Search the Community

I was wondering, anybody know a way to break the physics of the game? Just write a detailed discription of your procedure in the comments below. Thanks everybody for looking in to this.

Hi guys! I love KSP (as I'm sure most people here do), I have over 1040 hours on it, yet I can't build to my full potential because of the render physics distance!! I have built a Low Earth Orbit Station (80km) with the 'USAF Airborne Laser' from the BD Armory Mod and I REALLY want to strike the KSC with the Lazers :D. Unfortunately, the KSP physics render range is not that far. Would ANYONE know of a mod that can help me with this? I'm not too good with coding and stuff so I can't really edit the game's....laws of physics. Any help would be much appreciated!! Cheers James.

So one of my scientists was doing a tour of the base in a small rover, collecting all those sweet, sweet science points from every interesting feature*. He parked up against the VAB tanks, climbed out of his mobile lab and-- >warp< >stretch< >stretch< >poof< Some bizarre physics error caused him to flick into the air, stretch wildly in one direction, then another, then explode in a cloud of dust. I'm not complaining about the physics bork; I'm sure someone is already working on that. The question is: my crewman is now listed as "missing"**. He doesn't appear on the list in the Tracking Station, and he definitely exploded into a cloud of dust so... my questions would be: Is he actually "missing", as opposed to "dead"? Is he recoverable? How? Thanks in advance... * - But not, of course, the pond beside Admin. Or the flag pole, tanks, etc. by the launch pad. Their omission is... odd. ** - Not "dead", like his predecessor who happened to be on the ladder of a craft when it was recovered. Seriously, what's the deal with that?

So, I think I'm the first to suggest a feature like this but I think that metal fatigue should be a feature in the game as this will add another layer of complexity to those who think that surving the heat and aero forces isn't enough also this would make the game less about placing struts everywhere. "How would it work?" I hear you cry, well. Let's say you have a reliable SSTO, it's served you well building your new space station, and getting you to eeloo. But one day you forget to do a maintenace check or you don't have the parts to repair let's say the pylon holding your engines to the wings and when reentrering they tair right off and you need to launch a new one. R.I.P SSTO 2Eeloo Mk3. I say that this should be an option as for newer players it might be overwheming. I'd love to see your input on this!

So, anyone care to explain the natural phenomena that results in this? It kind of moved as I did, so felt like it was a natural occurrence rather than a graphical glitch, but I'm at a bit of loss to explain it exactly.

Ground Effect Now here's a feature that would open up some awesome possibilities. Imagine being able to build realistic hovercrafts, ekranoplans, etc.. This would also make landings a bit easier, since you get an extra blob of air pressure under your aircraft as you near the ground. Exhaust Compression Basically, take a regular engine part, build an aerodynamic shell around it, and ta-da! Makeshift extra-large ramjet. The engine itself gets you going, and then as the shell takes in larger and larger volumes of air for the engine to heat up and compress, the more thrust you get. This would be a great way for players to create their own rocket-ramjet hybrid engines or more unique supersonic aircraft. This would also allow more realistic hovercrafts since the player could build a functioning skirt that compresses engine thrust while also having the Ground Effect to work with.

So here I am taking a new ship for a spin. I try a targeted launch with MechJeb, it takes me within 2.7 km of an old 1.1.2 station that hasn't been given me crap yet; map says closest approach at 1.4 km. I timewarp to the sunlit side, and halfway through to the closest approach, I spot the station at 870 m. I dump the rest of the launcher, and fire up the Rendezvous Autopilot. The approach burn is executed flawlessly, but the final relative velocity kill burn doesn't happen; I try again, same thing. As I find out after turning the autopilot off, the controls, including throttle, RCS and orientation, freeze up within about 300 m of the station, and then upon reaching a certain distance. I took a look at the debug console, and there's a ton of errors. Possibly related to Log: https://1drv.ms/t/s!AmlSZuL0ax7C0BW8DlfPVp5D2WuB Mod list courtesy of AVC:

Hello everyone, I am trying to find out when and how often mars-->jupiter-->saturn windows happen. However, I seem to be unable to find a site allowing me to see when mars--jupiter or jupiter-->saturn windows occur. I searched, but only got kerbol system calculators. I'm gonna use it outside KSP, so 'use KAC' is a really annoying answer which I keep finding. Does anyone know a site where I could find them? Edit: also nice would be the time between to windows or how to calculate that Edit2: Thanks to wikipedia, a friend of mine and excel, I found everything I needed! I can conclude that a window for a transfer mars-->jupiter-->saturn will occur every 102,... years. My physics teacher will be proud, and that guy who did an orbital mechanics project of 12 weeks finding the deltaV for a normal mars--> saturn transfer will envy me! Thanks in advance!

