XrayLima

Question seems to get asked relatively often after each update but has anyone tried and tested any greenhouse mod for TAC which is compatible with 1.3. Old posts in the TACLS mod forum suggests a couple, but they seem to still be for 1.2.x. Do any if these still work in anyone's experience? Asked in this forum as TACLS forum page is, well, for TACLS not these other mods. Cheers XrayLima

@Nightside I was beginning to think the same thing. I've been looking at the Skylab re-entry and it started to degrade from an almost circular orbit, which in a perfect world would mean that both Ap and Pe would degrade similarly. (This is an assumption I've made, no idea if it's true) This would lead to the lowest velocity entry possible (I think?). It broke up at about 10 miles (16km) which suggests that unless high altitude braking, either by retrofiring or some form of supersonic parachute was used, the hulk would be ripped apart by high forces before the typical parachutes modelled in KSP would be useful. But I do like your way of thinking, the Kerbal universe is different, it has different parameters and that will mean that not only are real world possible events easier (this I have no issues with), but events impossible in real life are now possible. This is the mental leap I need to make to enjoy recovery missions.

That makes sense, but I was rather asking the question "If I tried my recovery parachute tug design in real life, what would happen?" Large space junk can survive re-entry but usually cooked to a crisp, and flattened by hitting the ground at terminal velocity. But if cost was no object, in real life, could an unprotected unmanned capsule, be de-orbited and landed in such a way as for it not to be a steaming slag pile? Part of the reason for asking, apart from curiosity, is that most other missions seem viable and feasable. The recover junk missions tend to push my limits of belief, hence my usually not taking them. But if it might be viable, even remotely, then...... more contracts!

So, after something like 2000 play hours (yes I know, I could have learnt to fly a real spaceship in that time....) I finally tried out a hulk recovery mission. No real bother, Tug Probe with claw and plenty of parachutes, very shallow Pe and Bob's your uncle. Nearly perfect, just a shame I landed just short, on the plane West of the Westward Mountains. This got me thinking, apart from the prohibitive cost of launching a rocket to attempt to recover junk worth 1/1000 the value of the recovery craft, what would actually happen if you were to attempt an 'open' recovery of a man rated capsule with a Tug rather than in a cargo bay of another ship? Assuming it's unmanned, would the heat soak likely raise the internal temperature of the hulk to equipment damaging levels? Is a burn up inevitable? Could a shallow enough descent work? Would it likely spin so fast it would rip itself to pieces? Has any research been done into this? Why does my brain ask annoying questions at 3am? etc etc. Just something I'm thinking about and wonder what others think? XrayLima

All of the above! And in my case.... "Went and landed perfectly on Duna, forgot to include ladders...." "Forgot to switch on symmetry when adding landing legs. Only noticed during decent towards Mun" "Launching with control probe core upside-down" The prior one is particularly interesting if using Mechjeb for ascent... Doh.

This was talked about a wee bit ago - I asked the same thing. And they already sort of exist as an extension of a docking port part.

I started writing this question below, but then managed to work it out myself. Thing is it annoyed me for about an hour until I had a lightbulb moment. So I thought I'd post it, and if others search for it it is already answered. "Ok, I think I'm going mad. About a month ago, I build a happy little lander to shuttle folks to and from my munbase. Nothing special there, seemed normal. Mechjeb happily put it where I wanted it, so much so I lost my second lander when I forgot to add an offset and mechjeb landed the lander ON TOP of the base, then it fell off. The I go away for a month to work, come back and now mechjeb can't put it any closer than 1500m from target. Annoyingly I can't remember if I added a bit of extra fuel prior to this save, but I still have a TWR of 1.70 before Mechjeb starts the de-orbit burn, but when it starts it the predicted target difference climbs away to over 3.5km before slowly coming back a small amount to land me 1500m downrange. Is there a minimum TWR for de-orbit burns with Mechjeb? It's almost as through it's waiting too long before starting the de-orbit burn. Thoughts?" The answer is starting orbital altitude. I increased my Ap and Pe and it worked. It is a more Dv costly, but it gave Mechjeb the time it needs to complete both the de-orbit and braking burns. When I started lower, my TWR was to low for the Mechjeb logic to complete both tasks correctly and it wasn't able to sufficiently correct for this. It seems to assume that the de-orbit burn and braking burn do not overlap and if they do it doesn't try and start the de-orbit sooner or burn the braking turn harder. either way, it misses. I'm going to test but I think the other solution is to increase TWR, but that increases mass and therefore lowers Dv across the board. Anyway, just something to add to the forum pile of knowledge.

@Val You are a steely eyed missile sentient being!

