dellcom1800

Bingo! Thank you G'th I guess because they were docked an EVA did not cross my mind. Thanks

Hello All. I have been playing career mode in .23 and have completed a manned Mun landing and re-docking phase of my Apollo style mission. I have 120 science ready to go but when I move my Bob from the lander to the orbiter I see the science is still in the landing can. I do not see an obvious way to transfer it to the orbiter vessel which is designed for re-entry. The lander is designed to just burn up. Is it possible to move stored science from one ship to another while docked? If not I guess will have to park it in orbit and make some kind of landing apparatus to dock with it and bring it down safely to Kerban... Thanks

looking forward to the release. Hoping for bug fixes and performance improvements, not to mention tweakables. I might be able to get my 3 man space shuttle to launch the way I want! I think I may even try the career-mode style instead of sandbox

Downloaded to my ipad and iphone!

You could not be more correct, It was far to much RCS fuel. I have decided I will replace the core with a new one that includes 1 RCS tank and a 720 unit fuel tank. I took this on a mission to Dunna, which it made it but it literally had exactly enough fuel to get into a aero-capture trajectory. Not ideal. Lots of lessons learned with this one, but hey that's the fun of playing this game. Link to mission Not sure I would go much bigger just from a computer performance perspective.

Well the fuel barge worked, although I need to build a better transport system for it. Was able to get 1 orange tank there getting me back to 50%, it would have been 100% had I not had to steal some of its fuel to get in a proper orbit. I was coming in at the wrong angle. After Docking. I had to undock the landing craft to make room. Another re-design I will have to do on the next version, better docking access.

Yeah my first trip to Jool with an orbiter/lander probe was a little challenging as well. It was my first time trying aero-capture, which actually worked pretty well but still required some adjustment. I forgot that the scale of this game is really small compared to reality so I had ended up getting in the SOI of one of the moons on approach, thankfully it was not impacting, just adjusted my orbital inclination a bit. It worked out though and I got in a stable orbit in the correct direction around Jool then transitioned to Lythe and had a successful landing on land. Was a guesstimate on the entry angle so I would miss the ocean. I was there was a way to "skip" time to a certain launch window in the native game (I do not use mods.. yet).

Looks good, Closer to Gilly than I have gotten yet. I'll probably add that to my mission list for the next time I send a ship that way.

It looks great! I would consider reducing the number of batteries as with solar panels you likely will not need anywhere near that many. I recently ran into a fuel shortage issue on my large ship so I would recommend sending a fuel barge to Jool ahead of time in case you need it. But you have an awesome idea and it looks great! Make sure to utilize aero-capture to get in orbit of Jool, that should save you quite a bit of fuel when you get there Keep us posted!

Very cool! That might be a good solution. Throw one in orbit of the planets I go to so its there...

After completing my space ship "Intrepid" I decided to test it out. I took it out from 250K orbit of Kerbal to an orbit just beyond Mimus. I then decided it was working well (laggy) but well. I then set my sights on Duna and with a course plotted I fired the engines and off I went. FYI I do not use any mods, all stock. Well I got to Duna but my fuel was not looking great. I ended up literally having almost exactly enough to get into an aero-capture orbit. As of now I am in an elliptical orbit (AP 950k PE 200k) and all 4 Kerbals are safe and even have a lander to try out later. But I have zero full for the Nuke engines and I have no way to get them home so my thought is to send a fuel barge out there next. I have learned I could have put less RCS tanks and a single larger liquid full tank which would have helped. The engine module is undock-able so I could just build and send a new one, great advantage of module construction. How have others solved this problem? I assume I am not the first to run out of fuel in orbit

64 bit optimized code doesn't have anything to do with utilizing multiple processors. Multi-threading already occurs on this game. Check your process manager if on windows or run # mpstat -P All 1 on Linux when running KSP. So it is already capable, now how optimized their code is to use that is another thing. But just making it 64 bit will not change that.

Hello, That is a reasonable but it wouldn't do exactly what you think. So creating a ram drive allocates a block device that the OS can use (in linux/unix we call this ramfs or tmpfs), you load data in it the same you you do any other block device after it is mounted, however there is not file system as everything is stored in memory pages. For the program to access that information from a drive it would then have to be loaded from the drive into memory for the program which cannot be done with a simple memory map. This would be an inefficient way to store the game data. You *could* create a ram drive for yourself and then move the whole KSP directory into it and execute it from there (assuming you have enough memory). If it uses relative path to store the saves and stuff like that it should also right too this ram drive. But this would be very volatile and require constant backing up to a disk or batteries. Do you use a SSD? because that pretty much exactly what they do to get their speed. FLASH is quite slow so they are packed with DRAM as cache which is why they appear to be so quick on IO.

Thats pretty sweet

Most of the music from the movie 'Sunshine' would be great for this game!

