Tips and tricks you found out yourself

[Kasuha]

That is unless you know how to store more than 1 crew report on a ship at a time. That would be useful info.

Two command pods.

[cantab]

Don't even need two pods. EVA out, right click the pod and Take Data, then Store Experiments. Then you can make a new crew report.

This works because the command pod includes the separate functions of an experiment (Crew Report) and an experiment store. With any experiment, you need to remove the data before you can run it again, and can then put that data in a store. This is no different, it's just that the experiment and the store are in the same part.

And no, I didn't figure this out myself, but it's a trick worth knowing.

I *did* just figure out for myself that your Kerbal works the same way, and you can right-click another Kerbal and Give Data/Take Data. So if you have two Kerbals, by shunting the data around they can carry as many EVA Reports and Surface Samples as you like. This may be useful with craft using external seats. (I've not checked if the one-result-per-environment limit that applies to command pods, but not to the science lab, applies to Kerbals.)

Edited May 14, 2014 by cantab

[Tortoise]

When getting an intercept, capture, or whatever with a node:

Its not always accurate, so I just go in map view with the navball enabled and when im done burning a node, the marker goes away but I can still keep burning in the nodes direction and remove the node, then watch the map until I get it perfectly how I want it. Or if I burned too much, just go burn in the exact opposite direction.

[michaelhester07]

Thanks for that data transfer technique.

[KerbMav]

you can right-click another Kerbal and Give Data/Take Data. So if you have two Kerbals, by shunting the data around they can carry as many EVA Reports and Surface Samples as you like.

Wow!

!!!!!!

[Jasel]

1. Aerobraking can save LOTS of fuel, but be careful not to overdo it or you could end up landing on a planet that you don't want to.

Never fail an aerobrake again:

http://alterbaron.github.io/ksp_aerocalc/

[Kasuha]

LV-1R tweaked to 0 thrust is great as fuel level indicator on drop tanks.

[Defender90]

If you're playing this on a Mac and you need to zoom in or zoom out in the VAB, hold down the mousewheel button and move the mouse forward or backward. Once I started building heavy lifters with lots of 2.5m parts I was starting to lose my mind - now I can build total monsters with 2.5m subassemblies and see everything!

[Shadow86]

- To rendezvous with a planet (or anything else), you don't have to match planes with it; You just have to get either the ascending or descending node in the right place.

I really think this sounds exactly the problem I'm having. I have no idea how to get those nodes in the right place, exactly what they are, how to even get them to where I see them.

All I know is my orbit many times is like an elliptical and the orbit of the Mun is another elliptical and they never meet. And I'm sometimes lucky enough that they come close enough that I can get an Mun proximity event. Doing that, I have orbited the Mun about 3 times. Once I crashed escaping the orbit and I reverted, so really only two Mun orbits.

The ascending and descending nodes are the spots where the orbital planes of your vessel and your target cross, and it's my understanding they're the best points to burn normal/anti-normal to correct relative inclinations.

I don't think the original bit of advice you quoted is all that sound. I mean, if the two planes only cross in two occasions, as opposed to many times the closer your inclination gets relative to the target, you'll get a lot fewer opportunities for intercepts. If the two spacecraft can only possibly meet twice along their orbit, you might spend many revolutions trying to get their positions to match precisely in time for those two tiny windows. It's also likely you'll have to burn a lot more fuel equalizing relative velocities when the rendezvous does come, since your trajectory would be markedly different than if you had matched inclinations.

[Superfluous J]

If you have such a complex ship that it takes multiple minutes to load on the launchpad, you can hit ESC while it's loading and when it DOES eventually load, the game will pause. This will keep your monstrosity from collapsing in on itself while you're off making coffee or whatever.

[Duke23]

This is more of a safety and convenience thing but I find it useful... For large reusable interplanetary ships it's nice to have an escape pod for a crew member to bring all the science data down to Kerbin when you return. They can be made relatively light and it saves a trip to orbit, just bring another one up when you decide to refuel.

Also good in a pinch... For example you run out of fuel on your way back from Duna or Jool or wherever and need just 600-1000 DV to limp back home or at least to the nearest celestial body for easier rescue. Not so useful for ships with large crews in that aspect though.

Most of my rockets (when design allows) have a version of this except the last stage itself is the escape pod or emergency stage as I call it. The rocket is designed in a way that you never need that stage under normal circumstances. Started doing that after my first Mun landing when I got stuck in orbit.

[Kryxal]

I don't think the original bit of advice you quoted is all that sound. I mean, if the two planes only cross in two occasions, as opposed to many times the closer your inclination gets relative to the target, you'll get a lot fewer opportunities for intercepts. If the two spacecraft can only possibly meet twice along their orbit, you might spend many revolutions trying to get their positions to match precisely in time for those two tiny windows. It's also likely you'll have to burn a lot more fuel equalizing relative velocities when the rendezvous does come, since your trajectory would be markedly different than if you had matched inclinations.

