Mesons

I personally really like this strategy, and I agree with the flaw you noted. This is, however, one of the very few scenarios where I will "cheat" and edit the save file. I'm willing to pretend I have hired a crew to refill regularly, perhaps even deducting a modest sum of funds in career mode.

Find KSP.exe and double-click it. It should be in the main KSP_win folder. If it's not there, it should be. Re-download?

This is why angular velocity and angular momentum are represented by cross-products, perpendicular to the orbital velocity. CW/CCW depend on where you view the system from, but if you consistently apply a right-handed convention, the direction is unambiguous.

This has been my experience as well, though I joined on at 0.18 so the patcher has literally never worked once for me.

This was my thinking, and seeing only Valentina introduced in the initial crew, along with still-all-male ground crew, pushed me to actually do it.

...because the entirety of the ground crew is still male. What else do the femme kerbals have to do but go to space? Is anybody else running an all-female space program? I kept Jebediah for old times' sake, and he'll probably tag along on some interplanetary missions to bodies he hasn't seen in my older saves. Bill and Bob are now Kax and Zela, my transgender crew. I haven't rescued a single male kerbal, and so far, I've rescued all the female kerbals which have popped up. I'm appreciative that Squad have included female kerbals, but they certainly didn't take it very far. I'm irritated that there's no orange-suit female scientist or engineer.

This thread is a fantastic wealth of information. Thank you all for posting, asking, and answering! A lot of questions I had about the inner workings of the new aero model have been answered.

In the same vein, I feel that the backlash was inevitable considering the lack of a true feature-complete beta, e.g. a 0.99 release before 1.0. Releasing 0.99 and insisting that there are surely still plenty of bugs before calling it 1.0 might have diminished the criticism. Avid, loyal players' criticism is the least of Squad's concerns at this point.

This is one of the only ideas I've seen that wasn't ruled out by Harv and fits his hint. I could imagine a countdown or a crawler as well, but those would both be annoying to experienced players, so I don't see them as likely (even if toggle-able). I think craters from crashes fits well, especially considering the hint about destroy-able buildings: something like "You won't even notice if you're good." Personally, I always look for tutorials in a new game with complexity like KSP. Since we already have those (and it's not Harv working on them), I can't see introductory (teaching) material as likely. I also can't imagine it'd be Harv working on an intro cutscene or the like, and that would probably take longer than 2 days. I think craters fits because the lack of it is something a brand new player will notice when they crash their first couple rockets, and the destroy-able buildings might have already put in some of the necessary infrastructure. I'm very disappointed that the new feature won't be clouds. Craters would be a nice addition, but I think clouds are the most important cosmetic update KSP is still missing.

It's not crafts I'm worried about, it's the orbits of moons crossing through the planets in map mode. I thought to do essentially this. That's why I've posted this thread, to ask how to get rid of the starry background. If the texture replacer mod can do it, there is likely a simple way to do this without getting any more mods.

I'd like to remove the space background image (the one with the distant stars) for image manipulation purposes. Poking around in the KSP/GameData folder didn't yield anything obvious, so I think I'm missing something. How can I remove the starry background image? Also, if there is a way to toggle orbit paths from map mode (like F2 for the UI), I'd like to know how to do that, too.

I usually just put something silly about dedicating it to my partner, often with a mention of how the mission has been going. I end up being much more concerned with the placement and getting to the right spot than what to put on the plaque once I get there. It ends up not being well-thought-out because of the lack of planning.

I decided I like the part widgets.

I'm a graduate student in physics, and I can honestly say that I have learned more from doing in KSP than I have from studying orbital mechanics in several classes at several levels. The last time I had a class that covered orbital mechanics (a grad-level one), I had already been playing KSP for a few months and the material came much easier to me than ever before. I recall struggling with the concepts in previous classes. My recommendation is to follow some tutorials to get off the ground (if you're struggling with that part). Next, fiddle around with orbits. See what changing your speed in different directions does with maneuver nodes. Do a lot of it. Send some interplanetary missions (relying on more tutorials if need be). Getting a feel for how changing your speed in different directions affects your orbits will really help you get off the ground running if you want to understand the underlying physics. Unfortunately, I don't know of any great online resources, though my partner (also a physics grad student) has found some Khan Academy videos to be pretty helpful on a variety of topics on YouTube. There might be a relevant video on that channel. See also: (From xkcd.com, click the image to go to the page.)

