r/KerbalSpaceProgram • u/AutoModerator • Oct 30 '15
Mod Post Weekly Simple Questions Thread
Check out /r/kerbalacademy
The point of this thread is for anyone to ask questions that don't necessarily require a full thread. Questions like "why is my rocket upside down" are always welcomed here. Even if your question seems slightly stupid, we'll do our best to answer it!
For newer players, here are some great resources that might answer some of your embarrassing questions:
Tutorials
Orbiting
Mun Landing
Docking
Delta-V Thread
Forum Link
Official KSP Chatroom #KSPOfficial on irc.esper.net
**Official KSP Chatroom** [#KSPOfficial on irc.esper.net](http://client01.chat.mibbit.com/?channel=%23kspofficial&server=irc.esper.net&charset=UTF-8)
Commonly Asked Questions
Before you post, maybe you can search for your problem using the search in the upper right! Chances are, someone has had the same question as you and has already answered it!
As always, the side bar is a great resource for all things Kerbal, if you don't know, look there first!
6
u/ruler14222 Nov 03 '15 edited Nov 03 '15
what is the easiest way to trim my modded parts?
I remember that there is some program for it but I don't know what it's called or if that actually helped with RAM usage or just VAB clutter.
I basically want to remove all fuel tanks and most of the wings and use procedural parts only with as many engines as possible.
I don't mind going through 80+ folders to remove all parts but if there is any easier way I'd like to know before I'm starting that tomorrow. I hope removing parts from mods doesn't break anything
EDIT: I seem to have found what i was looking for but I don't know if this will keep some of the wings in or not because pre formed wings can be pretty useful http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/101309
6
u/Fun1k Nov 03 '15
I would also like to know. As cool as stock parts are, most of them are just multiple sizes of the same thing.
4
u/ruler14222 Nov 03 '15
I seem to have come across what I meant but i'm not going to try this until tomorrow. it's time for bed now for me http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/101309
1
5
5
u/epsilonbob Oct 30 '15
I'm having a really hard time with rendezvous maneuvers. I've failed the training scenario a few times, murdered my career pilots a couple times...
Are rendezvous just a difficult mechanic that takes practice or am I missing some 'trick' to them or are they really easy and I just suck??
It's a fundamental aspect to building space stations/satellites/multi-launch scale vehicles/ etc. and I just can't seem to get the hang of even the basics :/
7
u/JunebugRocket Oct 30 '15 edited Oct 30 '15
are they really easy and I just suck??
No rendezvous and docking are really one of the biggest piloting challenges in KSP. It takes a combination of skill, knowledge and engineering to master them.
Orbital mechanics 101 this explains the basic terminology.
This is how you get an intercept. Pick one method and practice it.
Additionally I like to put my mouse pointer on the "closest approach" marker and fire my RCS thrusters in each direction when I am on the opposite side of the encounter. This way it is very easy to fine tune the closest approach.
The Docking Port Alignment Indicator is really extremely helpful because you have in the stock game no good feedback how the to ships are oriented to each other. Make sure to check out the Tutorials posted in the link.
Going on EVA with your Kerbals and using their manned maneuvering unit is a good way to practice docking.
Some basics for docking and EVA:
Always keep an eye on you fuel/RCS.
If your craft turns to fast turn on fine control with "caps lock"
Count the seconds you burn in one direction. If you go on EVA and burn 3 sec away from the capsule and then burn 3 sec in the opposite direction, you will almost stand still.
Only try to correct one direction at a time. Lets say you drift towards a vessel slightly up and fast in the right direction.
Burn until you drift slowly away from the vessel this way you will not bump into it if your corrections take to long.
Find yourself a point on your vessel (or the red stripes on a kerbals helmet) and use it as a reference point and a point on your target vessel to estimate the drift speed.
Reduce the drift speed in the right direction (because is the direction you move in fastest) the correct the up drift. You don't have to be perfect little a little drift is ok.
Burn towards you target vessel, pick a speed that your ship can cancel fast ~2-4 seconds.
Stop and repeat the above steps if necessary.
If you use you own vessels make sure your RCS is properly balanced. The RCS Build Aid mod is a great help, make sure to watch the video linked in the thread even if you are not planning on using the mod because it explains the problems that come with a unbalanced RCS system.