I was thinking, shouldn't parts react to heavy air resistance and air pressure? For example, if you had a an antennae sticking out of an aircraft perpendicular to the direction being traveled, and the said craft was travelling at supersonic speeds, shouldn't the antennae snap off? Furthermore, parts with low crash tolerance should be crushed by the pressure of atmospheres like that of Eve and Jool. I realize these kind of values would have to adapt to the air densities of different planets and altitudes, which would make it a bit complicated, but I thought this would be a nice little added chunk of realism to the game.

I was watching MythBusters the other day and came across... http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-database/laptop-lift-off/ The original video - https://www.youtube.com/embed/_12L_Dme8Vc Basically (if these links don't work) the bees can't lift the laptop because of a few reasons but a major one being Newtons 3rd law. If the bee is pushing air down it can fly up, but if the air is hitting a large surface it pushes the surface down, and if the surface is attached to what ever is trying to fly up, it won't fly. I asked myself, is KSP's physics realistic and good enough to prove this law, I set up a rig as the following (sorry for no images) 1. Simple probe core 2. Fuel tank 3. Rocket engine strong enough to lift the whole thing 4. 2 long metal girders which hold a large flat surface made up of structural sheets of metal I ensured that the metal sheets were far enough from the engine to be able to see the flame, I proceeded to offset the metal sheets to ensure there were no gaps. I went to launch it and to my surprise it did not generate thrust, I tested numerously to see if it was a glitch in the launch pad, I remade the rig with the metal sheets separated a little. This caused the metal sheets to wobble (closing and opening its gap) each time it opened the thrust fluctuated from 0 to almost normal engine thrust. After seeing the results I flipped the girders upwards (lots of air resistance) yet it was able to lift off (this entire experiment was also done with hacked gravity which made no effect on the 0 thrust). I am really proud of Squad for having these very realistic physics in the game which I can imagine to be a pain (Results from newest release 1.1.2ish I think) Serious JOB WELL DONE! (I don't think physics were this good in the past KSP versions though)

Hi, I found two bugs so far in KSP 1.1.1 unmodded (both 32 and 64 bits clients): 1) When I have a ship sitting on a RE-I5 skipper on the launch pad (for example a cockpit, two X200-32 and a RE-I5) with engine and SAS off, it starts wobbling more and more until it crash on the side. 2) Sometimes, in the upper atmosphere my SAS will go crazy (at around 40 000 m, 1000 m/s). It is difficult to reproduce, I will update my post if I find the cause. Edit: I could not isolate #2. I'm not sure if it is a bug. When a rocket can bend just enough, the SAS will overuse the engine's gimbals. Thanks, Felix Nicol

How to get access to KSP Physics configuration settings by code?

Subtitle: or, everything that will go wrong when you freeze time. ----- So recently we got a new gimmicky third person shooter game called Quantum Break, where the main character can manipulate time to do some fancy tricks. Most notably it has areas where time stops completely, or playing itself in a loop and our character can use the environmental objects trapped in time to advantage by releasing a frozen object to play in the loop or freezing an object mid loop, such as releasing a frozen car mid crash so it flies into enemies, or freezing something looping around in mid air to be used as foot hold to travel around. Now that's enough about the game, I only mention it because that game reminds me of something I have always wonder about the time stop situation, in that, how physics works in such an environment. Of course this has no bearing on the real world that we know of, but it is fun to think about scenarios. Ignoring why or how time suddenly stop, I wonder what happens when, say, a person is capable of moving around freely in such an environment. What happens to light, for example. If time stops, suddenly, all photons in the air will be suspended as well. How would a time traveller in such environment see? They would only be able to see as long as they move forward, but as soon as they move backward, no light will hit their eyes and suddenly the whole world is black for them. And then air as well, if no air molecules enter their lungs because they all freeze up, the time traveller would be choking right where they stand, and thus must be running to catch all the air they could. And then I wonder about forces such as momentum works. Does the time traveller impart force on objects suspended in time? Will there be inertia? What happen, if say, the time traveller takes an object, and push it for a distance, and then time resume? Would all the momentum builds up in the object be released all at once? Also compression. If all the atoms in the air is frozen in time, would the time traveller, by merely moving, compress them together to the point of fusion, because they are essentially moving faster than light? Every movement would trigger catastrophic explosion as soon as time resumes, wouldn't it? I am sure there are more things that might go wrong in this time stop scenario, but I don't have enough physics knowledge. Any of you have other ideas?

