steuben

fresh install or did you install over an earlier version?

So to understand your flight profile. - The truck starts in Gilly orbit with enough fuel to land (plus margin). - fill the tanks on the surface - fly back to Gilly orbit and rendezvous We can assume four cog states. - orbit, with landing fuel - surface, with almost dry tanks - surface, with full tanks and cargo - orbit with landing fuel and cargo My suggestion is as follows, and requires KER, as it shows the data needed: - for each of the four states remove fuel - record the torque reported - add sufficient reaction wheel torque to balance to the maximum

hyperedit will also let you hack planets as well as ships. so you can tweak the gravity of kerbin down to minmus... or the other way if you want to test things out.

I think it will be a toss up between Knottme and Ida_know for who is the oldest, by any measure.

Turn on some of the strategies in the admin facility. I've got Unpaid Research Program and Outsourced R&D at the 25% level going. Then just grind the tourist and sat contracts.

You guys are all over thinking this. I've got a little Excel file that will strip struts out of a craft file without using scripts. As much as I think that learning how to translate stuff into the various standard formats is a good thing... I'm going to ask "why". It feels like much of the leverage that you would get from translation will be lost. Mostly because in doing the translation you have the data in hand. So why process it to <insert format here>, do whatever you want to it, process it out of <insert format here>?

Dang. I haven't seen Runge-Kutta invoked since second year diff-eqs. You may have to investigate higher order invocations of the RK mathamagics. Though as always you end up trading computation time for accuracy. I think it is fairly linear as you go up the scale, but folks more familiarity with O notation will be able to say yay or nay. Now for the Monday morning quarterback, the armchair general, the high school philosopher... it is time for the forumite dev! <insert flashy graphic using 80's community access VTR equipment> Using a simple case structure you can separate the analysis of the forces based on the eccentricity of the orbit. As it increases you increase the order of the RK calculations. At a certain point the eccentricity is nearly linear so the error in those cases is small when using the basic approximations, and can be considered both the trivial and degenerate case. An analysis can be done that will determine the best breakdown of order of RK versus eccentricity versus error size versus calculation time. Given this I can project that it will take on--- <insert video and audio of analog transmission static> Sorry, that fellow slips out every once in a while. It's especially bad since I have panicked and crashed compilers in 6 languages, not counting major dialects, on 7 systems, with the classic "Hello world" code. I never really got beyond that in terms of practical coding. Most of what I just outlined was probably considered at some point in the process. As I sometimes say to the people I work with, "simplicity of the solution is always inversely proportional to the knowledge of the problem". Good luck with the solution, I know it will arrive when it arrives and not before that.

tech level as well. unless you are focusing on getting the lv-n you'll get the 909 first

I was looking at the list of contracts, and the number of companies that have a space program is a little bit long. That in and of itself is not a problem. The real world is similar. Now those of us who are old enough, frelling 'eck like me, or know their computer history will remember The Great Video Game Crash of 1983. TV Tropes and Wiki for those who don't While the crash had several causes, one of the contributing factors was this one, "Non-video game companies (like Quaker Oats) produced [games]." In game we have Vac-Co Advanced Suction Systems, Maxo Construction Toys‎, Sean's Cannery, and O.M.B. Demolition Enterprises for example. Those are just the companies that the KSC has direct contact with. Each of those have active space programs of their own, given the R&R contracts that are issued. Now using the Fermi approximation there are roughly 10 active frequently launching space programs. For each program there are 1000 suppliers, abstracted away in terms of game mechanics. We can assume that only a quarter of those are exclusive for reasons of size, product, and space program specialization. Of the remaining we can assume that half have space contracting as a non-primary non-core roll. My slide ruler calculates that there are 37.50^H^H^H^H^H 3750, slide rulers don't do decimals very well, suppliers in that position. This position and numbers appears to be similar to the situation of the video game industry before the crash. All it would take would be one E.T. the videogame level disaster and the whole of Kerbin's space industry would implode. On the other hand assuming two or three generalist space programs and several slightly specialized to niche space programs the whole industry would be fairly disaster tolerant. On the gripping hand however I am applying real world economics to a realm in which physics while analogous is different. There is little reason to expect it to apply.