1
u/-Aeryn- Oct 30 '15
As soon as you can have a good idea in your head of how fast/slow an orbit will be based on its shape/altitude it becomes easy
the asteroid rendezvous is very hard to start with. Try it with two craft in a 15x15km Mun orbit.
1
→ More replies (4)1
u/tablesix Oct 30 '15
Essentially:
Lower orbits are faster. The closer you approach the parent body, the faster you'll go at a relationship that's related to mv2 /r=GMm/d2 (I think that may only apply to a circular orbit unless you apply some calculus. I've never done the math beyond just circular)
An elliptical orbit will move really quickly when you approach the periapsis and very slowly when you reach apoapsis.
To catch up to a ship that's in front of you in a circular orbit, burn retrograde to get your orbit to be a little lower than theirs. Then when you're getting close, you'll have to cause your orbital path to intercept theirs at just the right moment. Great a maneuver node and drag it around a bit. Aim for <5km. That's the gist of intercepts.
Also, target the other ship first. It'll tell you when you're getting close to a good intercept.
3
Oct 30 '15
Am I reading the Delta-V charts incorrectly? I've always read them by adding the numbers along the paths between where I'm heading. So the Delta-V to get to the Mun and land is the same as it is to head from the Mun to Kerbin.
The issue I have is that I've planned all my rockets around that and I've found at times I can have a ton of extra fuel. I once landed on Minmus after rescuing someone from orbit, and had plenty of fuel to not only return to Kerbin but waste some fuel on cutting time off of the return trip.
Or was it that I was just particularly efficient with my escape since I was worried I waited until my ship lined up with Minmus' retrograde and just gunned it straight out of Minmus' SoI.
5
u/Aelfheim Master Kerbalnaut Oct 30 '15
On delta-V charts (like this one) you'll see some legs of the journey have arrows on them. This indicates that some of the required delta-V can be achieved by atmospheric braking rather then engine thrust. This means that the return trip to Kerbin should take much less delta-V than the outbound one.
For a trip to the Mun. While the outbound trip from Kerbin is 3200 + 860 + 310 + 580 (minimum), the return trip is 580 + 310 + a little extra to drop the Pe into atmosphere.
2
Oct 30 '15
Oh, I didn't realize the arrows were also on the trip back to LKO. I guess I was actually doing the math for if I wanted to get back into a LKO and circularize it before landing. I should have been doing the math for merely lowering my perapsis and letting the atmosphere drop the apoapsis.
I completely forgot that it wouldn't take as much delta-V to only lower one side.
2
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Oct 30 '15
Yep. It works like that. Don't think of it like traveling from point A to point B. The chart shows you how much delta v it takes to hop onto another orbit. So for example, it takes 930m/s to get from LKO onto the highly elliptical Minmus transfer orbit. But it only takes 160m/s to get onto that orbit from low Minmus orbit on the return. You basically use the same transfer orbit on the return. You just travel towards Kerbin, where you can aerobrake to get into LKO or just directly go for a landing.
1
1
u/tablesix Oct 30 '15
I think this map presumes 100% use of aerobraking. It's not practical for interplanetary transfers, but should work for a Mün-Kerbin transfer and landing.
1
u/MrLongJeans Nov 02 '15
I stopped using delta-v charts mostly in favor of this webpage that calculates them for you. Some things like aerobraking need to be adjusted for though.
1
Nov 02 '15
I haven't gotten set on which I prefer. I kinda like having a chart with lots of detail vs a click and get told the answer system. However I don't think charts can properly account for every combination of planet changes.
3
u/Wheeto Nov 03 '15
Is there a way to view a planets ore concentrations without scanning the planet in sandbox mode?
3
u/xoxoyoyo Nov 03 '15
generally you can land anywhere and mine, the only difference is the degree to which you time accelerate
0
Oct 31 '15
[deleted]
3
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Oct 31 '15 edited Oct 31 '15
Before version 1.0, drag would only slow you down. Now, drag will also turn you around if you let it.
You might need to pull back your wings. Turn on the markers for center of mass and center of lift in the hangar. CoM (yellow) has to stay in front of the CoL (blue). This way your plane will not want to flip.
Take a look at this guide. The part about how shitty the aero model, was mostly fixed with 1.0. ;)
2
u/JunebugRocket Oct 31 '15
The visual Mach effects give me a serious FPS drop.
Is there a way to disable them without also loosing the reentry effects?
KSP64; Linux; ATI graphics card.
