I_do_robots

Modded or not, if it's happening across any install, it has to be hardware. Laser mouse? Quoted from a laser mouse wiki: Unlike mechanical mice, which can become clogged with lint, optical mice have no moving parts (besides possibly buttons and scroll wheels); therefore, they do not require maintenance other than removing debris that might collect under the light emitter. However, they generally cannot track on glossy and transparent surfaces, including some mouse-pads, sometimes causing the cursor to drift unpredictably during operation. Are you using something different with the mouse like it says in the quote, glass mouse surface? Something shiny? Did you always use that? Just thoughts off the top of my head...If its not dependent on the game install, it has to be a hardware (Mouse) thing, either in the setup of the tracking and DPI settings, or, mouse environment...IMO, I could be way off... Just trying to help.

I started a new game (Actually day before) to make changes to a major space station section. I got that finished and lofted it into orbit, but, because it was getting so late, the station hadn't even reached apoapsis of the first orbit yet when I logged out. I jump back in last night, go to the tracking station to check things out and it still showed the station 15 minutes short of Apopapsis (At around 300 km out). I jumped back to the VAB to start fitting up my tugger to the rocket to send it up and some small modifications / changes to the copy of the first station section lifter (Learned during the first launch.). I got kind of caught up in the VAB stuff, saw it was getting late again, and decided to make another check from the tracking station before I logged for the night. When the tracking station screen appeared, something seemed off, orbit path, something out of kilter. I clicked on the "FLY" button and upon jumping to the station itself, which looked just as I left it, I thoguht well, let's check the orbit map out and see if I can make a burn yet. O-M-G...The station was already past Periapsis...get this...Passing the back side of Kerbal at 22KM...and was on it's way back to Apoapsis again, at around 145 km and climbing... HOLY LOW PASSES, Batman!!! Could you imagine a behemoth space station making a low buzz over your neighbor hood at an altitude 20 km??? WOOoowww... It still befuddles me how the thing got through a 20km altitude withOUT gravity sucking it into the ground...HARD! Dunno, but the station lives to fly another day and the Kerbals on board are busy digging each other's nails out of the chairs, resuscitating some, cleaning out shorts, and so forth, while Kerbals on the ground are busy filing noise abatement law suits against the space program. Too much....

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/18/private-company-to-rocket-cygnus-on-first-space-station-run/?intcmp=latestnews#ixzz2fGSOtfdV http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/18/private-company-to-rocket-cygnus-on-first-space-station-run/?intcmp=latestnews

Regarding strut work and some things I'd like to offer... In my builds, if the payload is heavy enough or stands out larger than the main tube diameter, moving the CG up the main body tube, I like to get the engine / tank cluster out wider. To do that, I like to use the little black and white pylons, attached to radial mounts and girders if I need them out further. It's simplistic but leaves much to be desired when it comes to stability through the launch and ascent. To keep the part count down (And weight) and still get the job done, I like to run struts to the upper and lower ends of each tank tube and a single connector at the tops and bottoms around the cluster as well. Keeps everything reasonably light and adds some structural integrity. Things I got used to in doing this often. - Regardless of whether it's a single strut or 8 at a time (Or anything in between) I always mount the first anchor on the main tube side. I don't know why, but the game physics engine seems to get confused, especially if I am doing multiple mirror attachments, and tries to only "Wrap" them around the single tank I start with if I try to attach the fist strut end to the item I want mated to the main body. It will then only attach the first one and wrap that tank with as many anchors as I would've liked to wrap the whole cluster with and the game still counts them as parts, despite that the anchor point is the only thing visible. I also usually cannot "Grab" the exposed part, usually the "Focus" highlight hovering the mouse, will only let me select what the anchor is attached to, so, another reason I start from the main body out and save often...Much easier to go back and reload a build then to have to tear stuff back off and replace them with identical assemblies because I lost 7 anchors in a fuel tank body. I always anchor from the main rocket body out. Sometimes, if it's just not going to accept a multiple mirror because the cluster layout is odd or I want to only anchor every other one but the pie wheel default changes as soon as I get the anchor near a rocket body part., then I almost have no choice but to "Single" select and individually place them and avoid another mess. Anchors are strong, no need to "bird nest" struts all over the place. As long as the top, bottom, and radial integrity has some form of balanced structural support, I can get it into orbit. I hope these observations help too... One digressing side note: The further out from the main tube I mount engine clusters, the more of a bear the whole thing become to get to respond to turns, especially during ascent in the atmosphere stage, so, I treat it like sailing, work with the wind, not force or fight it into a turn...If I over-correct, the whole thing may keep on going on over and start right back down in an unrecoverable dive surface bound. Fins (especially with ailerons) and canards do help some, but, if you go that route, get your turns in while you're at atmospheric levels, There will be a steady (Obviously) decrease in response as the air thins. I count on well placed thrusters to manage maneuvering and attitude adjustments once in orbit.

