Wallygator

Mr Aldrin did a fantastic job on his first spacewalk in Gemini. This was not because he "Experienced" spacewalks it was because he studied the results of other spacewalks and formulated a plan and training approach to be successful (remember underwater training?) Training is 10x more powerful than experience. And my opinion is the in-game dynamics should reflect something similar. Now... Experience is something entirely different. Gagarin was the first human to "experience" space flight. He was immediately pulled from space flight activities and paraded about the world for fame and reputation boosts for the soviet space program. The Soviets did not want to risk the loss of a single person with such important experience. Please discuss...

Pilots do not fly rockets. Rockets fly pilots. If anyone can identify a moment in space history where a "pilot" flew a rocket from the launchpad to orbit then I will give them a bit of rep.

Ummm, I'm guessing that would be because the engines were likely originally designed with that range of thrust. However, running an engine at higher than spec thrust will probably cause it to have a much shorter service life. All depends of the MISSION PROFILE not the astronaut/cosmonaut. Nothing to do with experience. The shuttle normally went for 110% ME at some point during its ascent (that was part of the mission profile and the main engine design) After reviewing the threads and the dev update, my opinion is that where the devs seem to have a good understanding of orbital dynamics and in general aerodynamics (since they admit the current are is crap) they DO NOT really understand how space missions are planned and executed. Experience has nothing to do with it - its all about the training and executing the mission profile EXACTLY as intended. IF astronauts went on their merry way and did what they wanted to they would be banned form further flights (as is the case with several crews (Skylab anyone???) Recommended reading: Digital Apollo by David Mindell and House in Space by Henry Cooper.

Say it isn't so... Are we to be granted a physics based game where kerbal a can break the laws of physics? I'll wait and see, but I'm not impressed with the recap.

Thanks Tao! I'll check into all you suggest and get back in a few days. Cheers!

Wasn't sure if I should post my error here or as a new thread... So perhaps a link is best? http://http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/97670-OS-X-KSP-mysterious-stopping

UPDATE: I have finally given up on Yosemite. Reverted via Time Machine to my october state with Mavericks. Now the computer (iMac late 2011 full spec 27") appears to be back to flawless operation. Restoration of current files in progress. KSP .25 is back and running just perfect. I shall await 10.10.2,3,4,5 until upgrading again. yes I could have tried a clean install, but frankly I just don't have the time. So this thread is now able to the closed. ================================== There is no rhyme nor reason for me to assign to this recurring error. Different ships, different scenes. It crashes randomly. I have no screenshots as I do not subscribe to performing a screen capture every 3 seconds during what should be normal game play. yes, I've read the support and bug reporting threads for general and OS X. Currently running the latest Yosemite, but generally feel that might NOT be considered a factor, since this behaviour has plagued me for the longest time even prior to upgrading It's just that I've finally decided to open a media file account and track down all the requested files. Have played with mods and without. This particular instance is without. I also get the multicoloured flashing graphics rendering issue on occasion (We need to come up with a name for that amongst us OS X folks - how about " Space Disco"?) FYI - I play on a post 2011 iMac and also a Macbook - this particular error is being reported on the Macbook. Files linked below. Thanks for the help if it comes along! Cheers, w. https://www./folder/i6l4ddm3aijvf/Bug_reporting PS) Has anyone suggested an embedded bug reporting system yet? That would greatly simplify the process and help ensure consistency. ------------------------------------- UPDATE (AKA "The Story so far" or "When we last left our hero" Edition...) Key steps we have taken (Special shout out to Master Tao (Wallygator bows with respect and thanks)) 1) Fresh re-install of OS X Yo!!! see my tea? 2) Fresh download and install of KSP (Not via loader or patcher) 3) Fresh download of Texture Reduction Mod 4) Opening of Activity Monitor prior to launching KSP 5) Running KSP as Stock Only and with Texture Reduction Only 6) Monitoring memory footprint in various KSP launching configurations You may now advance to the end of the thread.

Sorry... Can't... help... myself... Ummm... I just checked, and I don't think you can change the ISP of an engine in mid flight in Buzz Adrian's Space Program Manager. In fact you can't even fly a mission in SPM, but rather you can only watch an animation sequence. So, basically it's like comparing apples and chainsaws. More on the OP Theme... I like: Being able to actually have detailed control over every manoeuvre of my KSP space flights.

I like to keep a base on as many planets/moons as possible, so ... Zero????

Well, then perhaps you might suggest a difficulty/easiness option with would allow such an ISP increase based on a level of kerbal experience. Seems reasonable, as long as its not required for all players. Since Quicksave/Quickload allows reverse time travel and is optional in the difficulty screen - so therefore your ISP idea can be considered a valid suggestion. But you still have not convinced me that it is a logical deduction based on how spaceflight, mission planning and propulsion system design actually operate. That said, I am not asking to be convinced My final input to this topic: A pilot can change the thrust amount and the thrust direction and duration, but not the ISP as that is a physical constraint of the propulsion system design. IF a propulsion system allows for any adjustment to its ISP such adjustment would be available to ALL kerb pilots. Now whether or not all pilots were trained or qualified to operate such a propulsion system is something we can debate. Although why he/she would fail to choose the high ISP as part of the original mission design escapes me. So to take this back to the OP theme... I like: the idea of a verbal training/qualification system which EXCEPT if it changes the laws of physics in the game I dislike: the current aerodynamics model, Limited EVA options

Your are correct. Its a game. But it is based on a detailed physics engine. The role play aspects are something I also enjoy, however, they would make no sense to me in absence of the physics as a foundation. In the real world and also in this game system I expect (and demand) that the rules of physics shall not be broken. However, I respect your perspective - just disagree concerning the experience of a pilot changing an engines ISP.