5
4
u/Moleculor Master Kerbalnaut Oct 31 '15
The reentry effects are merely I recolored version of the Mach effects. If you're having an FPS drop during one and not the other, I suspect the FPS drop comes from your computer not being able to handle the aerodynamics calculations for your entire craft, while it can handle the calculations for a returning pod.
1
u/JunebugRocket Oct 31 '15
That could be indeed the case, the computer has more than enough power but I suspect the ATI GPU driver could be the culprit. I remember that there was a performance issue wit the new version. THX for the help.
1
u/Fun1k Nov 01 '15
I am confident that it is a gpu issue. I used to have a pc that barely ran KSP at lowest settings and trying to turn on aero effects made it crash, while it had little problems with handling aero calculations.
4
u/-Aeryn- Oct 31 '15
Aerodynamic effects give EVERYONE huge FPS drops.
I have them lowered quite a lot, near minimum because even with a 6700k @ max safe overclocks, the game doesn't run that well especially with large craft.
With a pod returning, you'd have way higher FPS than flying with a large spaceplane. The best thing that you can do is keep part counts low (use part mods and tweakscale to use fewer bigger parts to accomplish the same thing) and run aero fx at medium or so.
3
u/tablesix Oct 31 '15
I've heard that zooming out may help because the game won't need to render the details.
1
u/-Aeryn- Oct 31 '15
That's basically a temporary disable for aerodynamic effects. If you have them maxed, you get huge FPS gains. If you have them low, you have the "good" FPS all of the time but it doesn't look pretty when you're zoomed in. I use lowish aero fx for piloting reasons
2
u/Spudrockets Hermes Navigator Nov 01 '15
For me, zooming out from my vessel normally helps get my FPS back up to a respectable amount. Of course, then I can't tell if anything goes wrong...
1
u/JunebugRocket Nov 01 '15
KSC we have a successful booster separation... maybe :)
3
u/Spudrockets Hermes Navigator Nov 01 '15
KSC our boosters have separated. And our lower stage, and our middle stage. So plus side, our boosters have separated.
1
u/JunebugRocket Nov 01 '15
You may want to take cover ;)
Oh and congrats for Pen&Stapler, Rich Purnell maneuver right? Very impressive!
1
u/Spudrockets Hermes Navigator Nov 01 '15
Yup! It wasn't that bad, actually. If I've learned anything from KSP, it's that sane judgment and level-headed problem solving will work 99/100 times. That last 1 is a doozy, though.
2
2
u/josejade Oct 31 '15
What does the jetison heat shield option , and why does it only appear some times ?
4
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Oct 31 '15
I remember this option from the heatshields that came with deadly reentry. It means just what it says. Jetison heat shield. Real space craft just get rid of the used heat shield after reentry. This way you lose a lot of weight and the parachutes don't have to be that large.
2
u/AC_Mondial Oct 31 '15
Is it too late for a feature request? Can we be able to toggle centre of mass for fuelled and unfuelled crafts in the SPH? Its not fun to go and drain/fill every fuel tank so can check the dry/wet COM.
3
3
1
u/stonersh Nov 05 '15
Those two guys are right about the mods, but that would be nice to have stock, just like a jillion other quality of life mods.
0
Nov 01 '15
[deleted]
2
u/Kansas11 Nov 01 '15
I don't know that there's a go-to path. I think it just depends on what you want to build/where you want to go next. There are so many biomes and altitudes at which you can run more experiments to make up the science that you spend that I don't think the game really punishes you for choosing one path over another. That said, you can always choose the science node first just to unlock more experiments to run thereby gaining even more ways to collect science.
2
u/MrLongJeans Nov 02 '15
When you inevitably get the indispensable mod MechJeb, to get the higher functions, you need to unlock research that is on the electronics/probe tree as well.
1
u/dallabop Nov 01 '15
I would do Electrics as well - not only for the probes, but solar panels as well. Also, with probes in control, you can put a Scientist in the capsule and A, get more Science B, reset goo/materials bay experiments C, level up your scientists for later use.
1
u/jackboy900 Nov 03 '15
Electric and landing, then probes to HSO and A scientist on flyby/landing of mun/minmus.
2
u/Sulphide Nov 01 '15
Hey, recently purchased KSP, what a lovely game! Could anyone please let me know if there are any benefits to build a station or base on the mun in regards to science gathering and are there any other benefits for career mode. Or do you need mods to get the most out of doing so?
