly (probably inefficient in fuel).

Talking about weak points, is it just me or is the large ASAS module and large Drone core very prone to structural failing and causes undue swaying in a otherwise stable rocket ? I find that to be the case even when I use 8x symmetry strutting to join the modules to other components to give it more strength. I even tried moving the ASAS module to the bottom, between the last grey tank and the engine... and the engine would fall off on the launch pad every time, just pop and there is was on the floor. I am also curious if placing the radial mounted decouplers high on the main stack is weaker than placing them low down near the engines and using struts at the top to keep it stable... I find my lifters when the radial mounted decoupler is high simply breaks at random spots in flight, even on a otherwise sturdy lifter. I also read somewhere that too much strutting makes a lifter too rigid and prone to breaking whereas less struts would have minor swaying but remain in tact... is there any tutorials about this anywhere ?

Alpha is alpha, do not expect the game to run smoothly, do not expect your game to run without issues, do not expect your saved games to be safe, do not... ... do not expect the quality and performance of a released title. To be honest with you, despite my complaints, for an alpha this runs pretty well... at alpha stage the developers are stitching the various parts of the game together, seeing how each part interacts and tweaking components to sort out issues in interaction. Performance is a secondary consideration at this stage. So, sorry to say, the fact it is listed as a Alpha, and is still in development and is not released is enough to warn players this game may not run well or be stable... now if Squad declares the title in beta or released and you meet the games requirements THEN you have recourse to complain. FYI - I am on a rig that handles BF3 decently, and Metro:Last Light with all the eye candy on...yet the game stutters with even some of my sub 200 part craft... a 3.2 ghz CPU. I have tried some small tricks to see if that smooths out some of the issues like disabling in game vsync and using the nVidia control panel to enable vsync there, I disable AA as at 1920x1080 the edges are reasonably smooth enough for me, though I use the control panel to bump up the anisiostropic filitering (cant really tell if its effective though). I also made the game only use core 5 of my CPU rather than have it try share core 0 with the rest of the applications. Not sure if these things are effective as I dont have many really ambitious craft hanging around as I am still playing with docking and Mun landings... docking still takes me over and hour to complete (may not be so long if I had used SAS to keep my heading while translating, and if my fancy craft was actually RCS balanced )

Tried moving to the different hangars, and putting the probe in there ? Its a total guess but some aspects of the craft building do change in the different hangars and its possible it will change the orientation if you take the current probe out in the SHP and put the same type back in (I assume the probe is the parent part). Just run a silly experiment to test it out first...a basic beam with wheels to see if the orientation is suitable.

Have you considered using a small engine like the ion engines to push the rover down, and possibly angled to counter rolling over... especially on low gravity planets ? I got something working with small radial engines but the rate the fuel got used up was insane ...RCS thruster require the driver to react rather than being a preventative system. I just thought of electrical powered engines... I think thats the ION engines ? Slap some RTG's and those engines on and see if that keeps the rover firmly planted on its wheels.

Spooks, I like that base design... think I'll nick some of the ideas from it

I think there is some errors in the translation... 'Je houdt rekoning met de wette van Newton ' - is probably more 'You are held accountable to the laws of Newton' Wish-fulfilment probably better as 'dream come true' . However I ain't Dutch, and the closest to the language I come is Afrikaans from my long stay in South Africa, so my correction is definitely not a certain thing

Thanks for the mod, I'll have a look at it.

Unless I am mistaken, those are the medium size girders that he puts on one end and holds shift to bend it a fixed amount...then puts another at the end of that one and bends that one point repeat till you have a circle.

Dissing the game ? Man you havent been online very long, or had a very sheltered online existence... you havent seen 'dissing a game' if you think thats what I am doing. I am commenting on what I see are issues, I am showing interest in the title and as an interested individual I am providing feedback... if I was 'dissing' the title, I would be demanding my cash back and calling Squad everything under the sun, and telling my mates and fellow gamers to stay the [beep] away... nah, I am cautiously optimistic about the title and I let others know its a fun title with tonnes of potential but has issues and can be frustrating. ... if you want others to post as YOU see fit, hand out scripts for us to read...and start your own forum to rule over.

Johnno - I was asking for assistance not your particular blend of 'fanboism' thank you, take a hint from HoY and the others in here, they seemed to be able to post without being a sarky sod. If you despise helping whiny entitled players, why hang around in here advising others to learn to cope and deal with issues... leave that to others who are happy to help out the whiners. Hoy and others, thanks for your contributions.

Could think of a section for docking craft .... I would think of adding a section of structural fuselage with in line clamp-o-trons spaced apart and facing in alternating directions ... unfortunately it would of been better to use a Snr. docking port to connect the docking 'array' as it will take some stress as ships dock to it. None the less, a docking 'array' away from your solar panels and if possible in such a manner the ports dont turn as the station orbits, is a logical step. Could also add a small dedicated craft for getting to the planet, and then a craft for doing tugboat work (taking payloads off lifters and then docking them to the station). A Communications array would also be a natural addition (not that the game needs it to work, just a role playing consideration). EDIT: Oh yeah, how is that thing lit ? Can you dock with it in the dark side ? Some lights may be useful on the docking array.

