Anquietas314

If you're flying a plane, you should be pointing near the horizon anyway except possibly during your ascent to high altitude. With rovers it obviously depends on how you design it, but you should generally make it so "forwards" is not "up" on the navball As for seeing the marker on the green background, well... usually the marker is quite a different colour. If you can't see it, it usually means it's on the other side of the planet (in which case use the map to estimate the direction), or you're facing the wrong direction

Well, in the original Fine Print mod the idea was really to use a rover for those; just drop one nearby and drive over

Heh, I guess you've never tried getting a decent sized Mk3 spaceplane off the ground then. As long as they'd be placed near the end of the tech tree, does it really matter if they're "better" than the other engines? As it stands RAPIERs aren't able to lift huge loads to orbit unless you use a lot of them, which of course increases part count and lag. As 5thHorseman said, with updated stock aerodynamics those engines wouldn't need to be as powerful as they currently are, and RAPIERs in rocket mode are not very efficient.

I was referring to the stock one, but the ladder/hatch thing isn't a huge issue; there's no reason you can't rotate either the command pod or the thing you're attaching to it to make the ladders line up. Sure it's a bit inconvenient and "fixing" it is of course desirable, but it's certainly not a serious concern.

No? There is a setting that makes it require a part to be on your ship for the flight engineer to work, but the VAB one works regardless. Plus that setting is off by default.

Well, my post was 20 minutes ago.... I don't think that qualifies as ninja'd

Sure, but I find sometimes it's not fine enough. lol

Sadly, no. I suppose there might be a mod for that, but in stock you can only turn them on and off. You could try just making the satellite heavier, which would reduce the effectiveness, or you can use fine controls (caps lock - the dials in the bottom left should turn white).

Not that I'm aware of; mods can, but they rarely delete them without very good reason - instead they usually just get closed. I suppose you could try deleting the original post via the edit screen, assuming the button's there (I haven't started many threads myself).

I would imagine it means Pe/Ap/inclination/orientation (i.e. where periapsis is) are each within 5% of the target, but as I said I've only heard that; you would probably have to ask Arsonide exactly how it works. I do know the margins are quite flexible though. Yes, you need a renewable power source. The "staying stable" thing is a bit of a weird one; it doesn't seem to care at all if the satellite is rotating, you're using controls, firing its engine, or anything, so I guess it must just be the orbit. Apparently in the Fine Print mod (where these contracts came from) SAS needed to be switched off for it to count, so I don't really know exactly what it applies to.

Hmm okay. You also said you're using a mac; they're known to have some pretty strange issues with KSP sometimes. I'm not especially familiar with mac, but you could try making sure everything's up to date that should be (drivers etc). Failing that, then I guess you should try the Support forum for unmodded installs since your issue appears to be a stock problem (a moderator might move this thread there at some point). In the meantime I suppose you could always try flying blind? Might be quite an interesting experience lol

Since I guess it wasn't clear to you, they were talking about the fact our brains have evolved to spot patterns. In many cases, they're easily fooled into seeing patterns that aren't actually there - seeing faces in things is an especially common example. That isn't really something I would consider rude, however you stating that they're obviously blind definitely is (it might also be technically against the forum rules). Similarly, this isn't rude either: Just because someone completely disagrees with you, doesn't make them rude.

Strictly speaking, Squad never actually named it Kerbol - the fans did. I believe the official name is just "the sun". I think you've confused Duna with Eve here: you speed up relative to Kerbin's orbit to go to Duna, not slow down. Nah it's still the same

Ah, I see; you can make the wings absurdly strong. That explains it

Ah, you're using mods. Have you tried removing all the mods and seeing if the problem persists?

1. how close the current orbit of the satellite have to be to the specified orbit to complete the contract? "Reasonable" is something like within 5% I've heard. 2. i putted batteries instead of solar panels cuze i didnt researched them yet. is it accepted as a "power" for the contract? No, batteries are not acceptable. You must use solar panels or an RTG (or some other power source - mod items might work) 3. the first condition of the contract is "launch an unmanned satellite..." and its never green. when will it be accepted? its not clear how do i supposed to do that... An unmanned satellite is a probe. The condition is actually "Launch a new unmanned probe that has power and an antenna". Until all 3 parts of that are complete, the check will not appear. You'll need to use Stayputnik or one of the other probe cores (warning: stayputnik does not have SAS or torque on its own).

To some extent I agree with you on the Mk1 pod, but to be honest there's nothing seriously wrong with the design of the current Mk1-2, except I guess the fact it's missing a heatshield. The design seems to be partly based on the Apollo command module, but for lack of a better description "more kerbal". I guess the guy in the middle could do with a window maybe, but otherwise it's mostly fine imho.

MrCynical: for many parts that are supposed to be activated through staging, you can actually right click them after staging and click Run Test, or of course just stage them a second time by adding a blank stage. The Run Test thing doesn't work for everything though (SRBs are a notable exception). Radial decouplers are of course one of the cases where you do need to stage them - and get it right the first time.

That would be fine, except as far as I know KSP doesn't use GPU-accelerated PhysX at all, instead relying on a CPU implementation. There's also the slight problem that PhysX isn't really designed for simulating physics at the quality you need for orbital mechanics - it's more for handling things like grenades in FPSs and so on where you don't really need the same level of accuracy, as long as it looks good. There might still be a decent improvement on the CPU side with unity 5 (perhaps this is what you're talking about - I don't keep up to date with unity or PhysX), but I don't think we can expect KSP to have GPU PhysX when unity 5 is integrated. There is also the not-so-small problem that GPU PhysX only works with nVidia cards - it is their technology.

Yep, they are indeed stock

Hmm. I'll see what happens on my end. Should be a fun experiment / revisit of old memories

Well, yeah but you don't really need much of the orbit at all; 20% of the orbit should be good enough in most cases... maybe as low as 5% if it's almost perfect. As long as the curves match up very closely, the overall orbits won't be far off each other.

If the shape of the orbit matches up pretty close, you know the periapsis must be close to correct, assuming you're burning at apoapsis.

You know KER and KAC are both updated for 0.90 right?

Well, only if you actually care about the second guy It's not worth the astronaut slot though early game.