DrMonte

I'm getting interested in understanding of performance. I have 2.5GHz CPU and 3 year old economic graphics card. Playing in FullHD with medium graphics settings. Launching 2000 parts ship gives a bit of ~5fps slideshow. 1000 parts - is more controllable but with clearly visible framing. It could be an issue flying such big ships but for me it is ok to have a few minutes of low fps during a launch. (For example my Eve lander has about 1500 parts on the ground) Although high part count prevents using physical time warp. (clock gets red )

Oh, I know. With each update developers must add all new extra tire types to the pockets, science equipment for EVA report etc, etc. That's why kerbonauts become heavier and heavier with each update.

Problem with EVA is that I have 4 kerbonauts. Interesting thing that I've just installed FAR mod for some other tests. Just checked on my Eva ship and it seems it launched without issues even leaving about 700m/s dV extra. Will have to repeat the quest some day again without the mods.

They say 0.23 is near.

In 0.21 MechJeb showed 0.08. KerbDonalds does its job.

So I have a bit of trouble deciding should I send a rescue mission or try launching again? I've landed on EVE at 1.5km altitude and it's not movable. The best I was capable to do with takeoff was about App-95km speed-2600km/s. Not so much missing but I'm not finding where more to improve. Maybe some good takeoff hints could help to add missing dV?

If I remember correctly after adding decoupler everything under it goes to new stage. Copying part (Alt+mouse click) keeps staging. This helps more than you could think when you get use to copying. One thing I've learned from my mistake - If you create subassembly with staging like lifter add a lot of extra stages above it. All stages will be merged when subassembly will be integrated into ship.

Or not accidentally.

On EVE I've placed the rover on the top of the lander. That means I separate it in the flight time. That's quite tricky, needs lots of preparation, works only in atmosphere and does not always end well For lower(normal) gravity where legs are suitable I place the rover under the craft. Mine fits there nicely because it's not a driving space station it just caries few kerbals with some science equipment

I had an issue with ISA Map SAT mod. Even smallest ship launch dropped fps if ISA antenna was attached. uninstalled this mod at all. Some other mod working in background could be an issue (like scanning probe). Although there is some funny thing with graphical engines. They will handle million identical parts in the same view but they will hold on hundred if parts are different.

Don't see it mentioned here. In case someone forgets you may use your Kerbin landing chutes on Duna also as they can be repacked on EVA. Note that used chutes will not work in staging.

It seems we just need to learn to read From wiki: "Currently (0.20.2), the Octagonal Strut has "PhysicsSignificance = 1", making it massless and dragless." "Currently (0.20.2), the Cubic Octagonal Strut has "PhysicsSignificance = 1", making it massless and dragless." Though EAS-4 connector - "Currently (0.21.1) it has a mass of 0.05 and is dragless."

We also have "Landing Gear" called "LT-X Landing Strut" which has quite high mass.

That's kind of weird information. From where do you get it?

I usually try to avoid using large Modular Segments. You might think that they does not weight much but those six already adds ~3% of an orange tank mass. Usually you can achieve the same results with the small ones which are almost weightless.

I don't think it's about colliding which is almost impossible. It's more about real world problem and its solving in KSP.

Just run tests on Kerbin and add twice as more chutes for Duna. capi3101 nice site by the way. I didn't find the speed for chutes to rip off (didn't run any special tests with high speeds). They might break your ship if you will not place them right. So don't place them all on a single part. If your ship is heavy placing few even on the lowest parts could be a good idea too. Use Mk25 for reentry. They'll deploy much higher and will slowdown the ship to some reasonable 100m/s. Then Mk16 (better radial) will do their job.

I found it easy to build a lander having 10k dV but adding last 2k is a challenge. Simple 8 symmetry asparagus will do with something like that on the top. Traches lander should have somewhat 9k dV? So it should be capable of launching from EVE from anywhere above 4-5km altitude. Currently I'm sending a rescue mission to the EVE. Lander has about 12k dV, will see how it goes.

That shouldn't be a problem to fix

Yep, I must fix myself: When you'll understand how these charts were generated, only then you'll know where it is reasonable to use SRBs. TWR >= 4 OR mass < 1t. Are kidding me?

Pulling instead of pushing might be an option and less dV. Also there is a mod allowing to add normal struts (not quantum) out of the VAB.

Don't underestimate docking ports. One can hold up to three orange tanks at 1g.

Don't know. Playing blindly would send single probes for planet preview first.

- No.There will never ever be the case when SRB will be more effective than LF. Although there are plenty of other reasons to use them. Like - "I'm too lazy to modify my nice lifter to lift few extra tons so I'll just add more boosters".

Don't overdo the struts. "More struts" is a nice Kerbal way but it doesn't actually help. This design will do fine with four struts from the lower fuel tank (+Cubic Octagonal Strut) to the adapter.