Knowing no matter how ridiculous a craft you WILL attempt to launch, including a giant cluster of nothing more than tied together tanks and engines just to see what it does, you always have ESC + REVERT TO...VAB...to fall back on to save your K-ass...

What? There's actually a price for these components? I just staged 10 million credits (?) in tanks to burn up on reentry...oh well, we have 999 of each item anyway!

I start with a goal oriented or mission oriented build (Roughly), dabble around in the VAB, go for a working platform, test some possibilities. then, I revise the design for better all around things like aerodynamics, functionality I can use, functionality I can take away. Esthetics generally are last. Try to make things smaller, tighter, lighter, cleaner if possible. Make use of unconventional space for necessary things and generally be creative over all and have fun doing it. Go through some revisions getting it launched...Take what I've learned and build / revise forward until it does work...Sit back and smile (Since I have time) while I wait...and wait...for my gravity turn marks...design evolves, save a good one to the ships directory, delete the failures that got me there.

Oxygen? We don't need no stinking OXYGEN! We're not modded!

Lets say you have multiple functional stages, so you combine some of them on the 1 - 0 keys. If I drop away a section that had some functions tied to a key I am using for more functions on another stage, do the functions for the next active stage remain tied to that key when the other functions no longer exist? I appreciate the feedback, solves a few things if it does work that way.

Actually, I lofted a major section of my space station and got it to a stable orbit at 240 km +/- about 400m between apoapsis and periapsis ( I guess that's good all in all.). I was about to launch the other half, and all along during building and flying the first half up, I was thinking (Or...never thought otherwise. Go figure, Kerbals are rubbin' off on me.) on putting them together at the decoupler I put at the top of the engine / tank stack, after I drop that away (More part count reduction too.). The front end is a capable tug, but, only has a larger decoupler at the back of the command module for reentry purposes after the station is "parked" in orbit and a standard docking port at the nose. I think now I'm going to start over (New game, move my builds out of the save / ships folder to the default SHIPS folder ) and put the docking port Sr connectors at both ends and rig my tug with one...I want to be able to use the tug to deorbit the engine tank combos after mating the sections together. To do that and get the sections right, I'll have to go back to the VAB and redo the ends to match up with each other and the tug. I hope the docking port doesn't make the base of the rocket unstable for the launch...One way to know... Thank you for the input. I appreciate the help.

Thank you...I figured as much...I have docking port Sr.(s) at the other ends, guess that can serve as a workable alternative.

Mating / coupling 2 pieces together in orbit. Can decouplers be "Coupled" and is that the same as "Docked"? If so, do I treat the maneuver as a docking exercise with the same functions as docking, only using the decouplers as alignment? Of course, I built the sections ahead of me with the same decouplers on the mating ends including with the arrows on them pointing toward each other if they were mated / docked / coupled. Just wondering if and how (How from a gameplay standpoint, key function, speed, orbit alignment all of that the same as a docking operation.that is done in orbit or if I must use docking ports only for an evolution like that.) Thanks for your input. Flying 2nd section up right now and hoping that's not a bad gamble I took thinking I could do that.

