Anquietas314

Maybe AmpYear or Fusebox? Those are the only two I know of.

Assuming you don't bother to lower your apoapsis, if you dive from Kerbin with a periapsis around 100 Mm (Moho's orbit is around 4-6000 Mm for reference) you'd get to more like 90 km/s - but you'll probably explode from overheating before you get that low unless you design the craft to handle it. 60-70 km/s is perfectly doable though, and then you've got whatever delta-V you can get there as well

Well, yes, technically, but it wouldn't be difficult to divide the runway into enough segments that the effect would not be noticeable. If you used 3 segments as in your diagram, obviously it's not going to work very well, but even 100+ segments isn't going to tax your GPU very much. The early game runway meshes are probably already in that ballpark since they aren't uniform rectangles.

Nice . Tip for next time: you can drain the fuel from the SRB in the VAB and it still counts when you stage it .

It's a nice idea in theory, but what do you do with mods that change the size of the home planet (or the entire planet for that matter)? For example: RSS, 64K, Toy Solar System, Duna Space Program to name a few. We'd need either the runway's curvature to be configurable or a way for mods to just replace the runway mesh outright, otherwise those mods would still have these issues (or worse - an excessively curved runway is probably going to be more of a pain than an inadequately curved one). Assuming that was taken care of though, I wholeheartedly support curved runways

Switch the camera mode (V I think is the default key?) to Locked and point the camera in the rocket's "forward" direction; now your RCS translation controls will behave like you expect . Be sure to switch it back to auto (or your preferred camera mode) when you're done though, otherwise flying will be very disorienting. To answer your question, like 5th horseman says just stick a claw on the bottom of a lander and practice landing precisely on a target - GoSlash27 has a tutorial for a landing technique that'll make that easier. I'd strongly recommend making sure the lander's engines are far away from the claw though. Rocket exhaust is dangerous stuff . Also don't forget to consider the mass of the thing you're trying to pick up when deciding how much fuel to bring.

Tentative confirmation of the existence of the easter egg (slightly orange highlight on the tiles under the ship - those only started appearing after about 60km). Location is roughly as indicated on kerbalmaps, though it's not visible at all in map view. EDIT: as you approach it appears more circular. It's far from the perfect circle on the map though. View from the surface zoomed out to show the whole circle:

[quote name='Ser']Could you provide your output_log.txt file from KSP_Data folder when that happens?[/QUOTE] Sure: [URL="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/96846275/Logs.zip"]Logs[/URL] I've included KSP.log and settings.cfg from the main folder as well, although a quick look through both logs doesn't point to anything. For some reason though KSP identifies win10 as 8.1. As for what might be affecting it, shader bugs can cause all sorts of weird stuff in my experience :confused: - especially the platform specific kind. EDIT: I should add, I'm running the game from a copy separated from steam so potential game updates don't break things, hence the steamworks errors in the log. I've checked with the copy in my steam folder, and it doesn't matter.

Bug report for 0.2.3: with this mod installed, the stock mach and reentry effects seem to be broken. [SPOILER="screenshot"]A slightly modified version of the stock Osprey being flown in sandbox [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/fP9xRCn.jpg[/IMG][/SPOILER] I've tried installing via CKAN and kerbalstuff, same issue in both cases. Running the steam version of the game (1.0.5 w/ silent update) on windows 10. Great mod though besides this one issue :D

Bug report for 0.5.0: The new K+ tanks have the price set to 0, cost large negative numbers when placed in the VAB, and are completely missing from the tech tree with CTT installed ignore that, found them after checking the .cfgs. Also both of the new engines cost 2,950,000 (assuming this hasn't changed: ) Maybe not a bug, but something that looks out of place: the new candle drive is in the Experimental Science node in CTT, instead of in the nuclear/fusion branch with the rest of the K+ engines, There's also the drill issue mentioned already, also the entry purchase is set at 50 funds and unit cost at 1,300... compared to 18k/6k for the presumably inferior stock drill, in the same tech node. Installed using CKAN (after removing the old version first of course), also tried installing manually via github with no change. I also have modular fuel tanks and FTT installed, among others but as far as I can tell nothing else that messes with K+ stuff.

I think pretty much any spaceplane with jets and rockets will work as long as the rockets come after the jets in the staging (and are not actually staged), but here you are: Maia II.craft It's been tweaked slightly since taking the screenshot, but not in ways that affect this issue. Required mods: Adjustable Landing Gear Mark IV Spaceplane for the jet engine Ven's stock part revamp github version; current release has a few issues with things like the delta deluxe winglet. Adds the solar panels on the wings and lights in front of the landing gear, rocket engine node placement slightly different to stock. Mk2 Spaceplane Expansion for the RCS ports Modular Fuel Tanks used to reduce the tank size in the mk2-2.5m adaptor to save on mass Actions Everywhere used to lock rocket fuel tanks during ascent to prevent the jet from draining them ModuleRCSFX used to tweak the RCS ports to balance thrust around CoM There might be one or two others for minor details but this should be enough to test it.