A technical question for the experienced. What is the part to time scale up like? for example 1000 parts takes 10 times longer than 100 parts?

Me and the kids were at one of those paint your own ceramics places. So while they were working on something for mummy I figured i would try my hand at something from the KSP-verse http://imgur.com/wVdQbLm

my generic sat consists of - one of every science available - okto core - small reaction wheel - commutron 16 - a z-200 battery - ox-4l array - fl-t200 - and a 909 engine

Among the things that hyperedit can do is place a craft in an arbitrary orbit. So can take a craft from the pad to an arbitrary orbit, or from one orbit to another one somewhere else.

possible yes. recommended ... no.Editing the persistences file like that is difficult and black magic. you will need to find the port, adjust it's rotation. from there you will most likely need to adjust the position of every radially attached part, and so on down the tree. my suggestions are: 1. undock and try again. 2. hyperedit up the assembled pair from the vba/sph 3. investigate some of the docking assist mods that will end up being suggested below.

I have standardized packages for the put a sat in orbit and the pick up a kerbal and/or his kit contracts. I don't have lifter... though I play so much in early game that standardization isn't worthwhile. But, I do have standard sections and design path, that I carry around in my head that I will build in. But in the story-verse I working with there are standard launchers. As for why, the 4km/s dv needed is an annoying part of the launching problem. It's one that I don't want to have to solve every time. Pick one that's rated for just over the mass of the load and down fuel the stages appropriately.

I'm working to design some of my larger craft. But, I need to reconsider how I approach the landing support both the gears and struts. Projections indicate that the middle of my craft will sag a bit. I could strut it a bit more for support, but I'm in the high part count range as it stands. Landing struts in the middle will clipping through things can be problematic. Landing gears on Minmus look a little bit off, plus it doesn't need to go anywhere but "up and down". I'm designing in the 2 kt range for Minmus, and trying to avoid hulls and bells landing supports.

some suggestions try - going lowtech -small part count, - monsterous payload, 1 kt is my designer's wall

The advice about AMD is received. Given I can get an AMD with a higher clock than Intel at the same price it may end up getting weighted lower. I'm looking towards at the very large end of ship size. It depends on how KSP approaching multi-cores and ships. I haven't seen a clear answer to that on the forums anywhere. Does each ship end up getting it's own core, or does it try to spread the physics over all the cores, or something in between?

I'm considering a new CPU. It depends on if it is my powersupply or the dust blanket giving me trouble. Is there a good rule of thumb these days for choosing one for KSP? I think in the previous versions clock speed over cores was the direction, mostly because KSP was single threaded. Now with 1.1.x and it's ability to use multiple cores that changes. What's the weighting of cores and speed? Given similar prices should I chose clocks or cores?

or try a clean reinstall. i've had some weird thing clear up with that. you can just copy your save folder over into the new install

On the surface or in orbit? In orbit it depends... I wouldn't recommend more that 5-10t per module and run it over in sections. or 30-40 t in a one shot if it isn't too floppy. On the surface build the whole base and sky crane it down... regardless of the size. Docking on the surface has been hard and futzy in previous versions. Precision landing even more so. I don't know how nice it is in 1.1.x, I haven't tried.

Funny, I went to school with people who trained as engineers and became lawyers. Don't forget to ask if nothing makes sense. My recommendation is to play a bit in both the sandbox and career at the same time. And don't be afraid to crash the heck out things. Failures direct learning better than successes.

MP <-- monopropellant

The same way as any other unit is added. You attach them as part of a module using docking ports or the klaw. at least in stock. there are mods out there that will let you attach arbitrary parts to things, which will be suggested by others. A bit of planning will go a fair ways though. Don't forget to design and lift up a node module, they will greatly ease adding on to a station. And double the amount of MP that you think you need.

Patcher worked for me ~ 12 hrs ago. Though I did have a store download waiting to one side