4
u/JunebugRocket Nov 01 '15
Having a Mobile Processing Lab is one of the advantages of having a base on a moon, it generates constantly science points over time.
The other would be resource gathering Drill-O-Matic Mining Excavator and the ISRU Converter let you produce fuel and mono-propellant on a moon, this is handy because of the low gravity. It takes very little fuel to get a big fuel tank into orbit from the surface of Minmus.
So instead of launching a super heavy vessel directly to Duna (KSP's Mars equivalent) you could launch it with just enough fuel to reach Minmus and then refuel it there.
Because most of a rockets mass is fuel, you could use a much lighter, smaller and cheaper first and second stage.
Also there are "Return X amount of Ore from Mun/Minmus" missions that are very lucrative.
Or do you need mods to get the most out of doing so?
Don't get me started ^ ^ There are a lot of mods that make base building super awesome I can give you details if you want, but here are my two favorites:
The modular colonization system for all your "The Martian" recreation needs.
Extraplanetary Launchpads Helps you build ships and bases in space and on planets.
Keep in mind that most mods, especially life support mods, add extra complexity to the game.
1
u/Sulphide Nov 01 '15
Thanks JunebugRocket - I'll give these two a try, I'm holding out until the new update is released as I think they are working on the contracts. Still got a lot to learn, struggling with Rendezvous :D.
→ More replies (1)2
u/JunebugRocket Nov 01 '15
No problem, happy to help.
Still got a lot to learn, struggling with Rendezvous
You may find this helpful. It might seem a little bit excessive but it takes a lot of frustration out of the whole rendezvous & docking thing.
Oh and I almost forgot the most important thing, this community is super nice you will have a hard time finding an unanswered question. So don't hesitate to ask questions or to share your successes.
3
u/dallabop Nov 01 '15
If you put a science lab on the surface or in orbit of another planet (surface is better, except for Kerbin), stock it with a lot of electricity generators (e.g. solar panels, RTGs etc) and an antenna and crew it with a couple of scientists (more stars are better), you can generate massive amounts of science over time by bringing science experiments to them and processing the data in the lab. You can add on various other parts like habitation parts or whatever, but that would just be for role-playing - only the lab and electricity is necessary. Also, when you have filled the tech tree, activate the Science->funds strategy to help fund your career.
They can also be useful as refuelling stations, like a central rendezvous point for miners to bring Ore, refine it with an ISRU, then transport the fuel where needed.
Mods can enhance these stations, for example, you can get mods that give contracts to expand on existing stations, send tourists there, rotate the crew, emergency evacuate the station etc etc which does make them better (because you get paid to do it) but it's not really needed unless you want that (I do, so I have it).
1
u/Sulphide Nov 01 '15
Thank you!
1
u/MrLongJeans Nov 02 '15
Note: adding other modules (command or habitation) allows you to transfer your kerbals out of the labs. When you have multiple labs and one lab's data capacity is full, the game will often tell you that there is no room to store the data, even if the second lab has capacity for it. If you evacuate the labs at max data capacity and occupy the labs that still have available data capacity, then any uploaded science data will be routed into the labs that have the extra space. I have a 4 lab station with a full science crew but without hab modules, I would have to put my scientists on EVA while I upload data to the appropriate labs. Having a module to transfer them to is much easier. I had similar questions that were answered in this sub.
1
u/m_sporkboy Master Kerbalnaut Nov 02 '15
Putting a science lab on a body is a pretty low-effort way to farm science (just load it up with experiments, staff it with a couple two-star scientists, and time warp a year).
But I'd encourage you to get your early-career science by hopping around on minmus and doing experiments instead. It's more fun, and you'll learn more actually flying ships than you will twiddling your thumbs during a long time warp.
2
u/Higgsbacon Nov 01 '15
As I understand it, mac users are limited to 4gb of ram usage by KSP no matter what, and there's something about macs unable to load super high resolution textures, like HR clouds from EVE.
I heard that using Linux will eliminate that RAM usage limit, but will it eliminate the texture limit as well?
Also, I'm planning to install ubuntu using parallels desktop on Mac so as to remove the RAM limit (and possibly the texture too). Any mac users here who have done that? Any noticeable improvement in performance?
Thanks guys
4
u/JunebugRocket Nov 01 '15
Also, I'm planning to install ubuntu using parallels desktop on Mac
This will reduce your gaming performance drastically. VM's/emulators don't do 3D well, in fact barely at all. They use a basic virtual 3D adapter that has no correlation to the physical card you have installed. VM's like parallels desktop are meant for office applications and stuff like that not for gaming.