I've found an interesting bug: when using KER with this mod, with maneuver node alarms configured to add half the burn time to the margin, if KER reads NaN for the half burn time (this can happen with spaceplanes with unusual staging configurations) then KAC sets the maneuver node to a constant 233y, 162d, 3h14m08s away, and puts it at the top of the list. That is, the alarm's timer doesn't change at all. Maia II is the active vessel.

Since nobody's mentioned it, you also need to upgrade mission control at least once, as well as the tracking station, to get "flight planning" (AKA maneuver nodes).

If your periapsis is 42km you should have no problems just time-warping until just before you hit the atmosphere (70km). After that just wait; it might take a few orbits to slow down enough to actually land.

They probably should be yeah, but I don't think they ever have been

Well, I don't know if this helps you but I can at least confirm your ship should have enough deltaV. Here's (part of) my career mode Duna mission: VAB (fully fueled - launches with just enough deltaV to land on Duna because launching and pushing the thing all the way to Duna full is stupid ): In orbit of Duna after collecting all the science from Duna and Ike (18,000 or so. I didn't manage to find the Duna's Craters biome, but I completed the tech tree so screw it ): As you can see my lander is hardly the pinnacle of aerodynamic engineering. I would have to guess the problem is your flight path during the ascent. I flew that lander in a fairly shallow ascent path; basically turn to 45 degrees immediately on launch and reduce to 20 or so after the first 10km, made it to orbit using about 1400m/s dV, plus some extra for rendezvous with the transfer stage I brought along. The lander was also capable of launching with both ore tanks full. If it helps, the atmosphere stops at 50km.

You need to click the "start research" button on the MPL's action menu before it'll do anything (requires data and power). Transmitting doesn't do anything until you have at least 1.0 science stored

Err, yeah essentially. I think the tutorial requires you to raise your periapsis out of the atmosphere though so it's a full orbit before you go for reentry. Coming back from Mun you should have enough momentum to fling you out of the atmosphere again; the key is not to go too deep. Quicksave (F5) just after leaving Mun's sphere of influence and then just quickload (F9) if it turns out you went too deep. You'll probably want to raise your periapsis when you get to apoapsis after each pass though - periapsis drops a little during an aerobrake.

In short, you're doing it wrong! You want to be lowering your periapsis to anywhere between 30 and 40km for your reentry and then let the atmosphere slow you down. Landing at KSC is just a matter of choosing where in your orbit to do your deorbit burn (if you're in a circular orbit, above the giant crater you can't miss is a good place to start, although I haven't quite managed to nail it reliably in 1.0's atmosphere yet). With a bit of practice (and quicksaves!) you should be able to do it. It'll also save you some fuel if you use the atmosphere to aerobrake when returning from Mun; aim for around a 40-45km periapsis for that. Don't expect the engine you have to be useful in the atmosphere though; because of changes in 1.0, engines' thrust varies with atmosphere density instead of just using more fuel; the terrier in particular is nearly completely useless at sea level. Instead just decouple it once you've committed to reentry.

That seems consistent with my copy of KER. Essentially yes, but I think it's the altitude above terrain. That might explain why it keeps changing, although I'm not sure. Assuming the time to burn is not a thing that's somehow just missing for both of us, the distance is the one you care about. hit Z when it's close to but above 0 and you *should* land safely, provided you're pointing retrograde while burning.

This sounds like the bug where if you edit part of a ship which has symmetry and an action group assigned, only one of the parts from the symmetry group - specifically the part you click on to move or click its parent etc - will still retain the action group. resetting the action group for that part and then reassigning it generally fixes it for me

Yes, you can

If you want something that behaves a bit more like the 1.0 reentry heat (not that far off DRE in 0.90), you could use the reentry heating rebalance mod. It does make heatshields slightly heavier to overcome a bug with them, but otherwise it works pretty well

Because burning directly at the reticule in those specific cases (low kerbin orbit, long burn, mostly prograde) means you'll lower your periapsis inside the atmosphere, which is never a good idea when you're not trying to aerobrake. Yeah, I covered that. those other vectors are called radial and normal, with the "anti" version being directly opposite those. Yes, but in some cases - like unintentional aerobraking - that works out less problematic (sometimes a lot less) than dealing with the aerobraking, especially now reentry heat is a thing in stock; ladders and similar parts overheat rather easily. In either case, for long burns the precise timing of the burn matters a lot more than exactly what direction you're pointing.

In stock 1.0.2, re-entry heat is massively underpowered (see this thread for testing), but for future reference (or if you want to use the reentry heat rebalance mod) airbrakes work pretty well for spaceplanes and rockets without heatshields . If you want, there's an option in the debug menu (alt/mod + F12 by default) to add detailed information about the heating (under physics -> thermal). It's useful for figuring out why things are overheating (or not in this case).