I had tried that trick (without docking ports), the tanks connected easy enough (though at least one tank will be connected to the opposite coupler the other tanks are attached to) , just the fuel is not routed, and fuel lines just mess up the whole ships looks. May as well just slap on the orange tank in that case.

I wanted to put a Tri Coupler on top of 3 FL T800 tanks, then put another Tri Coupler at the bottom of the tanks to merge them to one to feed a engine, however in this configuration the fuel doesnt get to the engine. It slots together with no apparent issues (I suspect that 1 tank is connected to the top coupler and the other 2 are connected to the bottom one) but does not route the fuel at all. I could route fuel lines but that shouldnt be needed and ruins the lines of the craft. I tried putting only 1 tank on the 1st Tri Couple then putting on the bottom Tri Coupler, then the other 2 tanks of fuel (not using symmetry)...same result. I even tried only 1 tank (so only 1 point of the tri couplers was used), but even that failed. I would of thought that was a natural design... going from a small to 3 tanks then slimming back to a single engine. -<EE>{ OoOo Squad really need to rethink the part connection system.. this 1 parent to a child limit is infuriating .

I got my flag planted on the Mun, and as a bonus Jeb still got a craft with enough fuel to get home. Nailed that landing after 2 attempts ...err simulations, mostly because I was trying to do a gentle curve to the surface but that didnt kill my speed enough, then I just killed nearly all my speed so I was basically dropping straight down to the surface, landed with no lateral movement... didnt even use my RCS as I just killed any lateral movement by shifting my engines to the opposite direction the retro grade marker was sliding off centre towards...keeping that sucker in the centre and landed gently. Only odd thing was my engines started shaking I got worried they will fall off, so I throttled up and dropped back down again which sorted out the shakes... odd. Jeb got out the can, down the ladder which worked perfectly despite failing on Kerbin... planted flag took pictures and had some fun hopping around the Mun. Next getting home, shouldnt be too much of a issue as fuel is good and the engines are efficient, just going to orbit around the Mun so I come from the darkside and behind the Muns orbit and burn for Kerbin, nowt fancy... not even a air brake in the atmosphere... but hey, flag is planted on the Mun.

Seriously tempted with a ' Yo momma so fat ... she needed 3 mainsails and 4 stages to ensure a stable orbit around her waist ' joke, but I wont

Bit cheap to convert solar power / RTG power to fuel, most of KSP's challenge is due to managing Fuel resources. Kethane makes you mine the stuff and you still need to scan for and detect the stuff before taking equipment to the deposit to mine it before you can use it... this Electricity to Fuel mod makes fuel trivial... BUT... ... it doesnt effect MY game so, good luck and have fun developing it.

Compared to you old hands at KSP, my events are hardly heroic but very satisfying but surprisingly intense for a new comer like me... A while back Jeb took up a training Space Station, and was left up there to wait for trainee Kerbalonauts to come dock and as a side effect bring up a ship for Jeb to come home in, and Jeb was promptly forgotten about while KSP scientists spent time experimenting with huge lifters, means and schemes to send large amounts of fuel to orbit, dreaming of Mun landings and even designing portable landing pads with mining attachments to make fuel and re-fuel landers... ... till the administrators realised Jeb was on double time overtime pay, and relaxing in the Space Station (they didnt know Bill had stolen the snacks) , so the admins hatched a evil plan to send up a rookie with some of the worst pilots to dock with the station... unforeseen accidents, collateral damage and letters of condolences all sorted out, the training craft launched to relieve Jeb in his lofty perch high above Kerbin. The plans of the administrators failed, the rookie Kirtbro successfully docked, all the pilots were rotated (and Bill was dumped in a snack free habitat with Bob for company while Kirtbro took over Jebs station. Jeb safely landed on the west coast of the KSC, and was spending his huge paycheck at a seas side resort while all the letters of condolences were re-written to dismissal letters for half the administration of the KSC. ... next the Mun. (Man docking is a slow painful process, took me less that 20 min to get within 63 m of my station from launch, and a hour and a half to actually dock ... at one stage I was over 130 meters away from the station using the RCS for careful manoeuvring with the fancy docking mode...till I switched that thing off and did it with the old RCS system. The worst part ? It was a 'easy' dock with a none moving docking port well illuminated with a easy to control small ship with plenty of monoprop to waste... how much worse is a bad dock going to be )

I tried watching TheWinterOwl but his goofy goggling drove me batty , oh look my insane plane just blew up killing all the Kerbils ... hyuck hyuck hyuck, I like to pick up trick and tips while watching but I am already a master of killing Kerbils with insane designs. Scott Manly was good, but has fallen off the scale lately ... I loved watching his Re-usable Space Program and watching him put **** together, but he seems to have wandered off to other pastures. Kurt I am still watching his series, while its old its nice as a roadmap tour of KSP's development. The excitement of EVA, his joy at 'landing legs', the confusion of all those parts (stock only but compared to the older versions there was a lot added suddenly).