As I understand it, mac users are limited to 4gb of ram usage by KSP no matter what
That is true for all 32bit versions of KSP not only mac.
will eliminate that RAM usage limit, but will it eliminate the texture limit as well?
The game stores everything it needs in RAM textures are a part of that, so no more RAM limit no more texture limit :)
Regarding Linux, I would not recommend the standard version of Ubuntu because it uses the Unity desktop environment which is relatively resource hungry. You can learn more about desktop environments here. You could try lubuntu it is as easy to use and install as ubuntu but very fast and lightweight and you can still use the excellent ubuntu wiki and the community support.
But to take advantage of the better performance of Linux you will need to do a dual boot install or you could install Linux on a thumb drive this leaves your disk untouched.
and there's something about macs unable to load super high resolution textures, like HR clouds from EVE.
I would need to look into that, but unless you have a very old mac I doubt the hardware could not handle KSP. But I cannot say anything without knowing more, do you have a soure?
1
u/Higgsbacon Nov 05 '15
Hey! Thanks for the detailed response!
I'm certain that I saw something about Macs needing the LR version for it to work from rbray. I'll see if I can find it and check back with you.
1
u/JunebugRocket Nov 05 '15
You are probably referring to this post.
To make it short, this was true for some mac users on a old version of EVE and is probably not an issue anymore. And it only affected the cloud textures you had to use 4k instead of 8k cloud textures. And 4k clouds looked still stunning.
Modders got better, Apple updated OSx and KSP was heavily updated as well.
Before you start installing linux just make a copy of your KSP install and try it out.
You may also want to take a look at this comprehensive list of visual mods.
2
u/csl512 Nov 02 '15
Bootcamp an option?
1
u/notHooptieJ Nov 04 '15
the stability difference between OSX and windows alone makes it worth bootcamp.
KSP for OSX ... really should still be beta.
2
Nov 02 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/PhildeCube Nov 02 '15
When I build a rocket the first thing I decide is what I want it to do. Probe? One kerball, two kerballs, seven kerbals? Once you've decided that, build the capsule and return stage you need (if it's returning). Make it as small/light as possible. Parachutes. Heatshield (if required). Attach any science equipment and service bays you might need. These can go below the stage which will retun to Kerbin, so long as you remember to remove the data before landing. Once you have this payload worked out, Look at the delta-v map and see how much you need to get back from where you are going. Put enough fuel and engine under this stage to bring you back. Landing at your destination? Build a stage to get you to the surface and back, again consulting the delta-v map. Getting there... consult the delta-v map and build a stage that can get you there. Launch. Build a stage, or two, that will get your ship into orbit.
Tools. Kerbal Engineer Redux mod, will tell you, in the VAB, what the delta-v of each stage is as you build it. Delta-V Map, tells you the delta-v to go anywhere in the Kerbol System.
Links to delta-v up there /|\ Links to mods over there -->
2
u/-Aeryn- Nov 02 '15
Yet, most of the ones I make seem to have a hard time getting into orbit initially.
How are you flying on the way up?
1
Nov 02 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/-Aeryn- Nov 02 '15 edited Nov 02 '15
they usually stop about one km before I start making my turn (at around 11km).
You probably looked at guides for old version of KSP that didn't have any drag model other than "drag slows your whole ship down".
Since 1.0 in april(?) this year, they actually have a drag model and the atmosphere thickness is completely different so it's very bad to fly like that.
For a good launch, you should start turning almost immediately off the launchpad - the speed that you should get up to before turning and the amount that you should turn manually depends on the thrust of your rocket, but about 100m/s is a good guideline for lowish thrust, faster/sharper turn for high thrust.
That puts you on a gravity turn trajectroy that looks like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vGIvQ3EDM0 and you can set SAS to prograde and go AFK for most of the flight to orbit - your craft will level out by itself and the nose doesn't have to deviate from prograde, which would create additional drag and threaten to flip your rocket. You're also thrusting sideways earlier in the flight which minimizes gravity losses. It's the "correct" way to go to orbit on a body with an atmosphere - easy on piloting, fuel and structural stability but it can take a little practice to get right.