I'd never seen the advice, but I've done exactly this: instead of zeroing the AN/DN, I'd just make sure the AN/DN would be sitting on my destination point. It's more effective if you can aerobrake to deal with the greater difference in velocity, though ... you're going to be coming in relatively faster.

[cantab]

It's true that you may need an extra correction to ensure your intersect point is at the AN/DN, but I believe in most cases that correction should be small. You then just make a normal phasing burn at the intersect so you get a close intersect on a future orbit.

You will have that extra normal velocity to kill when you make the close intersect, but if you're talking a few degrees it's not going to be that much.

- - - Updated - - -

It's true that you may need an extra correction to ensure your intersect point is at the AN/DN, but I believe in most cases that correction should be small. You then just make a normal phasing burn at the intersect so you get a close intersect on a future orbit.

You will have that extra normal velocity to kill when you make the close intersect, but if you're talking a few degrees it's not going to be that much.

[GoSlash27]

The single best tip I've come up with on my own:

e^(ÃŽâ€V/9.81Isp) = Rwd

9(Rwd-1)(Me+Mp)

________________ = Mft

(9-Rwd)

where

Me is the mass of your engine(s), Mp is the mass of your payload, and Mft is the mass of your necessary fuel tanks (loaded)

So given the ÃŽâ€V you need to make, the payload you need to haul, and the engines you intend to use, this will tell you exactly how many fuel tanks you need to do the job. This works for all small and large radius liquid tanks. If you end up with a negative number, you can't do the job with that engine.

It's still up to you to verify that your engines are adequate to lift it.

Use in good health!

-Slashy

[gmbigg]

Not really a gameplay tip more as a cosmetic tip.

If you're like me, you have a bunch of different mods that add new parts, like the Kethane mod;

but those parts are listed first in the VAB and SPH, before the base game parts.

Turns out, this is because of the name of the GameData folders. (Surprising, I know )

For this example, Kethane parts are located before Squad parts, because K comes before S. (Genius right here)

Luckily, most GameData folders don't particularly mind being renamed.

For example, you can rename "GameData\Squad" to "GameData\0_Squad" without any bugs (that I know of).

Now, finally reaching my point, this moves the Squad folder to the top of the list, meaning it's parts are displayed first in the VAB.

This also works with other folders; "NASAmission" (i.e. 1_NASAmission) and most parts packs (i.e. ZZ_KAS) can be altered this way too.

The only problem to keep in mind, however, is that this can break compatibility with some mods (i.e. RasterPropMonitor).

Still, If you prefer seeing the base game parts at the top of the lists, it's definitely worth it IMO.

TL;DR

Rename "GameData\Squad" to something like "GameData\0_Squad" to move the position of it's parts in the VAB.

[Claw]

You can fine tune docking alignment by decoupling (stay very close), rotating to the new position, quicksave, and quickload. The quickload will reset the docking port state and the ports will recouple immediately on reload.

You need to keep the ports close together. Maybe keep a quicksave copy before uncoupling in case things go badly.

[John FX]

As shown in this thread: make backups. At least have a single one on your computer in case something gets corrupted. If you have important/really cool stuff: do it on at least one other medium not directly connected to your pc as well.

If this is important to you, maybe you are a ship builder or mod maker, you could do worse than consider Jebretary. It`s a GIT based version control manager for every save, persistance, quicksave, craft and subassembly you make. Even the auto saved ships that were only launched and not saved otherwise are kept and versioned so you can return to any of them at any point. You can get an autosave from 3 days and 35 minutes ago and make it your quicksave for example. You can get that one craft that actually worked 2 hours ago that you only launched once, never saved, then changed and never made it work again. Every autosave and quicksave. Nothing lost.

Did I mention you can control this all from a browser page from another computer on the LAN if you like?

It`s awesome...

It can be found here.

[Javster]

Not really a gameplay tip more as a cosmetic tip.

If you're like me, you have a bunch of different mods that add new parts, like the Kethane mod;

but those parts are listed first in the VAB and SPH, before the base game parts.

Turns out, this is because of the name of the GameData folders. (Surprising, I know )

For this example, Kethane parts are located before Squad parts, because K comes before S. (Genius right here)

Luckily, most GameData folders don't particularly mind being renamed.

For example, you can rename "GameData\Squad" to "GameData\0_Squad" without any bugs (that I know of).

Now, finally reaching my point, this moves the Squad folder to the top of the list, meaning it's parts are displayed first in the VAB.

This also works with other folders; "NASAmission" (i.e. 1_NASAmission) and most parts packs (i.e. ZZ_KAS) can be altered this way too.

The only problem to keep in mind, however, is that this can break compatibility with some mods (i.e. RasterPropMonitor).

Still, If you prefer seeing the base game parts at the top of the lists, it's definitely worth it IMO.

