diomedea

Terrasius, as you opened this under the "Support (modded installs)" section, I have to infer your is a modded install. To find support about modded installs, you have better follow all the suggestions given here (a sticky with this very section, so to make it the more evident as possible). In particular, one of the useful files to provide to let diagnose what happened is the output_log.txt/player.log; what you posted as a report is instead only a part of the error.log, that KSP provides together with other files to let Squad diagnose issues. The whole folder KSP saves after a crash has to be provided however to make those reports useful, and they do only for unmodded games. As what you posted already is no useful to diagnose your issue, follow those suggestions I linked above instead.

Not possible until you are out of the "Curious George" usergroup - new users with less than three approved posts. Or an admin may help there, but I'm sure the first will come soon. Anyway, in case of further questions, just ask any of the moderators.

OK, I confess, the RV gauge is one I rarely ever used (possibly the least used together with the compass). I always use the scale control for the HUD, and used to change the size with the old Radar Altimeter gauge. No changes with any of the current analog gauges, but if I had to, I would see fit they all stay the same size (therefore, just one size control for all those analog gauges, but a different size control for the HUD please).

Let me congratulate you for the handover, Papa_Joe, thanks again for taking care.

Non conoscendo tutti i mod esistenti, non escludo che possano esistere, ma non ne conosco.

codepoet, many thanks for what you did with CLS. It brought KSP to a level of realism with building large habitable vessels, it would have never been considered otherwise. Sorry to see you out of time to keep going with it; hope you will find some for those other add-ons you kept planning about. Papa_Joe, great to see you taking CLS in your hands.

Mi sento proprio di darti ragione... immagino tu stia usando KSP 1.0.2. KSP 1.0 era stato messo a punto con effetti termici molto più realistici, sperimentati lungamente per vedere che fossero appropriati. Purtroppo, la fortissima reazione critica da parte di giocatori abituati a non subire effetti termici per nulla, che non riuscivano più a fare un rientro interi, ha spinto Squad a cambiare i coefficienti (in particolare il global drag multiplier, da cui deriva direttamente il calore generato per attrito in atmosfera). Sicuramente ora il gioco è più "giocabile", ma molto meno corretto scientificamente. Dato che è di dominio pubblico che si sta studiando una prossima patch (1.0.3), potrebbe esservi compreso un affinamento dei coefficienti stavolta studiato con maggiore attenzione. Se poi si vuole veramente provare effetti realistici (che la maggior parte dei giocatori di KSP non apprezzerebbe), bene, l'unica è installare DRE...

To start, I would uninstall all the Astronomer's pack parts in your mod list. That is not officially known to be compatible with KSP 1.02 (yet). Your log is filled with Exceptions that seem to be tied to those tweaks. But in the end, your log shows KSP crashed because too much memory was allocated (System out of memory! at line 146828). The cause is easily a number of hungry add-ons (E.V.E. + Astronomer Pack again, being among the largest to load), but sure the memory leak (tied to the overheated parts while the temperature gauges are shown) may also take its share. The log shows the crash happened when exiting from flight to space center, ans sure KSP has to reload some assets when doing so, if RAM use was already too high before there would not be enough left to complete the operation. One suggestion that always worked for me (on Win32 system): try the OpenGL mode (use "-force-opengl" suffix in the commandline to start KSP), it will save a sizable amount of RAM and may easily mean the ability to run a heavily modded KSP install.

Parere personale, ma meglio delle parti di SDHI SMS non se ne può trovare. Ma anche se non ancora aggiornata ufficialmente, quella mod in generale funziona (a parte i fairings ed il boost cover). In particolare, le porte con paracadute incorporato (sia tipo Clamp-O-Tron che IACBM) funzionano correttamente. Ovviamente, occorre scaricare ed installare le versione development di SDHI SMS, che è un Work In Progress che finiràcol culminare nella versione 2.5.

Thanks Papa_Joe, short of a complete new release (when copepoet will have time for that), this is the most helpful for CLS users.

Please note this question was answered, so better this thread be closed. A newer thread about the same subject was opened here, and the subject is fitting for General KSP Discussion. I'd invite anybody who still wants to keep the debate ongoing to post there, possibly referencing the posts already opened here. Merging the two threads together isn't fitting, but please PM in case you want assistance to bring something across.

The inclination is just one of the orbital coordinates, and gives the angle the orbital plane has with the plane of reference. You also need to match the longitude of the ascending node, for the orbital plane to be oriented correctly. While launching at 0° or 180° inclination (equatorial orbit) the orbital plane is already matching the reference plane (so the line of nodes is not defined, therefore not the longitude of the ascending node), when launching with an inclination, you have to wait the moment the vessel (= KSC) is aligned with one of the nodes to launch (you can launch both at the ascending node with the correct inclination, or at the descending node with the opposite inclination). What is good, in KSP the required orbit with contracts is graphically shown in map mode. So you don't have to make complex calculations about the required value of the longitude of the ascending node, you are good to wait until the vessel is under the required orbit (so, it is on the line going from Kerbin's center to the orbit - and as KSC is almost exactly on the equator, that line is almost exactly the line of nodes).