Is there a way of keeping the borderless window (created with the -popupwindow command line arguement) open if I select another program (in my case on a second monitor?). I'd like to keep KSP visable, but browse the web whilst I wait for transfer windows etc, but at the moment it minimises the KSP window whenever it isn't the actively selected program. I'm guessing this will be a Windows setting (10 in my case) so not a Squad issue per se, but if you know where the setting is hiding? Any Ideas? Ta in advance! XL

Oh well, thanks @sal_vager I'll keep looking! Anyone else got any ideas? Cheers XL

@sal_vagerOn a related note, is there a way of keeping the borderless window open if I select another program (in my case on a second monitor?). I'd like to keep KSP visable, but browse the web whilst I wait for transfer windows etc, but at the moment it minimises the KSP window whenever it isn't the actively selected program. I'm guessing this will be a Windows setting (10 in my case) so not a Squad issue per se, but if you know where the setting is hiding?? Apologies @Tharganfor jumping on your post!

I'd happily just take a simplified VAB/SPH editor which could sync my designs to my PC. That should be much much easier on the CPU requirements, and frankly I can't see much of the joy in playing a bare bones KSP on a tiny screen, but I can see some enjoyment in killing time on the bus preping my next mission for when I get home.

Ok, not sure if this is going to be a discussion or a call for gameplay advice, but I'll put this here to start. I'm building a Minmus or similar mass body 'skimmer' basically a small ship with ions or RCS underneath, a seat or two and vertical facing probe core. By setting max acceleration using MechJeb to the same as acceleration due to gravity, I can get it to hover and use RCS to propel it allong. Basically it's a quicker way to move about than a rover (unitl power/monoprop runs out)..... So anyway, here's the question. I want to test it. I have three options really - hack gravity, which sets gravity to fixed very small value and doesn't match target G, hyperedit to the location I want to use it on, or a combo of hack gravity and add exta mass, which messes the ships inertia and responsivness up. I don't really want to use hyperedit, as I'd like to visit these places "for real", I'd like to adjust the hack gravity hack level, but don't know how and that feels "cheaty" too and I'm struggling to find a suitable way to create Kerbin equivalent models to test fly. What do you folks do to simulate craft before sending them to their target bodies? Or do you just suck it and see?

^^ This! After years of slow motion launches, the new verion looks sped up. It's too fast, launches take no time at all. It reminds me of looking at old film footage where everyone seems to be walking at 1.5 times normal pace! Once I stripped out old mods and let them settle for a bit before reinstalling, It's running like a charm!

I've been very lucky, I've yet to get a CTD in about 20 hours of play on 1.1.2, but I have had numerous issues with mods. Probably apocryphal, but I put that down to, before updating, fully backing up my KSP folder and then deleting it enitrely, firstly through "Remove local files" in steam then deleting the residual contents in the KSP folder, then reinstalling clean. I then copy in .cft files as an when I want them from the backup or as integral mods become ready. I've said goodbye to my pre 1.1 saves (they live on in my playable 1.0.5 backup folder if I fancy them again) which is a shame but I think worth the cost. The mods I've had issues with often claim to be 1.1 ready, but still have niggles. Like I say, probably apocryphal but removing all traces of the game prior to 1.1.2 (crash logs, screenshots, dumps, etc) then reinstalling has made me a very happy kerbonaut!

Hmmm, thats usually due to the probe core not being alligned to the rest of the vehicle or the wrong core being in control. I can't remember the last time I used the CH-J3 and I've no idea which way it aligns or if it actually acts like a probe core (It's had a convoluted history), but is there a second probe core clipped internally? Have you right clicked on the probe and selceted "Control from here"? EDIT: Just re-read your final sentance so its not the CH-J3, is there any other probe core? Does the artificial horizon match the V1's expected view?

I agree with the need for background and for the game to be fleshed out a bit with detail, if not backstory (One of the joys of this game is the freedom to use your imagination). The only fly in this is I just don't see Squad doing it. The idea of a storyline mode or something like it came to an end a while back (Many of the easter eggs date from this apparently). Once the game is both feature complete, (which I from my reading betwen the lines Squad think is not a millions miles away) and acceptably bug free, I'm not sure where squad will focus their energies, but I just don't see them expending energy on backstory or adding details like that. I can see more things like the Asteroid day pack or similar every few months but backstory, I just cant see it happening. Though I'd like to be proved wrong!!

I think there is something to this thread generally, but I just dont get the vibe that Squad are in the mood to embrace this. That said, a mod that could change the focus of the tech/career interface would be pretty special. Blank sheet of paper, what would I love to see? This: Overarching, time based goals. The big idea type things. These are your win/lose type events "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a kerbal on the Mun and returning him safely to the Kerbin." That sort of thing. Budget given. Once completed, you get a new harder one. Side goals - Rescue missions, research, satelites. These give you extra cash but eat up build time. Research missions. These missions improve reliabilty of each part then unlock better versions. For example 1st launch, 60% chance of failure, 2nd, 10%, 3rd new tech viewable but locked and tech 100% reliable, 4th, new tech 50% unlocked, 5th new tech 100% unlocked. The cycle would then start over. This would make it valuble to do ground tests. You could skip them but that puts your launch at risk. Or you test each at ground level, costing less in cash terms than a failed launch but this takes time. This would apply to the parts meaing new ship design swith old parts keep reliabilty. Time to build dependent on number of parts and tech level. This means you need to balance time taken to test equipment, take on side missions and complete your overarching goals. Science could be used to improve initial reliabilty or shorten time to unlock next level tech by launches, Just my 2p!