It matters a great deal to those of us who view people of all genders as equal that there be equal representation. Preferring male kerbals in the default team forces a bias that spits in the face of equality. Keeping the original three can not possibly be justified, as there were no female kerbals before--citing tradition as reasoning here is tantamount to saying "only men should ________ because no women were allowed to do it before." I am in favor of randomizing your starting team somehow. How about this: 3 kerbals (one with each job) are randomly allotted as your starting crew from Bill, Jeb, Bob, Val, and two other female kerbals with unique names. OR You always get Val and Jeb, as well as one or two other kerbals, randomly assigned from Bill, Bob, and two other female kerbals with unique names. If Squad doesn't balance this along with the rest of the balancing attention KSP is getting, they are bluntly saying women don't matter as much as men. I also agree with the several others in this thread (and past threads) who have called for more female mission control and engineering kerbals at KSC.

This is essentially what the ion engine does. The Lorentz force is just a term for the force on a charged particle from electric and magnetic fields. This includes accelerating xenon ions with an electric field. KSP does not rely on physics, it models the physics in various ways. There is no momentum conservation requiring mass to be ejected to create thrust; when an engine is active, the game checks if fuel is available, decrements the supply by some amount per engine, then specifies what magnitude and direction of force to apply for each engine. To be physical, all of the required fuels do have non-zero densities. Setting the density of XenonGas to 0 and increasing the capacity of the xenon tanks should work fine. The density values are set in: KSP_Main_Folder/GameData/Squad/Resources/ResourcesGeneric.cfg What the OP really needed was the debug menu, and to that the OP was directed.

I found this tutorial video by pebble_garden a great help for my first attempts at orbital rendezvous. The parts I found most helpful were: how far away the target should be at launch (about 400km for a 100km x 100km orbit and the launch strategy pebble_garden suggests); how to exploit the target/anti-target direction indicators on the navball effectively.

This is a "Known Issue." Hopefully a fix will be released for this bug in the next update. See http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92235-Cross-Platform-Issues-Thread

You may have noticed that the oscillations cease when you are time warping. The jiggle comes from rotations and flexing of joints from your vessel, because: This means that the velocity used to calculate the orbit is varying as your vessel jiggles and wobbles as it flies. Time warping stops the physics calculations causing these small movements, so the velocity used for orbit calculation is the same as the velocity of the center of mass.

Echo everything SkyRender said, and one more thing: I have found the suggestion to change CONIC_PATCH_DRAW_MODE to 0 to be the most helpful settings.cfg change for me, though increasing the draw limit (i.e. to 6 as SkyRender suggested) seems to be the problem plaguing you the most in your anecdote. Making the change I suggest draws your orbit paths in the SOI of the target body, rather than as a continuous path from your current SOI (the default).

Usually these tell you to do something when you're in the specified region. I suspect this one tells you to take an EVA Report when you are on the ground in that region. Check the contract for some wording like that. To take an EVA report or surface sample, right-click on your EVA'd Kerbal.

On line 17482 of your persistence file, one of the docked ports says that it is attached to K-one-nip, with the root part ID of 803483826. That ID doesn't appear anywhere else in the persistence file, whereas it should be listed in the vessel information and the root part for that vessel. I imagine that this is causing problems. If you'd like to undock the problem parts, find each the docked ports with the following information: Undock { active = False guiActive = True guiIcon = Undock guiName = Undock category = Undock } and change the first line inside the brackets to active = True -- that should allow you to detach the problem sections. Unfortunately, I think you will need to put probe cores on each section so that when you decouple the docking ports they have a root part to reference. This is the only way I could find to solve the problem when I had similar issues. Edit: thought to add that unfortunately, armagheddonsgw's solution of ditching the problem sections seems like the only way out without more extensive editing of your save file (you could try changing the root part of those issue ports to the root part of Voyager).

Have a look at the docking state listed in the persistence file--I think this problem is caused by one of the docked ports not updating its docked status. You can probably solve the problem by correcting where the docking status is incorrect. I read that in a thread devoted to this problem somewhere a long time ago when I had my related problem.

This is consistent with the docking issues I saw on the non-command sections I mentioned in my previous post. The solution: slap on a probe core, LordFerret.

Manners, please. I had some funny business docking/undocking with base sections landed on the Mun with a rover, when the base sections had no probe/command module on them. They were attached to a controlled part, then I docked the rover, then detached from the lander, so that rover+section were a vessel, then undocked the section. I wasn't able to dock with the base section again, even after moving a great distance away and coming back. If your engines are connected directly to a fuel source, there could be some issues with this, but since you were able to dock it's probably not related.