I also put my vote (for what it may be worth) for the use of stock Ablator as the only resource with all heatshields. Others already explained why, and I agree with their points. P.S.: sorry about your cat, Starwaster. I lost one much beloved black cat myself, remains in my thoughts always.

Thanks. Clear and spot on.

Starwaster, can you please state exactly the purpose of ModularFlightIntegrator? Can't see much in the OP or with the package, my take is it allows FAR and DRE to go together, but can't say if it is required even in case FAR isn't installed.

Thread closed in accordance to OP request.

Works perfectly, version 0.33 supports both stock AppLauncher and Toolbar as expected. And the new location for saved functions works fine too. Many thanks .

Sure hiding the nodes further up does help. But still, it doesn't take much for players to memorize where they are, what parts are in them, and even easier, what exactly the cost in science points is to get there. I know, the revised techtree in KSP 1.0 makes knowledge with the older techtree less useful, but it won't take long before players (used to career games) can tell everything in it with closed eyes. Dependencies are required, sure. It is only logical that one path of research brings to Basic Rocketry before Advanced Rocketry. Not telling dependencies should go, but what exactly is required to make that "next step" shouldn't be known before that research is actually successful. I'd say, e.g., let a player push scientific points with the rocketry path - he will eventually unlock those nodes, one after the other in the logical succession they need to be. And however, to achieve success with one specific node (where a double dependency exist), the player must have not only unlocked the previous nodes, but also keep pushing more points with the specific research lines. E.g., we have Fuel Systems after both Advanced Rocketry and General Construction: I'd say to unlock that, a player has to keep pushing both those lines (rocketry and costruction) further, but should have no knowledge of exactly how much each line has to be pushed for Fuel Systems to unlock. And while he may not find Fuel Sytems not having pushed the construction line hard enough, he may instead be advancing towards the unlock of Heavy Rocketry, or Propulsion Systems, to the point he may be given the option to have one of those unlocked before Fuel System. The exact mechanic of this all may require some effort to make right. It would be a significant change in the way the game is played, and certainly would take time to balance correctly. Also, KSP currently implements specific constraints about the nodes (e.g. each part availability is tied specifically to one node) and that sure limits the uncertainty. A revised, much longer techtree would help a lot to give a better granularity to this concept, but then every part (not only the ones in stock, also those in add-ons) should be associated to nodes with that techtree. Of course, different techtrees have been proposed already, and some are certainly better to go along the idea shown above.

Wait a bit, Romfarer is one of Squad developers, and after months of efforts to make KSP 1.0, they all deserve some break. I'm sure he will do the updates required as soon as he can.

Great, thanks for the new release . (I'm more or less following, don't have enough time yet to keep on par with you and Gaiiden, but sure want to try the new version).

kingtutn, fine up to now, but this thread can only be about the part you modelled (being in Add-On Releases). If you wish to write about the novel and others may show their interest about that, the best is to open another thread in KSP Fan Works.

Yes, hiding what comes next with the tech advances gives a closer feel to what research should be. If ever you wanted to develop the concept further, what exactly is required to unlock each node (and parts with it) should not be known (my opinion, of course). Any player who did career a few times has a clear idea of where the tech nodes are, and what comes with them, but this knowledge takes away the uncertainty that is integral with research programs. In reality, not always a path of research gives fruit (though sometimes brings discoveries that were not even considered), and certainly the effort required to give results is not fixed and completely known beforehand. A way to allocate science points towards one goal (without that meaning that goal will have to be reached with exactly that many points, so the exact amount required for each tech node remains unknown but yet credible) could go a long way towards making the research part of the game more interesting.

Thanks Claw. Can see goodies are back in full swing, and fixes are better than ever .

wmvanvliet, found one issue with the latest version (0.32). It works fine only when Toolbar is not installed. Tested on a clean KSP 1.02 (build 842) install, with or without Toolbar 1.7.9 (latest, compatible with that KSP version). When Toolbar is installed, the stock Applauncher button does not show, no error is logged however. Toolbar allows to add the Kerbulator button (in each scene), but even when added, they don't show (to note, with Kerbulator button added to Toolbar, an error is logged about icon size mismatch, as Toolbar expects 24x24 instead of 38x38; but even if a correctly sized 24x24 kerbulator.png icon is made available, Toolbar still can't show it). I have clear that Toolbar was supported by previous versions of Kerbulator, so even if it is no more stated so, some methods may still be in the code to allowToolbar to seize its button. Therefore, none shows on the Applauncher. Given how large the user base is with Toolbar, this issue may seriously limit the use of Kerbulator. I would be happy to find a new version able to use both the Stock Applauncher or Toolbar (allowing users to select one).

Yes, confirm. Service bays have the external stack colliders placed wrong, that's the cause with some of these vibration effects. Just "launch" a lone bay on the pad, the effect is easy to spot. I have already filled a report and contacted developers, hope sooner or later those bays get fixed.