I have had KSP for years but never bothered to make a forums account till now. The reason being is due to a slight problem. My rockets go way too fast. For instance, a command module with a flea booster gets to 10,000 meters on half throttle. This makes the game virtually unplayable, because bigger rockets get shot down by aerodynamics. This problem never occurred on any of my previous computers. Pls send help specs: windows 10 home edition quad core Intel i5 nvidia 960m

In the pass I created a steel structure and expected it to sink hitting the ocean floor and to my surprise it had flotation, recently I just had a steel barge that was built in an earlier version and tried it with this current 1.0.5 Version and to my surprise it sunk like a brick? I love it! but was this actually added to the physics of the game?

Running on water is impossible on Earth, at least without ridiculous footwear. We all know this. But could someone run on water on the moon or maybe even Mars? This is of course assuming it were a climate controlled indoor environment.

Hi guys! So here's part 2 of me trying to figure out Kerbin's mass and radius from within KSP. I hope you enjoy! As always, feedback is appreciated!

Hey guys, I though I'd share my first ever video. I try to calculate Kerbin's mass and radius using the in-game instruments. Please tell me what you think!

So why does they spin the way they do? Solid body spin stably. Liquid filled body spin unstably, unless in a long cylinder object. Since I am not exactly a physics student, I just know it has something to do with inertia, but not more. Can anyone explaining it in layman terms?

Over the last couple months I have been working on a paper on Relativity for school. It stands at 20 pages and Is the hardest and longest thing I have done so far. I would love it if I could get some feedback on it. also please dont feel like you need to read it all. Just pick a page and read it. Thanks! https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxvqPGLKDZJQcnJORlNhUm4xOWc

Let me start with apologies. I can't find english version of this video. I'm sure we all would greatly appreciate if someone fluent in portuguese could provide even rough translation In a nutshell: a group of Brasilian scientists made a cardboard cutout of a cat silhouette, then used laser and crystals to create entangled pairs of photons. Then they made a photo of a cat using half of the photons. The other photo was created by the second half of the photons - the one that never came in contact with the cardboard cat. Essentially, this is a "quantum echo picture". Discuss?

Would two spacecraft that are orbiting "fall" vertically at the same rate? When i say fall, I don't mean relative to the ground, but just in the sense that orbiting objects fall while orbiting, but go fast enough sideways to keep from hitting the ground. I tried an experiment in KSP, by getting 2 spacecraft in slightly different orbits close to each other, then slowing one down to have a steep re-entry. I watched as the one re-entering fell vertically slightly faster than the one in orbit. But I thought they would have the same force of gravity acting on them?

So I've been trying to tackle docking recently, and I'm starting to get the hang of it, but I thought of a question that interests me. At some point, you obviously have to be going at a different velocity than the ship you're trying to dock with. But this difference in speed would cause the trajectory, and therefore the orbit, of your ship to be slightly different than that of the ship you're trying to dock with. But it seems to still work nevertheless. So what's going on?

Hi guys, i need some help. after launch rocket, in the orbit map view, it tell me exactly where my rocket gonna go by showing the rocket orbit. anyone know how to figure out the orbital ? or any article referent this ? by figure out, i mean the physics formula or mathematic formula. any thought will be appreciate.

So I asked a similar question a few days back, but now I have a new one. I know gravity is pulling spacecraft back to the thing it's orbiting, but what's keeping it from actually crashing into the surface? So far i have narrowed it down to 2 possible reasons: Inertia or Momentum. I know inertia is just a property of matter that makes it want to go in a straight line with the same speed. And momentum (I think) wants the object to keep going as well, because it's harder to stop something with more momentum. Inertia would work to keep the spacecraft from falling because they want to go out and away in a straight line, but gravity pulls it in, so there's a tug-of-war. At the same time, I would think momentum does the same thing, it wants to go out and away. So which is it, inertia or momentum? Or both?