This has to be the definition of a first kebin problem but after a couple of weeks without playing I got a chance to update and have a play again last night. And my thoughts: It's too slick!! It's too fast!! My test vehicle, a saturn IB sized, lunar orbiter launched into the black with the clock staying green the entire way. No stutter, graphics panned and rotated smoothly but before In knew it, there was I in orbit smooth as silk. It was too quick, it all happened too easily. Where was the tension? Where was the minutes of drama? Where was that tiny freeze just before something gave way? Where was the hard work!?! Oh well, guess I need to go design something bigger. I mean, if a launch doesn't take the time needed to boil the kettle for a cuppa it's going too quick! Ooft, this release is slick.

Aye, maybe. Not heard that myself, but then again not heard much really! Maybe I need to lurk in more detail! But at least they should be in a position to confirm that, and give some rough ideas as when they are hoping that update might be.

Hurrah for feedback! Glad to hear. Given the size of the hill they had to climb I think Squad did an amazing amount of work getting to here. Honestly. A full engine update is no mean feat. I think they were rather carpet bombed by the pre-release and the number of bugs found and probably had been a little optimisitic on when they thought it would be ready or how long the pre-release bugs would take to fix. I'm guessing they were forced by prearranged events (Steam sale etc) and forum pressure given the storm around the pre-release to release when they did even though they knew they had several hundred bugs still sat in the pre-release tracker alone. In hindsight, I really wish they'd done a Devnote Tuesday at the same time as the release, holding their hands up and saying "Yup, it's still not 100%, prob 85%, we're working on it but it's still fun and it'll get better, honest" Instead it feels like they dropped 1.1 and ran and hid for a bit which stirred folks up. Hopefully an update today will calm a few vocal voices down.

Although I understand the point you are trying to make, I don't think the propulsion system itself should dictate the takeoff and landing speed. Indeed the Me-262 like all combat aircraft will require high speed landings and takeoff due to the desire for low drag/high speed performance leading to high wing loading. Compare it to the Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Atlantic_GlobalFlyer), another jet aircraft but with wildly different landing speed. The global flyer was so slick and had so much lift that it had trouble losing altitude with the engine idling. It's landing speed was significantly lower than the Me-262.

Anyway, back to the meat of the original post, I somewhat agree with the OP. I don't think everybody who got involved in the Pre-Release got onboard in the spirit it was meant. It was meant as a test release, to be kicked and prodded and warped to the best that the community could. It wasn't expected to be "played" and "used" by the community as just another release and I think Squad tried hard wherever they could to try and hammer that message home to both those who could use it and those who couldn't. Fact is right at the beginning it was pretty terrible, with weird and wonderful but obviously badly broken parts making proper playing not really worth the effort. I rolled back to 1.05 after about a week and logging a few bugs so I could enjoy it again. I think adding challenges or spoliers or even just details to the forum, outside of the 1.1 area, that some people couldn't get involved in right away might be considered a bit of a dick move but I honestly don't think it would have been done in mallice, just through overexcitement and lack of foresight. The fact is this is now rather a moot point as 1.1 is now live and out there and everyone can now enjoy it - warts and all!

I think many folk noticed this pretty early on in the Pre-Release as there were a suite of Bug Reports early on about various landing gear issues.(This one seems closest http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/7922) Apparently some of these were fixed and some not. It's now not clear to me if these lower than expected stress limits on these is a bug or a feature From my plays through it is very tough to build a plane capable of carrying a Hammer solid rocket plus fuel and engines for those early "Taking readings above 19800m" type contracts with fixed landing gear. This would be a plane of about 8t dropping to less than half that on landing. I have done it - it required three things. 1. Long, angled wings, I.E. when on the runway the wings have a positive angle of attack. This was achieved by both the angle at which the plane sat at and rotating the wings slightly. This enabled the plane to take off without needing to pitch up to rotate as any rotation would overstress the LY-01 rear landing gear as they are typically located behind both the centre of gravity and lift. 2. Very very slow landing speeds. I'm talking a final sink rate of less than 3 m/s with a forward airspeed of 30m/s or less. On these landing gear its not really a plane, more a powered glider! 3. Turn traction control to manual on all wheels. This seemed to take a lot of the weird behaviour out of the take off and landing. It was hard to get right though and quicksaves before any attempted landing! I found it hard with 1800+ hours, I'd hate to see how frustrated and fed up a new player might get having to deal with this - it's just not fun anymore.

I'd agree, but Squad and the many many other alligned code nuts have something like a 1000 bugs to hunt down and squash. Last thing they need is me adding something extra to the list just because I didn't follow the guidelines. Even if logically you are right, it shouldn't cause problems, still might. There seem to be a whole lot of wierd bugs going on in 1.1!