FITorion

I've had a number of crashes. The autosave has prevented them from being disastrous. My crashes have happened on 32bit when opening the map. I hit M and nothing happens then thinking I don't quite hit M hard enough... I hit it again and crash... The last crash report said something about memory out of bounds... so I've switched to 64bit. Bone stock. zero mods.

Not right now. The SSS linked in the first post has issues. (Florida under water, Saturns rings not showing up, sinking through the ground when trying to land on various bodies) Another person is working on a regular Kerbal scale RSS... http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/138572-112-12-stock-size-real-solar-system/&page=1 Just looked and looks like he just put up a download link for it.

Right now I have s^3 working. Only needed 2 tweeks to get Florida out of the water and get Saturns rings to show up. I'm curious what you mean when you say it's very broken... wondering if I missed something somewhere. Is it just not being maintained anymore? I guess I wouldn't have had to make those tweeks if it was... I'm trying to nail down a good KSP scale Real solar system set up so I can stream in a realish system. I want my Niece to be able to watch and be learning about the real solar system. I don't want to confuse her and anyone else who watches by having the Kerbal system which is similar to but not really like our real system. Right now I have KSP installed on my system 4 times over as I'm trying to check out different mods and compare and verify that they're scaling things right. In RSS... SSS and now your mod Venus doesn't look right. Shouldn't be able to see the surface at all... atmosphere is too thick for that.

I've been messing with the ring values trying to get the rings to show up... I put in the rss values into sss and bam rings. and they look right... which doesn't make sense. If I understand what's going on... which I probably don't... with the default rss values in sss they should be huge... filling the whole Saturn system. But they aren't... they're right where they should be... I don't get why it's working now... but it is. so... Hurray! Though... I now I'm wondering if SSS is actually down scaling Saturn correctly... or any planet really...

Thanks. -610 looks pretty much right. Close enough for my purposes. Now I just have to figure out Saturn's rings and I'm all good.

You also need the textures. 1 of the three different resolutions which are linked in the first post. That then needs to be unzipped in the gamedata folder like rss was.

I'm using Small Scale Solarsystem as linked in the first post to get planets in KSP scale so I can use stock parts. so my values for the rings are 250 and 125. Also rss has unlit set to true where as sss has unlit set to false. That's the only other difference I see.

there's no readme in the textures pack. But I think I have it working... mostly. My 2 issues at the moment are that Florida is water... and Saturn doesn't have rings.

So the instructions in the first post tell me to download the textures but neglect to tell me what to do with them now that I have them. So since the texture zip has the textures in a file folder Named gamedata... I've assumed they go in KSPs identically named file. I think it may have worked... it's just that using the KSP size planets... Florida is water except for the launch site until you zoom out far enough and it appears. does it do this with out the addition of the Small Scale Solarsystem mod?

Does RealSolarSystem scale up the power of the stock parts to work with the new sizes? if it does then that's fine too.

So all I want is the real planets textures on stock Kerbal size planets with the rest of the planets at that same scale so I can use all the stock parts as normal. I want to have real looking places to go so I can teach people about the real system. I don't care about all the rest of the realism stuff... Will this mod do that? Will the first post be updated with 1.1 compatibility or is that buried somewhere in all these pages of replies?

You do need missions when it's early game and you don't have the funds to waste on a non-mission related flight and you have a wall of missions unrelated to what you want to do. After you make orbit you should get a bunch of Science from orbit... rescue from orbit... put satellite in orbit... Dock 2 ships... or if you don't have the tech, get 2 ships close to each other... leave a kerbal up there for X amount of time... build a station with X parts... missions and those missions shouldn't dry up and go away ever. There should always be Kerbin orbit missions. Each new SOI you go to should add their related missions to the list without removing the previous SOI's missions. So if you want to go to the Mun and then spend the next 10... 20... 100 missions just exploring the Mun... there should always be Mun missions available to you if you choose to use them. Once you're late game and have a surplus of cash then you have the luxury of doing flights without a mission. But Early Normal mode is not that time.

Finally got a flyby of Mun mission. Sent up a Stayputnic with a bunch of batteries 2 goos a thermometer and a transmitter... Got up there and thought... what the hell, I've got enough fuel lets go into orbit. Did that. transmitted thermometer and 1 goo ... and realized I didn't have enough battery to last till I was low enough to get the other goo... let alone transmit it. So I put it on a collision course with the Mun. Now here's the mission part... after all that I look at the missions... What do you think I found? What do you think I should find? If it's more missions to explore the Mun... you'd be wrong and right respectively. What I got was one mission to do temperature scans of Minmus... Nothing about the Mun... The flow of career... the direction players in career get is from the missions. They should flow naturally... and they don't right now. I don't expect this to change right now... prerelease doesn't seem the time to make major modifications to core systems... but if somethings can be tweaked a little for now so you can look at it in more depth later then that would be good. Edit to add: I do like the idea of sorta pre weighting certain catagories of missions so they come up more often.

How fine are the weighting categories... Like If I accept single passenger tourist contracts and decline the multipassenger ones? Or accept the landed part testing and decline the inflight ones?

