pincushionman

There is very little in music that i actively avoid listening to. Classical, folk, country, contemporary christian, classic rock, punk, metal, sure, I'll listen. But I've got a soft spot for...funk. Lakeside? Commodores? Parliament? Jaaaaames Brooooown? Yes, please. If you're listening, @danRosas, a psychedelic music video of Kerbals all over KSC dancing and singing to Ride O' Rocket by the Brothers Johnson would make an excellent video.

NSWR!

Plug stick in before starting game. Go to settings->input (or is it controls?) You must set axes manually on the right-hand side of the screen; it will not auto-default to anything. Or is this where it's not recognizing the device?

Tried in 32-bit? Like, completely serious here.

This is a confusion in related terms - when an aircraft is trim it simply means there is no net monent acting on it, which usually means the center of lift lift vector is alingned with the center of mass. Whereas trim is (in game terms, and also RL) whatever means of generating moment you have on hand to accomplish that - control surfaces, gimbal, reaction wheels, RCS - applied in addition to commanded control, such that you're trim when the contols are nominally centered.

Don't sweat it. Planes are legitimately FAR more complicated beasties than are rockets, which are not much more than a tube that has BOOM coming out the back end. Glad you got the thing to fly, but…threeengines in the back is a lot of weight, so your CoM is gonna be waaaay back, so your elevator authority isn't as good as it could be. And drain your tanks in the SPH to see if your CoM will shift behind your CoL furing flight, which is all kinds of bad. Also, what happened to your ailerons? Is your tailplane providing both pitch and roll? As long as it works, cool, but a bit unconventional. I just ask because your new design seems radically different from your old one, which really was almost very good.

Pictures always help.

I was thinking of The Great x64 Debacle of '15, and, specifically, FAR. Was that not done using the version number, somehow?

KSP does not simulate system failures. Making reliable systems is one of the major costs of spacecraft.

Here's another possibility to consider: some mods check against the version of KSP that's currently running. Sometimes, the mod author might cause the mod to stop functioning if it detects an incompatibility. Not because something has actually broken, but because of the high possibility that something has. Then red flags get thrown up everywhere and everything grinds to a halt.

I would suggest that the proper way to avoid Kesslerizing is to launch everything on a suborbital trajectory, and thus there is no orbit to "not decay properly." Surely there are launch tracks that can reenter over Tokyo from somewhere and splash down in the Pacific.

All of the multiport-exploding I've seen videos of has been from VAB-placed ports exploding on load-to-pad. Does this stay OK if you quit, reload, and come back to it? If it does, does that mean that VAB aligns/offsets the ports (that is, at the nodes) differently than how they end up when docked in-situ?

That's where it should be. Is it coming out right using the Export to Video File? I haven't used Export to YouTube before, so I can't suggest anything about quality if you're using that option. But I assume you're having trouble both ways. Are you doing a crop and/or a scale? What I saw in a quick check of the YouTube video (while it was still up) was a little video in the middle of a bigger black rectangle. What I see in your screenshot is the video with black bars on the top and bottom, like it recorded a 16:9 window that captured in 4:3 with a reverse letterbox. Are you cropping those black bars out? After some quick messing around I found if I applied a crop to the video, it doesn't automatically re-scale the clip, so even if you crop out the black bars you'll end up with black bars on your output. You'll need to apply a scale effect to make it fill the window afterwards. Or maybe just make sure your project starts with the correct aspect ratio and just do a scale up. Not sure what's best here. I don't think that solves the whole problem, but it may be a part of it. I'm also using the Home edition rather than the free trial ($40 well spent, but it's on sale for $30 right now!), so I can't tell whether it's applying trial limitations to you for being outside of 30 days, either. I also haven't used the Debut module before, so I can't comment on whether that might be the problem (in the garbage-in = garbage-out sense). Which is why I asked whether the un-edited capture file was any good.

Post a screenie of the Export Video screen so we can see what settings you're attempting to use - there's a resolution selection on that window.

Any of several things could be affecting your final resolution. - What resolution do you run the game in? Does it look good when you play? - What is your capture software resolution setting? Does the raw output look good? - What are your export settings in Videopad? I have no trouble exporting HD video on my install. Does the exported video look good? - Is YouTube smashing your video for some reason? At what step in the process are you getting output you don't like? Without knowing that, you can't determine which tool needs settings changed.

Methinks this may have complications, as presenting the user a percentage would be confusing; you'd need a way to fake the display into showing a valid stage number. Also, you need to dynamically adjust the "step size" of the slider, which may be under the same sort of programming restrictions as the upper bound. I'd actually suggest that, instead, the part config could specify "always stage 0" (better: "always stage 0, if no parachutes yet, shift all stages down and add stage 0") or "always highest stage" (better: "always highest stage; if only stage 0, add stage 1"). That would probably take care of any default stage issues that would come up. Persistent stage setting would probably be better handled by a "spin button" with no upper bound that autosets itself via the normal staging rules unless it's "locked" by a checkbox.

CKAN also has a history of breaking FAR; in the past this was bugs in the drag-voxel generation (read: zero drag). If your mods are indeed correct, try uninstalling the CKAN one and try a manual copy of it.

It's too bad the NHL and the IIHF haven't come to a scheduling solution. The world and the sport lose big while it conflicts with Lord Stanley's Cup.

Given the thickness of this proposed hull, the weight penalty of the metal skins is pretty meaningless; go with steel because it's going to be way cheaper.

What you really want to do if you downloaded from Steam is to copy this folder to somewhere else on your hard drive, put the mod folder in the GameData folder, and run your modded install from there. This ensures you have a clean install available at all times, and also ensures the game can't auto-update and stomp all over your modded install.

Landers, especially large and unwieldy ones. If there's any time you absolutely must have bucketloads of control authority, and you need it now, a badly-thought-out suicide burn is it.

Oh, I see where you're going here. I had assumed you were talking about using the thrust limiter as the primary control since it at least shows a precise setting in percentage (you have to guess on the throttle). Thing is, while you have fine control over your throttle, it is not necessarily precise, as you still have to deal with the visual feedback on the throttle. Also, the OP wants to investigate ascent profiles, so you'd both have to constantly change the thrust limiter and spend a lot of time at settings where you haven't gained any precision by it. Totally not worth the effort. OP, the best way to precisely control your throttle during ascent like that is MechJeb, or kOS. Plus, you really want to be going flat-out the whole way up. If you have to throttle back, you probably brought too much boom to the party.

That assumes you can get the kind of precision you're looking for with that slider. I haven't been able to, myself.

Like Bill said, none of the Lagrange Points work at all unless the planet is small compared to the star. Likewise, the third body has to be similarly small compared to the planet. That is, negligible.

All I can think about reading this thread is a book called Motel of the Mysteries about the excavation if of some ancient "holy site" that is obviously a roadside hotel hundreds if years after the whole of the country of "Usa" was buried under ten feet of junk mail. And the very wrong assumptions the so-called archaeologists made about all the random stuff they found there. As you probably guessed, it's not exactly an accurate treatment of what would actually last that long.