check

Thanks for that. Hopefully this is something that'll get fixed.

Anyone having issues when running KOS for an extended period of time? I've got a shortish program (1.7k) and after about 15 minutes of continuous running, KSP get's REALLY laggy. As soon as I stop my KOS program, everything runs smooth. The program isn't logging anything, just directing a rover... V 0.9.2

Landed a probe on every moon of Jool. Booya.

Thanks! I Made the change it looks fine on my browsers.

Thanks for letting me know and posting a screenshot. I had tested the page on the major browsers (IE, Chrome and Firefox) and it looked okay on Firefox 25 on Windows 7. I wish I knew more about web design that I could narrow down what the issue is for you... I'll look into it.

In case anyone's missed it, 0.85 is out now: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/kos/ http://kosdev.blogspot.ca/

Sorry for bringing up an older thread but I was looking to post the same thing. I believe the reason for the low gimbal range for the current engines that have thrust vectoring was because SAS was only able to handle engines with a gimbal range of up to a few degrees before it would spaz out. However, new SAS tweaks in 0.22 allow for a much greater gimbal range with SAS enabled, so this should definitely be doable. I would love to see some stock engines with 10 or 15 +/- deg gimbal range in a future update.

Perhaps add a feature in the Astronaut Facility where if you click on a veteran Kerbal, you'll get a summary of the missions they've been on, which would include mission names, total flights, time in space, total EVAs, surfaces visited and milestones (ie first Kerbal on the Mun, longest EVA, closest to the sun, etc).

Me too. Maybe have the newspapers posted in an 'Astronaut Hall of Fame' in the astronaut facility? Maybe to go along with badges for completed missions, examples of ground samples, etc?

Just a simple display, maybe in the Resource tab, that shows the total science that has been collected, stored & transmitted on the current mission. That is all.

LoL. Yeah, I was hoping to go into munar orbit... but I underestimated my fuel requirement a smidge. Normally I'd just revert the flight but since I figured I'd get a much of science out of the mission anyway, might as well continue.

So my first impressions of 0.22 after playing around for an hour and a half: Played career mode. My flights in order (while collecting science): -Short atmospheric flight with an SRB -Suborbital space flight. -Orbital space flight. -Free return trajectory around the mun. Game runs very smoothly. I've got it cranked on max and have only gotten any lag when transitioning between time warps. No stutter at all. No more pausing when transitioning between SOIs. Collecting science is cool but it's a little confusing to know how much science you've collected so far in your mission. It'd be nice if there was a little resource counter that showed you total science collected this mission, total science stored, total science transmitted... That would help you know if you've collected enough science to move on to another research tech. The KSC looks great. Liking the night lighting on the runway and pad. SAS seems to work better now. Really happy about the recovery button on the main UI. Transitions between scenes is really quick. Overall, a pretty awesome update.

It doesn't simulate gravitational gradient torque. So no.

If we're talking about a special case, spherical satellite (with even mass distribution), then I think the answer is A. But the gravitational gradient will, according to wikipedia " tend to align its axis of minimum moment of inertia vertically."

I rarely if ever design a manned rocket without and escape system (which I test) nor do I send Kerbals on missions without a return plan.

Did they ever put on any part of their EVA suits to keep warm? Granted they're bulky and probably a pain to get in and out of, but surely it'd be a good way to keep from freezing.

Well, Ptolemy had an explanation for that which still allowed for a geocentric solar system. The Ptolemy model had to become more and more complex with each refinement in measurement... Edit: But yeah llamatoes, Winter Man is right; you might want to mention retrograde motion of the planets, and how that the more accurately they were able to measure the motion of the planets, the more complex the model had to become, and they could never get it quite right. A heliocentry model, on the other hand, explained everything nicely and was much simpler.

Yeah, especially now that the new suspension system is implemented. Would be cool.

Sure the discussion has been civil, but this should be in its own thread, IMO. If anyone wanted to contribute to the original discussion, their post would get buried in the long-reply back and forths with LunaTrick.

I got the idea while trying to replicate the Delta IV heavy: The spacecraft has three identical engines on the boost stage and the same size fuel tanks, but the centre engine is throttled down (to maybe 50%?) relative to the side boosters, hence the side boosters drain fuel quicker. Once they are out of fuel, they fall away and the centre engine throttles up and burns its remaining fuel. Since we can't throttle engines independently, a work around would either be to add more fuel to the centre booster, changing the rockets design significantly, or have fuel lines feeding from the side boosters to the centre. However, when the side boosters jettisoned, I wouldn't want a full centre tank, as it'd weigh too much for that one engine. So if I had the ability to stop fuel flow via the fuel lines midburn of the boost stage, the centre booster would be light enough to lift once the side boosters were jettison. Anyway, that's just one example where this feature would come in handy.

I'm sad that this thread got derailed by conspiracy mumbo jumbo.

As the title suggests; the ability to toggle fuel flow through fuel lines off and on via the action groups. There are some situations where this would be beneficial and it seems like a simple addition that could enable more complex rocket designs.

I didn't mind the look of the medium legs. They were reminiscent of real life landing legs on early space probes. But they were wobbly as hell and would snap off for no reason, so pretty unusable.

I know there are mods for many of these, but I'd like to see them as part of the stock game: -Better aerodynamics -Reentry heat/damage and reentry contrails -Dust getting kicked up when landing, or driving a rover around -Clouds -Wind -IVA crew transfers -First person view option on EVA -Radial drogue chutes -SRB segments -Mapping (topography and biomes) -Robotics and tethers -Docking cam -Procedural fairings/wings -More planets/moons -Volcanism -A separate part tab for modded parts -Engines with greater gimbal range -Wider fuel tanks -A Kerbal Flight Engineer type display

1) When you catastrophically crash the stats window should pop up. Otherwise, if you land safely (or at any other time in the mission) you can tap F3 to bring it up. 2) Haven't done the math, but I'm assuming if you're not firing your core stage engines and just the boosters, you're just carrying the dead weight of the core engines that aren't doing anything until you stage your boosters, wasting fuel. If your boosters alone are able to lift your rocket without the core stage firing, then they're probably overpowered. You'll want to find a balance where a) the core stage without boosters can lift itself and the core stage with boosters can just barely lift itself. Again, I haven't done the math, but that seems reasonable to me. 3) There should be a little grey square with a dark triangle in the middle, at the bottom centre of your screen in map mode. Clicking that will bring up the navball. If you cant see it then maybe your resolution is set wrong for your display. 4) Only used the joystick a few times, but I'm more comfortable using WASDQE to control my spaceplanes. Lots of people swear by joysticks or gamepads though, so it's up to each individual user.