There's a shortage of missions I want to do... I'm basically stuck... I've got a wall of focus survey missions and orbital tourists... and orbital part testing... missions that I either don't want to do or don't have the tech to safely do. What's missing are return science from X and Suborbital tourist and launch pad part testing. Tourist missions should always be a step behind what you do with a full astronaut. I barely put one kerbal in orbit. Tourist missions should not be orbital at this point. They should be suborbital to allow you to repeatedly practice. I have the tech to put one Kerbal in orbit... not one and 2 passengers... I should be getting more put 1 kerbal in orbit missions... maybe with different altitudes and inclinations... With all the changes I'm relearning how to do things... and one orbital mission does not make me an expert... I need several repeats to practice and gain confidence before moving on to the next... and the missions available to me should support this learning without me having to do launches with no missions associated with them... And now that declining missions costs you reputation... I can't decline everything until I get what I want. I'll have to timewarp until they expire... I'm on normal difficulty without any modifications. I'm trying to see what the normal career experience would feel like to a new person. I thought the missions were supposed to give you things you've done and evidently like not fill up with things you avoid... My tech level is into the third tier. I've got batteries and struts.

Mining and research... I just got the resource scanning parts in my career... so haven't done any mining. At this point a outpost near several "biomes" with a research lab to get full science without having to bring anything home has value. Then for mining... do areas get depleted? If they don't then you don't need a separate driller. I hear that the ore takes up less space... though has the same mass as the resultant fuel it's refined to... Are there multiple refiner sizes? If there are then... I'd make a miner that drills and refines enough for itself and brings the unrefined up to orbit for the big refinery. It wouldn't be a base... If a base were to have anything mining related it would be minimal and just for refueling crew transports and or any hoppers to go to the near by "biomes." ... or I guess the fuel cells for electricity through the long nights you can get in places... Basically the base's mining activities would be for its own needs rather than being much of a fuel depot... Fuel Depots are much more useful in orbit.

I don't know if this would be possible... but I think it should... at least in a limited form... We've all experienced something going wrong and our last quick save being really far back... In fact I just discovered my batteries dead after a long time warp... And yes the problem could be solved already by quick saving often... at least mostly. But what if instead of having to reload my save from a year of Kerbal time ago... I could just timewarp backwards to a point before my batteries were completely dead? There would have to be limits. like if you interacted with the craft in such a way as to change its trajectory... or any atmospheric forces on it... I'd like for it to operate across SOI changes though. (Just like regular time warp... but backwards) So the last time you changed things... would be the limit for how far you could go back. If you didn't have those limits cheating the system to get places you physically couldn't would occur unless you recorded every input or every frame of physics calculations... and that would just be untenable. I think a limited reverse time warp could be added... if the game can flag and save the last point at which the trajectory got changed.

So far as I've seen thus far... my video seems to be the only one that has the re-ignition of the first stage. There has got to be other people with video of... Sure the launch was in the middle of the night... but there has got to be people who were at the launch that got video... I can't believe that I'm the only one. They have to have just not shared it yet... But why don't any of the professional news people have any video?

I've been looking around... but I have not been able to find anyone else with video of the engines re-igniting... I'm sure there have got to be other individuals like me who got it. But none of the news sites have video of it... I haven't seen anyone else with video of it... Am I the only one with video of the first stage's engines re-ignited?

I shot some video of the launch... I saw the first re-ignition of the first stage engine and managed to get the second firing on video. The landing itself though was beyond the horizon so I couldn't see it. This video I edited out the long dark sequences. full unedited video... mostly dark with only me and the ocean to listen to.

I bristle at the statement "occurs in a place where the physics make no sense from a real-world perspective." The physic is KSP isn't entirely accurate... but it is way more accurate than most other games and makes a whole lot more sense in the real world than most other games. It isn't a full on as accurate as we can make it space simulation... but it is good enough. I think it more likely... people who don't understand real world physics find the real world physics presented in the game to be weird and confusing. This isn't to say that there aren't inaccuracies or that it can't be nit picked... it certainly can... but that the inaccuracies aren't that bad and serve to enhance game play. such as over powered rockets and an undersized and more massive solar system.

There is a misconception that there is no gravity in space... Gravity is everywhere in space... Everything is pulling on everything else all the time... only to lesser or greater extents depending on proximity. Everything is also moving... If there was no gravity in space then you couldn't have an orbit. Orbits are only possible because you are being pulled on by the gravity of the object you are near. If you cross behind an object in it's orbital path then you will be pulled toward it... Adding velocity to you and changing your direction a little... but since it is moving away from you and your direction of travel is in approximately the same direction as it then you have a net gain of velocity. If you cross in front of the object... you get pulled toward it and the direction of your travel changes a little to be more retro grade... thus reducing your velocity relative to the object the both of you are orbiting. Such as Kerbin. This could effectively slow down an object into a closed orbit... but it is highly likely to encounter the Mun again and more adjustments made. The asteroid in question is being acted upon by an outside force "gravity" just as effectively as if you had strapped a rocket onto it. Here's a quick and dirty image I whipped up to hopefully help.

How do you want to see them in game? The purpose of this thread is to answer that question.

Oh! so long as we're adding biome maps... the same interface could be used to place "targets"... "waypoints"... markers... of some type to use as targets for landing... missions... our own names for places...

I don't see why... other than developer time... they couldn't be unlocked multiple ways. Several of the methods I have heard could be equal paths to the same info. scanning with a satellite could be a faster way than building a really expensive observatory... and upgrading it... Ground exploration could gradually fill in the map...