The controls for RCS are set up for directional control - WASD and translation control IJKL with H and N for forward and backwards translation. Directional controls spin your craft to head in a new direction, whereas translation controls will shift your craft without changing its heading. (default keys in default mode - docking mode changes things a bit, hitting space changes WASD from direction to translation and back again) You could try adding small rockets to your rover that fire at a low thrust to provide continuous down force as you ride... I'll leave the issue of fuel consumption and balance for you to work out... its fun to play around with ideas like that.

Game is highly limited, nearly anything beyond stacking tall or going wide ships will suffer massive structural failures. I have spent hours trying to get unusual but still logical designs to work, most fail due to bad physics and odd part connection issues / limitations. You cannot join a side mounted item using 2 connections. I tried making a ship with 3 'handles' ( think [|] ) coming off the centre stack to hold additional stacks (fuel tanks and engine = stack)... the 'handle' will not join at both ends of the 'handle' (|-|-|), I have even carefully designed the 'handle' so it is connected at the top end and rests against the centre and tried to strut the bottom but its too weak and the handle clips into the centre when any weight is added to the handle. I tried tri stack designs with the payload cradled in the centre of the tri stack but the stacks just wobble like a stack of plates being carried , parts just fall off seemingly at random , strutting follows odd rules (one test strutting from heavy side to centre stack resulted in the side stack swinging and eventually falling off, strutting the exact same spot but from the centre to the side and the strut holds the side stack stable... seems parent -> child origins are crucial when strutting). Illogical events prevent anything too out of place from being built , like a perfectly symmetrical vessel having a uncontrollable spin on take off ignoring canards and SAS modules. I had designs with 3 identical stacks connected to a centre stack ... and have 1 engine from 1 of the stacks just fall off. Why 1 ? All the side stacks are IDENTICAL as in I design the stack as a single, then pull it off and reconnect with 3 times symmetry ... so every part is the same in those stacks, even the struts. Why then does 1 engine fall off ? Why not 3 ? I also noted the large ASAS stock ring is highly likely to collapse and cause structural failures, I try avoid putting that part close to the payload connection but it messes up my designs a lot needing to add a part that is flat and fits the large size... usually a RCS tank or short fuel tank. ... this is all before you then need to work in logical limitations (weight distribution, centre of force, g-force on lift off (stress connections), toggling gimbals, etc etc). Its not entirely impossible to work around the limitations and issues, just be aware that it can be extremely frustrating and lead to many designs getting tossed out the window as issues pile up. I think part of the issue is how the game connects objects on the sides... the one connection rule is a killer of designs, and even using docking ports to provide extra connections doesnt do the job properly (even then only 1 port is actually docked on the VAB, the others are waiting to dock when physics kicks in). (FYI - I use 'odd' designs to avoid the typical towers and / or rings of towers designs, and try avoid having too many stages with throw away parts... personal limitations and for some reason my gaming PC cant handle much more than 300 parts on lift off without horrible stuttering (3.2 ghz AMD Phenom II x 6 1090T CPU , 8 gigs DDR3(1333mhz) ram , 580 GTX))

Not sure really as each individual part is subject to collision and pathing, thats why you can snap off a solar panel or break a kethane detector on a rover, each bit is calculated as a separate collision mesh. Least thats how I see it especially when you collide with craft with lots of parts, the parts go flying off.

Begs the question... What is less lag prone , 1 large structure or a number of smaller structures even if the sum of all the structures equal the same number of parts as the large structure ? I would guess a few smaller structures... I think the lag is a effect of the parts tree getting too long with large craft / stations / bases , so each physics cycle is harder to calculate than doing small craft / stations / bases as the parts tree is smaller and easier to get through. It is a guess though.

Try switching to the mainship (save before trying this) , switch on SAS for a sec and then off, then back to the rover.

Problem with Jesse and co is that they just have a laugh, which is great if thats what you want to watch, but its not much use if you want to watch how the game is played and pick up tips and tricks. I want to find a experienced player (Scott Manly or Kurt... not Owl, his giggling drives me crazy... oh I just killed my Kerbals Hyuck Hyuck (Think Goofy from the Mickey Mouse cartoons)) who shows how they gets their creations up to orbit, most just go the 'heres the payload.. and here we are in LKO about to dock' . Making fancy payloads is easy, its getting the bloody rubbish up there thats the hard part... least in my experience. Older vids dont help much, and far too many rely on the fuel line transfers and 'moar powah' designs... which is fine, but I want to try other designs other than ' stack 'em high or stack 'em wide .. just stack 'em '. Only issue with getting a Jesse vid is that you will get a lot of his fans trying out the game, realising its a lot of effort to get anything significant done and is hard to master raging on the game because of it.