xrayfishx

Trolls. Intelligence is no longer a factor.

I haven't kept track precisely, but simple math puts it between 1500 and 2000.

1/10 I recognize the sig, but that's about it.

Several tons of coffee mugs at an orbital velocity.

A coffee mug. Just throw it hard enough.

Oh wow, it seems my first post was related to realism mods already, ranting about not having enough realism. And my 7th post was the first one that wasn't in the RSS thread.

If you use FAR, it will actually give the same effect as in real life. The wing part at the tip of the wing (or the whole wing if it's one part) will give slightly less lift than it would if it had another wing part attached to its tip. So by curving the wing up like that you get the maximum out of the wing and some extra yaw stability.

I don't think it should be about difficulty, it should be about the type of challenge. You could separate design challenges, piloting, scenarios, nsfw, mods, stock etc. Those are not the best examples, but it should be something along these lines.

Designing a launch vehicle for each payload is time consuming in RSS. I try to be efficient and designing an efficient launch vehicle takes time. Also, there are often weird problems with mods so when a design works well and doesn't glitch too much, it's a huge success for me. If a design flies well and it's easy to follow an efficient ascent path with it, it's again a huge success. Huge successes don't happen often and most of my designs end up scrapped so clearly it would be a bad idea to design a new launch vehicle for each payload.

I don't know if I should put it here or in the RO thread, but I cba to go through all the troubleshooting and I doubt it would help (also, I'm still using 0.24.2, because there's more mods compatible) so I'll put it here. I tried to make a small launch vehicle with the J2 Aerospike engine for the first stage. Now, that engine doesn't have thrust vectoring, which means alternative steering methods were necessary. For the first 40k control surfaces do the trick, after that I decided to use RCS. Now, here's where the issue starts. The rocket, including the payload, is completely symmetrical, however the rocket starts steering right for no apparent reason. Until 40k the aerodynamics overcame that easily, but after that it's impossible to keep under control, I would need to use some hypergolic verniers, but that will make the rocket less efficient while I'm already having problems making it efficient enough. Is it some glitch with non-centered thrust on the engine or is it still a design flaw?

Well, I've never seen northern lights either. Though that's mostly bad luck, not that there never was any. I don't know which is worse - that I didn't remember ISS's inclination correctly and will now have to send several missions to my station to fix it or that Heavens Above didn't give me any passes before. Well, now it did, but all of those are in daylight, except for one which will be in the distant future of... 2.5 hours ago.

Unfortunately, where I live, the ISS isn't visible. I don't understand why, though. It's at an inclination of 56 degrees. If I've learned anything from RSS it's that this means it reaches the latitude of 56 degrees. I live at a latitude of 59 degrees. That's 3 degrees difference, which is about 330km. The ISS is always around 420k. That means it should be visible at over 45 degrees from the horizon occasionally. Why is life so unfair to me, why do I never get to see it?

Nah, nothing like it. The engine exhaust should have created lens flares, the re-entry heating effects didn't create lens flares, city lights didn't create lens flares. Overall I'd say it needs more lens flares.

Go to space center view, open debug menu, go to cheats tab, tap and hold alt for 5 seconds, simple clicky-clicky from there on.

Probably not transfer window planner. They haven't put much effort into giving us data so far, why would they start with that? I'd put my money on Fine Print. As you said, many hope for that, I personally don't care since I play RO and that means no career mode for me anyway. It'd surprise me a bit indeed if it was FAR or DRE, NEAR is a possibility if they want to save time by not making their own version when something is out there that works fine. I would hope for either SelectRoot or Editor Extensions, the first isn't too likely, but EE seems like a possibility to me.

As already stated, that's intended behaviour, it's supposed to be like this. Obviously you can't thrust through another object. It won't work for the same reason an engine in the middle of a stack won't work.

I try to make my satellites/rockets only slightly overpowered. I prefer to have a little bit of room for error. I should be able to get to orbit with about 9700 dV, but I want to be sure so I give it at least 10000 and use the leftover to deorbit the last stage. Since I play RO, I don't really use spaceplanes, but then again I also only play sandbox so costs aren't a problem. When I design my rockets, I usually design them for a certain mass, not a certain payload. When I do design for a payload, I won't redesign/nerf it just to use a J-2 instead of an RS-25 in the lifter, but I will try all options with the J-2 before choosing the RS-25. For these reasons I rated myself as 4.

Is there a way to make kOS set a target in a certain direction and then make MJ or RT2 autopilot aim for it? As I said in OP I use RO so reaction wheels aren't really an option.