TL;DR

Rename "GameData\Squad" to something like "GameData\0_Squad" to move the position of it's parts in the VAB.

wut

Is it really that simple?

Wow... Did not expect that. So the folders could literally be called 1 2 3 etc. and it wouldn't actually do anything bad? Could you merge everything into one folder *realises that's how you modded the game before 0.20*

[Mr Shifty]

wut

Is it really that simple?

Wow... Did not expect that. So the folders could literally be called 1 2 3 etc. and it wouldn't actually do anything bad? Could you merge everything into one folder *realises that's how you modded the game before 0.20*

There were a couple mods back around the time 0.20 was released that allowed you to re-order all the parts in the VAB by renaming folders and parts so that they were sorted properly. It was what prompted me to write the Simple Parts Organizer (now maintained by Felbourn.) Don't rename your parts folders. (It can create a hassle when KSP updates.) Just use a simple mod that allows you to sort however you want.

[Cerberus738]

Just found this out! If your jebediah is just ragdolling along the surface of a moon you can switch to another vessel and switch back and he will stop moving. Allowing him to stand up and go back to jet packing

[LethalDose]

Lately, it's been spaceplanes for me. Two things I figured out:

When landing, go totally hands off the motherkerballing stick when the wheels hit the tarmac!!! I just hit the brakes, and let the nose come down on it's own. If I'm worried about stopping distance, I'll hit "N" to fire retro RCS on spaceplanes, but that's it.

Also, wings mounted over the fuselage create more stable aircraft, I think because the plane's mass "dangles" beneath the lift. Before I did this, I got a lot of wobble in my planes around the roll axis, especially in timewarp. I didn't figure out you can put the wings over the fuselage, mind you. I just copied the design concept and realized it had this great side effect. Maybe that was the purpose of the design, but I hadn't seen it described for that purpose before I figured out why it was so stable.

[Claw]

Also, wings mounted over the fuselage create more stable aircraft, I think because the plane's mass "dangles" beneath the lift.

Yep. Generically speaking...

Wings high = more stable

Wings low = less stable

Wings canted up = more stable

Wings canted down = less stable

You can see the effect of each of these by looking at the CoM/CoL relationship.

CoL High (or low) has similar effects for CoL Aft (or fore) of the CoM.

Keptins aero article is pretty good at explaining this. But it is, in essence, what you said. The weight dangles below the CoL and gravity naturally pulls it down. There's more behind it than that, but that's the basics.

[cantab]

Yep. Generically speaking...

Wings high = more stable

Wings low = less stable

On a tangent, how does this work for aircraft when the same idea doesn't work for rockets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_rocket_fallacy .

[Claw]

On a tangent, how does this work for aircraft when the same idea doesn't work for rockets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_rocket_fallacy .

Well, without getting into too much of a tangent, aerodynamic forces are also at play (whereas in Goddard's rocket, they weren't). High wing gives dihedral effect, a positive stability force. So when an aircraft with high wings is disturbed in roll, the wing inside of the turn "sees" more airflow than the wing outside of the turn. This generates more lift and causes the low wing to want to raise back up.

A highly roll stable craft would right itself and be done. A marginally roll stable aircraft may right itself, but oscillate as it finds neutral. An unstable craft just keeps rolling.

In the case of a low wing craft, the CoL slips up and under, to the other side of the CoM and contributes to the roll. Hence, unstable. So I suppose it isn't really that the CoM is "hanging," but rather where the CoL is. Maybe it just depends on your point of view?

Again, there are a lot of interacting forces at play. So there are lots of variations on this, but that is the basics of dihedral.

[LethalDose]

On a tangent, how does this work for aircraft when the same idea doesn't work for rockets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_rocket_fallacy .

There's also the fact that the orientation of thrust is different in the two situations. In the plane, the direction of thrust is perpendicular to the direction of the upward force counteracting gravity. In the rocket, the direction of thrust is parallel to the force acting against gravity (its the same vector).

When it comes the pendulum rocket, it's my understand that the rocket invariably picks up some yaw/pitch oscilations. These oscillations also cause the direction of thrust to change, which amplifies the oscillations, and you get a positive feedback system that becomes unstable. The high wing in these aircraft really counteracts roll, which occurs on an axis parallel to the thrust, not perpendicular like pitch/yaw. Therefore, the correction for the roll little to no effect on the direction of thrust, and oscillations are dampened, instead of amplified. If the wing led to pitch or yaw oscillations, something similar could happen.

Also, IIRC, the "pendulum rocket" is only a problem when thrusting against gravity, e.g. getting into orbit. Once you're in orbit and you're no longer thrusting against gravity, it's not unstable to have your CoT in front of your CoM. I've seen several designs for asteroid tugs that are pullers, and Scott Manley's Duna ship in Interstellar Quest was a puller.

</tangent>

Edited June 19, 2014 by LethalDose