SilentWindOfDoom

I'm not too bothered, just concerned. I trust mods will evolve to give me the masochistic experience of manual supply runs and antimatter farming before I can set off for the outer planets, nevermind other stars. Its just that I see a lot of people in the thread theocrafting about all these intricate mechanics and features that are assumed will be in the game as if we're getting KSP:Interstellar and not KSP with interstellar parts. There are a lot of unknowns, a lot of hype and eye candy but structurally, do we know how the game will actually play?

I watch these updates with some concern As someone who has played KSP with the modded techtree and the Interstellar mod there is simply no way in my mind that the developers of KSP2 will require anywhere near the amount of grind or effort to gain the use of these advanced technologies that the somewhat masochistic developers of these mods had in place. While that is perfectly fine in a vacuum, unmodded KSP should be the baseline experience on which to base development of its sequel after all, how are these technologies not going to be immensely overpowered when used in a more domestic in-system setting, both the Kerbol system and the ones you reach afterwards? Are we going to be required to venture off-world to fuel our proverbial Epstein drive or will be just be able to slap fusion pellets into a container in the VAB and blast them off into space? How do you provide a roadmap to the stars without trivializing the road to Jool? Where is the challenge to be found when you reach the other stars and you already have the peak level of technology unlocked? I am very concerned about where this seems to be going. Maybe my questions have been answered already, in which case I'll eat crow, but I'd rather hear about performance than how big the game will be.

I can confirm this is correct. When the two part names are interchanged the "Basescan" contract triggers as it should. For some reason the Contract Configurator menu (and thus the debugger) do not appear so I will run through the contract chain to see if it continues to function from scan > rover > base build and update this post with the results. After completing the high resolution scan the scout (rover) contract was offered.

Thank you for the answer, I thought something was broken. Perhaps I'll try to mod it down later, but this gives me some peace of mind.

Does RT interact in any way with the deployable science transmitter from Breaking New Ground?

Hello friends, intermittent KSP player here. I have a ton of mods installed, including Kolonization and USI. I wanted to do a sanity check before I continue. With a full Mark 1-3 command pod I get 7 days of Habitation time. I was shocked that when I added a hitchhiker the habitation increases to 227 days, that seems a little much, but is it correct? If it is, what would be the best way to make it more difficult? I thought to adjust the hab multiplier but it won't accept a value under 1, thank you in advance.

I thought there was something wrong with my install when I couldn't find those swanky NFE batteries I was used to seeing but after manually downloading it (opposed to relying on CKAN) I guess i missed the art pass! it might be worth putting a disclaimer on the IMGUR links in that they might not match the parts currently in the packs.

Thank you, this is fantastic. I just got a new joystick (X52) after the old one broke but it suffered from major input lag, not when using this!

This mod is pretty sweet, I love having a reason to fly around, designing a VTOL capable of going up K2 kept me busy for days. That said It would be nice if the missions became a little harder/diverse: - multiple kerbals in the water - kerbals on different peaks / mountains - Wilderness expedition contracts ( Bringing six-odd kerbals to some god forsaken place in the desert/mountains) - Increased distance for contracts

After making the post I tested it some more. the supplies kontainer is laying about, unpowered/uncrewed as a single part and I was able to transfer from it using the local logistics window. It is s scavenging that doesn't seem to work.

Yes to both questions, the configuration is seen below. I attached a supplies tank to the top of the kerbitat using KAS so the base had something to pull resources into but it didn't transfer, even after several restarts. The kontainer is parked right next to the base. Edit: I can transfer resources manually through the Dashboard, it just doesnt happen automatically. This may be irrelevant, but. Out of sight here is a lander, I cannibalized the life support tank from it and attached it to the kerbitat. Maybe that somehow messed things up, because the base and the lander were considered to be the same entity as far as usi was concerned? Just spitballing here.

Going by the documentation I thought that a resource consumer, in this case the kerbitat would automatically pull resources from any warehouse enabled container within 150 meters if storage for $resource is >50% empty, it isn't doing that. The container itself isnt powered or manned/controlled. Is that the issue?

Hello, i'm trying to build my first proper usi base. I'm experiencing some difficulties getting the Tundra Kerbitat to pull supplies from a nearby container, is there any reason why the situation in the screenshot provided shouldn't result in a transfer? My only guess so far is that I have to mount a usi "supply" module on the side of the kerbitat, rather than a random life support tank? I've tried powering the containers to no avail.

I will look into that, thank you! I generally have a fairly low TWR of 1.6, but I suppose I may have the wrong idea about how much of an impact FAR is making. I read about that little factoid waaaay back before KSP stock had its atmosphere tweaked so I suppose I just think its a bit too easy now, regardless of FAR. My bad.