For quite some time now I've been trying to create a kOS script that would automatically launch my spacecraft. I'm having a couple of issues here that I need help with: 1) With Realism Overhaul most engines have a ridiculous amount of thrust vectoring capability compared to stock engines. It seems that kOS is completely incapable of only steering a little, it just seems to push the stick all the way towards what it's supposed to be pointing at which doesn't work too well when I'm using an engine that turns 8 degrees in any direction. I could be wrong about kOS's inner workings here, but the fact is, my rocket is spinning and not really pointing in any certain direction. Is there a way to keep it going in the right direction? 2) Speaking of going in the right direction, the direction system is not very intuitive. It even says so in the wiki. So can anyone explain to me how it works, because the wiki couldn't make it very clear to me. 3) I'm often getting random syntax errors even when I'm absolutely sure there's nothing wrong. For example, in my script there was the following line: set tVal to 1. Apparently something's wrong with it. Even when I copy-pasted another exactly the same line (except working) over it to clear out any possible spelling errors, there didn't seem to be any and either way it still didn't work. Could the problem be some other line interacting with it somehow? set tVal to 1. //Launch prep lock throttle to tVal. lock steering to up + R(0,0,180). //Launch stage. //Pitch Program wait until altitude > 300. lock steering to up + R(5,0,180). wait until altitude > 3000. lock steering to up + R(10,0,180). wait until altitude > 5000. lock steering to up + R(15,0,180). wait until altitude > 7000. lock steering to up + R(20,0,180). wait until altitude > 10000. lock steering to up + R(25,0,180). wait until altitude > 15000. lock steering to up + R(30,0,180). wait until altitude > 20000. lock steering to up + R(35,0,180). wait until altitude > 25000. lock steering to up + R(40,0,180). wait until altitude > 30000. lock steering to up + R(45,0,180). wait until altitude > 35000. lock steering to up + R(50,0,180). wait until altitude > 40000. lock steering to up + R(55,0,180). wait until altitude > 45000. lock steering to up + R(60,0,180). wait until altitude > 55000. lock steering to up + R(65,0,180). wait until altitude > 70000. lock steering to up + R(70,0,180). wait until altitude > 95000. lock steering to up + R(75,0,180). wait until altitude > 170000. lock steering to up + R(80,0,180). wait until altitude > 200000. lock steering to up + R(85,0,180). wait until altitude > 210000. lock steering to up + R(90,0,180). set tVal to 0. wait until eta:apoapsis < 60 set tVal to 1. wait until periapsis > 250000 set tVal to 0. unlock throttle.//Throttle Control

5/10 Venus is a cool place but it definitely isn't life. Also, the picture is cut off.

4/10. Explosions are only fun for so long. I'm well beyond that point. Also, not much was discovered with that experiment. It is a nice gif, though.

5-9 fps for a rocket that normally gives me 30 is lagging like hell. I keep my designs realistic (I use RO) so I don't build anything that runs at 5-9 spf. Or even 5-9 fps when not recording. There used to be a time when I also made huge ships so don't come telling me I don't know what low frame rates are. I'll remember that. I did that and I mentioned it in the OP. However, as I was told on other forums, most recording tools work more with GPU than CPU.

OBS seems to work perfectly, there doesn't seem to be a frame rate drop at all and the video quality seems to be good. Thanks a lot.

I would really like to record some of the stuff I do, but on my heavily modded install (see signature) KSP starts to lag like hell when I start recording. The frame rate drops to about 5-9 and when I alt-tab out, I can't get back in and have to close the game. This is really shameful considering I have 3 unused CPUs, each running at 1.9GHz and supposedly are boosted to up to 2.8GHz when needed. Is there a way to make the recording software only use those 3 CPUs and stay away from the one that KSP is using? Right now I used FRAPS and in Task Manager I used the "Set Affinity" thing to only allow it to run on 3 CPUs, at first I tried disabling CPU 0 and then CPU 3 but neither option seemed to affect the game's performance. So how do I go about this? What software to use, how to limit it to 3 CPUs? Could it be that it's more about GPU than CPU? Also, I almost forgot, the specs, in case they're important (though I don't get why they should be). CPU: AMD A8-4500M GPU: AMD Radeon 7670M + Radeon 7640G Dual graphics RAM: 8Gb OS: Win7 64bit KSP 0.24.2 64bit

That quote quite nicely illustrates the past year or so for me. I don't, however, like ponies all that much so you lose a point for that. 9/10