Yeah I have avoided the mods thus far. It will be an unknown and a guestimate if I can get there and get into orbit.

So I am finally comfortable enough with sending probes to other planets and their moons to navigate a larger ship with my Kerbals (none stranded yet!). My design thus far is 7 modules assembled in Kerbin orbit 4 x 'Nuke Pack' modules (each have 4 fuel tanks and a Nuke engine) 1 x Engine Hub module (connects all 4 engine modules and the ship core) 1 x Core module (contains RCS fuel tanks, batteries, solar panels and a Gyro) 1 x Cabin module (contains a cabin, comms and more solar power I think next will be a lander/orbiter docked to the Cabin module. Thinking of Eeloo for my first destination but maybe Jool. I haven't fired the engines yet, hope it doesn't blow up or fall apart!

Ruedii is correct. I think there is a miss conception of what '64 bit' is. On the processor it means you have a 64 bit general purpose and 64 bit floating point register vs 32 bits. This is why you can address more memory 2^64 (18446744073709551616 bits / 16EB) vs a 32 bit processor 2^32 (4294967296 bits / 4GB). This allows for a more efficient way of addressing memory addresses larger than 32 bits as Ruedii said above. The reason there is usually more memory used by 64 bit application is memory pointers are now 64 bits (8 bytes) vs 32 bits (4 bytes). Also if we are using both 32 bit and 64 bit libraries we must load both libraries into memory which usually constitutes the bulk of the memory increase. I am not sure what the root language is for KSP but if it is C based than any 'long int' data types would now consume 8 bytes vs 4 bytes. Will be interesting to see what the performance differences would be for KSB but I think .23 is supposed to have some engine optimizations as well which would be awesome.

I would be very interesting in testing on the IOS platform. I think this will make the game interface much more impressive.

So the response to this post seems to be a concern the game will get to complicated for new players or too frustrating for existing players. That is always a game design challenge, however if it is too easy than that is just as big of a turn off. So far I think they have been doing a great job balancing realism with fun. I have not tried those mods and I doubt I will as I like playing the vanilla game, I think it allows for better testing of what the developers have been working on. This game is certainly not realistic and it will never get close, nor should it. To clarify I just meant there should be some kind of atmosphere re-entry challenge, it does not have to be super accurate. I thought something as simple as what the game already seems to have which are heat ratings on the parts along with a known equation to figure out thermal forces that would be experienced at certain speeds at X density. We already use equations (either by hand or using one of the great calculator apps) to plot interplanetary orbits and aerocapture's. Certainly makes landing on Eve even more of an accomplishment.

It doesn't have to be exact but a reasonable approximation would be good. What would be the point of being aware of the re-entry heat if you don't really have to do anything to protect your craft? I feel that going through an atmosphere is a pretty big part in landing something from space, aside from actually getting it there. Just something I would like to see. And you are correct " When air is processed by a shock wave, it is superheated by compression and chemically dissociates through many different reactions (Direct friction upon the reentry object is not the main cause of shock-layer heating. It is caused mainly from isentropic heating of the air molecules within the compression wave. Friction based entropy increases of the molecules within the wave also account for some heating.)"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry.

I did not know this existed! so much awesomeness

I completely agree, but a subassemble can be installed multiple ways. For instance I have a "Nuke Pack" which is 4 medium fuel tanks mounted around a steel beam, a Nuke engine and some strengthening cable. But I might want to mount it via the engine to a decoupler or the other way around (just one example). So yes a subassembly but because it is just that it can be used in multiple configuration not just 1.

Hello All So I have noticed quite a few landers I have seen posted here land without any heatshield/thermal protection. With the current version this is not an issue but with the listed item to have heat damage count during atmosphere interface I think it will present new design challenges. I have tried to have all my landers that will go through an atmosphere utilize a shield, basically one of the circle adapters attached to a mounting strut and a de-coupler to release it after re-entry and the parachutes deploy. I find the shield adds a design challenge in that it add mass (not a lot usually) and requires some thought on placement and how the craft will enter an atmosphere but also be oriented at launch. You also have to make sure the shield diameter covers everything behind it. But I think the bigger challenge will be on larger craft and aero-braking/aero-capture maneuvers. It would be bad if your comms tower burnt off or an exposed fuel tank blew up while trying to aerobrake at Eve or Jool.

Well this being the future (2013) and tablets are widely available I think it would be very useful to have a KSP app for Apple/Android devices that is your navigational display (or even multiple with smartphones included). this would be nice as your monitor would be cleared up for just seeing out the window and have all the staging, navigation and engine control done from your tablet. This already exists for flight simulators with https://remoteflight.net/. Personally I think would make for some great integration and game usability. Could even start making your own cockpit simulator at home as some flight simulator enthusiasts do. Thoughts?