I had a quick question. I am looking to nerf the global atmospheric isp for all rocket engines in order to offset Ferram Aerospace's thinner atmosphere while using the stock-size solarsystem. Could I potentially use this mod to achieve that?

I apologize if this has been asked before. FAR makes rockets a lot more efficient due to the reduced drag, reducing the amount of Deltav required to get into orbit. At least as I understand it. I'd like to counteract that, is there an easy way to globally reduce atmo ISP for rocket engines?

The same configuration with the latest versions of KSPi and NFT installed in 1.3 seems to work just fine, so it is possible this "bug" has been fixed already. I really don't want to abandon yet another advanced career save, so I'll look around for a fix for this 1.2.2. mess, if possible. Either way, thanks!

Is that so? The "manufacturer" for the reactor and the radiator is "kerb kastria inc", so i figured they were both NF. Either way, looks like all my radiators have a "waste heat" resource assigned. Is this some sort of KSPi patch screwing me over? I'll try editing out the wasteheat resource and see what happens.

I'm having some issues cooling a NFE reactor using NF radiators. I'm on ksp 1.2.2. the reactor .cfg says this is NFE 0.7.3. I'm trying to use the "MX-4 'GARNET' Fission Reactor" but I cannot cool it once it is in a vacuum, on the ground everything is fine but once it isn't it'll overheat even on 5% power. I'm probably missing something here, can someone tell me what i'm doing wrong? Heat mechanics are a bit confusing to me. I'm using what I believe are NF radiators, oversized for a reactor this small (seems to me) but it isn't enough even at a fraction of the power.

I didn't think about that. I mean I did notice the overall mass of the craft was much lower, I just didn't connect the dots. It is a little bit unfortunate as far as game balance is concerned, seeing as putting mass into orbit is a lot easier than putting those massive (in terms of size) LH2 tanks up. At least for me. I suppose I can always just ignore the Lox mode, or only include a little bit of Oxidizer it for when i need a boost. Thanks for the reply.

I am sorry if this has been asked already in this thread, but can I trust kerbal engineer on these delta-v calculations? LoxAugmented gives me almost double the delta-v and double the TWR of pure H2. The TWR I expected, but not the delta-v, as it makes pure H2 kind of absolete, no? Edit: Has been answered.

Hey thanks, I did as you suggested. Then reinstalled it when it still didn't work and then tested IR on a clean install and you were correct, it was a problem with KJR. Thanks for your help. For anyone who comes after, the fix is here:

Hi, I'm having similar problems as @Rainbowd4sh, but I don't understand your fix, or i'm applying them wrong, could you explain it another way, maybe?

On the face of it it seems like a pretty good solution. You fly one sat up to a given orbit, create a group for it, which inherits the SMA of the sat and will serve as a SMA snap point for other sats (and the original) once they get "close enough" and are set to snap to it. To clarify there will be no "master sat" but just a group that copies the SMA from the first one, but doesn't inherit any changes from it afterwards, correct? That would keep the SMA from drifting on load/unload of the first sat, but also make it impossible to ruin your entire group if something happens to it. It would be nice if there was a provision to alter the "Group SMA" after creation, but I feel that might be open to exploitation and increase complexity too much. One can always nuke the group and create a new one on an altered sat. Would it be possible to initiate a group with orbital bodies? I like having my sats lead and trail behind moons for cheap, "good enough" coverage. It would also make "Kerbol orbitals" less of a suicidal proposition if you can park it somewhere along the orbit of a planet. I'm all for it, especially if the mod is separate from RT itself because the KSP-I sats suffer from the same problems. Would it help if I posted this in the Github thread? The thread there is a bit dusty. I honestly don't know. Spotting that option lead me to reconsider my RT-less career and post here to see what the current status of orbital drift was in the game before i went out and set it up. I'll definitely keep an eye out to see how KSP handles orbits now and report any findings.

Dealing with orbital drift? While I love RT and using it in combination with KSP-I remote-power networks I have in the past always ended up canning the whole thing because of orbital drift. Even after I took to hyperEdit or save-editing directly and making sure not to focus or get in physics range I would find satellites drifting regardless. Satellites in typical orbits, say synchronous ones around Kerbin would be fairly stable but for some reason satellites that I have leading or following the Mun or Minmus would end up getting eaten or flying off after encountering said moon. I read the latest update might have fixed random drift somewhat? How do you maintain an ever expanding network of satellites over the course of years and years and deal with orbital drift? I've not found a way and it makes me quit ksp every time in frustration.