I would expect a 5% bonus would probably apply to the experienced pilot following the programmed flight profile more accurately than an inexperienced pilot (assuming they are not using an onboard guidance computer). A rocket engine is a very precisely engineered device. I would expect a pilot would NEVER be allowed to modify it.

not unless he gets out and retrofits the combustion chamber, nozzel and various turbo pumps, etc. not to mention probably changing the propellents.

If Kerbal experience is allowed to affect physics, then I hold little hope for reasonable improvement to aero in the long run.

JEB (10chars)

I vote for good general purpose utilities rather than content mods (generally speaking) For example: Kerbal Alarm Clock, An engineer-lite (so more advanced mods can still be leveraged if wanted or available), A launch window planner, maybe a KAS-lite which allows moving basic stock parts around. That said... It would likely benefit Squad, KSP and the community if there was a just a bit more content added during each pass to keep the hard core occupied for a few months in-between updates :-) Perhaps throw in a new planet, moon or a few hard to find eggs - just a thought. Finally, I like to think that our KSP Devs have created a mod ecosystem which is now growing code and capability at a much faster rate then the internal team. They would be foolish to not explore structured and controlled mechanisms for acquisition and incorporation of popular or complex features (be it code, art or otherwise). This will obviously not happen over night, but nothing is set in stone so I would encourage the KSP leadership to start thinking about it. The longer we play KSP, the higher likelihood we will start using mods. The more mods we use extends the latency between each release and our ability to incorporate our preferred mod packs. Being "Mod Creator Friendly" is not the same as being "Mod User Friendly". I believe there is still some balance to be achieved here and I support Squad figuring it out.

Nicely done! I learned that same lesson about batteries also. Now in early career flights, I tend to turn off SAS and RCS system while coasting to the Mun or Minmus. Using that approach, I've been able to get the boys back using only the electric charge in the command pod and the normal charging via engine burns. Regardless, you accomplished a nice feat!

Great idea. Not sure if the multiple choice structure will make it easy to deduce any findings - as a participant can basically select nearly every option. Regardless, let's see what happens.

I think the early access pricing as it stands is OK. However, once v1.0 shows up it needs careful consideration. Frankly, when I launch a rocket, I expect it to behave generally (and I'm not taking about super accurate maths here) like a rocket would in the atmosphere. Specifically, centre of pressure behind centre of mass keeps nose of rocket pointing toward intended target, etc. Just like when I built and flew little model rockets in my far away youth (happy memories!). Drag computations need to be fixed - full stop. The overall atmospheric model does not have to be exactly accurate, but it must convey a sense of reality to the player - which it does not currently provide. Secondly, there will be a probably be a wider set of functionality surrounding the management of an overall space program. We have yet to really get a full sense of what these functions and play aids will look like. But I do get the general feeling that there will be much more capability than we currently understand. Adding this functionality can directly influence the price point of the final product. Finally, Please consider that this game is a passion for many Devs, modders, and players (not to mention "he who created the concept of Kerbals" !!!) and it is not just a singe game product but rather an entire ecosystem of play. The game inspires modifications which then inspire further and more creative play. Putting a price on that is a little difficult. If we are trying to "Price" KSP, then we might also consider what the pricing is relating to the efforts of our Modding community... Think about it... How much additional would you pay for a really cool mod that would enhance your play style? Before I get flamed for that last paragraph, let me say that not every functional and non-functional requirement needs to be baked into the final product, as long as the base system supports further evolution outside of the normal development cycle. Again, just my 2 pence, YMMV.

Same here. Mostly UI mods (ok except for Stock Drag Fix!) and I think .25 should address a number of those.

Sadly, my only Tylo attempt coincided with the spontaneous disassembly of the lander. Damn you gravity, Damn you!

not at all. but, their influence was better than all others. in addition to their technical proposal. No discredit to their proposal. (huge strategic contracts lend themselves to huge strategic lobbying - huge strategic lobbying leads to huge strategic voting...)

or that they didn't have the connections, or didn't spend the necessary money...

At the end of the day the government was forced to select the popular choice (SpaceX) and the lobbyist choice (Boing). They Military Industrial Complex has it's influence which will override any logical choices. 5 years from now the space policy will probably be upended once again and any hopes of advance in US or even commercial progress regarding space expansion will be dashed. Until we eliminate lobbyist influence in government we must all be prepared to expect disappointment.

Great idea. I just tried to replicate the concept. 8 way symmetry and mainsails all on my attempt. 13,500 thrust. Kerbin escape single stage with 7 s3-14400's - Nice. Mucho thanks for the inspiration!