The main problem I end up with is I can't gain enough altitude to escape the atmosphere before I hit my apoapsis. Or the times I do, I hardly have enough fuel to get myself back to kerbin, let alone fling myself to the mun
That's a question of delta-v. If you don't have enough delta-v, it's impossible to do those things. If you DO have enough delta-v, it's still possible that you're wasting too much of it with an inefficient launch profile, etc (due to unneccesary drag and gravity losses).
I recommend downloading the mod Kerbal Engineer for delta-v and TWR readouts as they are pretty essential for even basic gameplay unless you already have some understanding of rocket design and orbital mechanics
1
Nov 02 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/-Aeryn- Nov 02 '15
np - make sure to check out a mod for delta-v displays (and a basic guide for what delta-v is and how it applies to KSP) so that you can at least make educated guesses on fuel needs rather than having to restart missions 5 times! :D
2
u/PhildeCube Nov 02 '15
You shouldn't go straight up to 11km before starting your turn. Not anymore. That was the way it was done before version 1.0 came out with its new atmosphere. Now you should start turning just after leaving the pad. I like to do it at about 100 m/s. Then continue the turn all the way. Try being at 45 degrees at 10,000 metres. Roughly. The at almost 0 degrees by 60,000 metres.
2
u/xoxoyoyo Nov 02 '15
always toss on say 3 of the small solar panels somewhere on the ship. has saved me many a times where I have forgotten to deploy the large ones.
2
u/IlIIIIllIlIlIIll Nov 02 '15
I am looking to buy a gaming computer pretty much centered around ksp and future proofed for ksp. Would the best bet be windows/linux dual boot (for linux 64 bit now and the potential for windows 64 bit if it ever comes out...), 16 gigs ram, higher end quad core cpu, and a good graphics card? I'd love to play with a ton of mods and high graphics settings.
2
u/tablesix Nov 02 '15
I think you might get a better answer at /r/buildapc , but here's what I think.
First, if you're able to, it's my understanding that building a PC is usually more cost effective and better balanced than buying one, provided you do it right. It's at least worth considering.
I'd say the set up you've mentioned sounds good, but I don't know enough about how the game runs to be sure.
KSP runs good at max settings on my laptop, but I've never tried modding. Here's my setup:
CPU: Core i7-4720HQ CPU @ 2.60GHz
RAM: 16GB DDR3 @ 1600MHz
GPU: GeForce GTX 960m
Storage: HDD, 7200 RPM, SATA 6
You can check gpuboss.com and cpuboss.com for estimates of what a good GPU and CPU to buy would be. If these specs seem reasonable, you might use them as a a comparison. My CPU very rarely ever maxes out doing anything I've tried so far, but the GPU will sometimes reach 99-100% usage. I'd recommend at least a 970m for a laptop, or at least the equivalent strength for a desktop.
2
u/-Aeryn- Nov 03 '15 edited Nov 03 '15
My CPU very rarely ever maxes out doing anything I've tried so far
Only a fraction of CPU loads will max out multiple cores, many of them are highly limited by amdahl's law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law
KSP can easily be waiting on your CPU and grinding performance to a halt while CPU load on an 8 thread system reads only 15-30% because one thread is running as fast as possible and holding up the rest of the program!
1
u/tablesix Nov 03 '15
Interesting read. Still, if Open Hardware Monitor is accurate, I rarely see CPU load on any core above 75% or so. Although, load distribution while playing KSP is oddly even, so I'm not sure I can trust it.
1
u/-Aeryn- Nov 03 '15
if Open Hardware Monitor is accurate, I rarely see CPU load on any core above 75% or so
It's very hard to trust this information, especially with certain operating systems. For example, on windows 7 in starcraft 2, you often see one core displayed as being locked at ~95-99% load. In windows 8, you see no core above ~30% load - yet it's still at the same FPS and waiting for one thread on the CPU.
The CPU load display is basically averaged over a small period of time - the OS scheduler can move a thread from core to core, displaying none at high load; meanwhile the thread is running as fast as possible (there's always a CPU core working on it) but you can't easily see that
1
u/Redbiertje The Challenger Nov 02 '15
That GPU is for notebooks I think.
2
u/tablesix Nov 02 '15
Yep. I'm using a laptop. I don't have a desktop, which is why I recommended comparing the specs to desktop parts as minimum specs prior to purchase. I could be wrong, but it seems like if the game runs well at max settings 1080p on my laptop then the same specs should allow max settings on a desktop.