I am building a fairly large space station. I also have lag issues somewhat, but, I try things in and out of the game to help the situation. I run an outside game booster program that starts up when I launch KSP, with specific settings to shut off unnecessary background apps and services. The program finds those by scanning what's running and what's needed. Once it does that first time, it keeps the shut down settings active anytime I start KSP again. I use one from Razer, download free on their web site. I have also done things like clearing my DNS cache once a week or so to help KSP / Steam combo run smoother, helps somewhat. Inside KSP, bout all I can do is keep things minimized, dropping stages, leaving lighting in general to built in illumination except maybe a single light to help at a docking port, Only adding a single item (Like sensors) if I really want it on there, that sort of thing. It's going to happen, I just build things and plan, knowing that, to keep it simplistic and still get the job done. Welcome to the Kerbinverse...I have received more help right here than anywhere else when I haven't taken the time to go through some of the excellent tutorials...I have in some cases done that too, but, the genuine help here is invaluable. Note: I don't see anything wrong with the pic...I'm sure there are experts everywhere though and you can't make 'em all happy all the time...back to topic now!

I am using mods from KW Rocketry and one for Space Station parts, along with stock items. I guess these are questions of build practice. I am attempting to lift a large but simplistic (Space station) center 4 way hub using one of the cube, 6 way docking port adapters as the center piece. I have a tapered adapter at the top and bottom (The hub cap looking convex plates in the "Structural" menu (Stock item) inversely mounted, which takes the diameter at both ends out to 2.5 meters. Between the four remaining side ports, attached to the lips of the "hub caps", I crisscrossed some heavy wire, joining the ends above the center of the adjacent port "holes" and one vertical piece centered between the same "Portals" to hold the whole assembly together or at least strengthen the joint, like big "X"s. At the top and bottom of these tapers, I want to mount a 3.75 M (Short) standard KW rocketry body piece. To the four ports I put habitation modules (1 each), wired back to the skin of the two 3.75 meter body sections above and below as well as stringers between the ends of the four habitation modules at the sides, strengthening everything in a "Load sharing" method. That's all for a single lift...I have a minimum of components, using the 2 sections already lofted to deal with all the sensors, electronics, solar sails, battery banks, SAS and RCS (Other than to manage the lift and docking maneuvers, maybe one SAS ring and some RCS for that sake, but it's minimal by design...The only small items are the Lazor system sensors at the docking ports. Since the 3.75 meter sections are from the Structural menu, would these not be considered crew capable for internal passage to other "Habitable" areas? If these are meant to be internal crew "working" or "Pass through" spaces, sans EVA, that's not really a rocket-building convention / best practice approach to it, is that right? I just like a bit of realism to what I'm building...I guess if it's no more than a blank hull piece, it can't be considered "Crew passable" despite that it is FUEL CROSSOVER compatible...Is that sound, logical reasoning? Does that make sense in the context of practical application of components as We...People...would think into building an actual space craft? Or, am I thinking way to much into it and it really doesn't matter because I am free to assume it COULD work that way because the RPG side > Eye roll < of games says I can do whatever I want...Sigh? Thanks for a helping hand with it...

Probably been addressed before so (Unanswered) is presumed of course... If I have a large assembly, regardless of whether the end coupling and the mating coupling on the main body of a given platform are the same, can those be mated / coupled the same as docking ports work? I suppose I can replace the couplings with Docking port Sr. on all the mating points of the assemblies instead and just avoid the guesswork. If that is the case, can a standard docking port (Like my tug has.) or one of the covered (Shielded?) docking ports, either one, mate with a docking port Sr., despite the size difference? Thank you for your assistance.