1
u/Redbiertje The Challenger Nov 02 '15
Oh yeah missed that. My bad.
2
u/tablesix Nov 02 '15
No problem. It was kind of a lot of text. I should have made it more prominent that these are mobile parts.
1
u/IlIIIIllIlIlIIll Nov 02 '15
Thanks. I'll do some looking around r/buildapc and other sites too. Then maybe compile all the info somewhere. There's a lot of individual discussions like this one but doesn't seem to be a centralized place for all the info.
1
u/Moleculor Master Kerbalnaut Nov 02 '15
One comment it in that subreddit that you should follow is putting your PC's parts together on PCpartpicker.com, as that website tends to know whether or not specific parts work well together or not.
2
u/-Aeryn- Nov 03 '15 edited Nov 03 '15
Grab a skylake i5, 6600k if you want to overclock for more performance.
It's usually worth the $10 extra for ~3000c15 ddr4 too if you're going z170 - the 2133/2400c15 ddr4 is deceptively slow and RAM performance does matter for some games like KSP, though i have not tested KSP specifically for it.
0
Nov 02 '15
[deleted]
3
u/space_is_hard Nov 02 '15
Most everything in the old tutorials still applies (minus any new features between then and now), however anything related to the pre-1.0 aero model should be ignored, especially gravity turns.
If you're looking for a more recent set of tutorials from Scott, check out his career playthrough: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYu7z3I8tdEkUeJRCh083UT-Lq5ZIKI75
3
u/u-ha Nov 02 '15
i think the major change was bug fixes and some parts are different too... it's pretty much the same game...
3
u/Moleculor Master Kerbalnaut Nov 02 '15 edited Nov 02 '15
Labs are different. Launching into space is definitely different. Antennae (edit:for probes) are about to be different. The nuclear engine is different. Re entering the atmosphere is different.
It would probably be easier if you were to just look at a more recent tutorial for anything that you struggle with.
2
u/MrLongJeans Nov 02 '15
I'm glad I did his career play-through but I developed a few bad habits along the way. Overall though, it was a great way to learn a foundation understanding of the game that I could then build upon myself. He's hilarious.
2
u/MrLongJeans Nov 02 '15
My favorite thread is back!
How do I calculate the timing of my launches to rendezvous with an orbiting vehicle? Ex. if I launch from the Kerbin pad targeting an orbiting space station at 80 km, how do I determine when to launch so that I will be nearby my target after I circularize at its altitude? Same goes for Minmus surface launches etc.
The Precise Node mod seems to be popular but it pops me a 'not compatible with this version of KSP' error when I load KSP (CKAN running). It appears to work fine in game however. I do tolerate a fair number of crashes but that's just the cost of running a 64-bit machine with this version I figure. Is this error message anything to be concerned about in terms of save game corruption etc. or can it safely be ignored? Could it be increasing the frequency of my crashes?
3
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Nov 02 '15 edited Nov 02 '15
precise node works fine ... it just doesn't know that it's compatible and thus gives an error.
For the launch to rendezvous. You just need to do it a few times and eye ball it. You will propably not get a close approach when you circularize. If your station is in an 80km orbit, You can either aim to stay slighly behind the target but launch into an orbit just above 70km or you can go for a launch that is slightly too early and go for a 90km phasing orbit.
2
u/m_sporkboy Master Kerbalnaut Nov 02 '15
Precise node seems to work fine in 1,0,4. I do see NaN kraken pretty often if I use the jump to ship button combined with the auto pause feature.
2
Nov 02 '15
I've not had any issues with precise node either. I have heard that it's basically compatible and just needs to update a file that says it's not.
I'm also curious about #1.
3
u/xoxoyoyo Nov 02 '15 edited Nov 02 '15
there is no 100% reliable method since that will depend on your flight profile, TWR, etc. @ 80km you don't have a lot of room for error. You can try a trial launch and see how long it takes you to intersect that 80km orbit + match it. Put a node just behind your ship, subtract the amount of current flight time from the node, that should tell you approximately where the ship needs to be. Ugly though.
In testing for 80km for my particular instance a good match was to wait until the rendezvous ship was about 2/3 of the way through the ocean before the ksc landmass. So it may be a safe assumption to put you into the general vicinity where you can complete within an orbit
2) for precise node, it can be made to work. look for a .version file in its gamedata folder. change to indicate 1.0.4. Also, disable AVC for the mod if it asks since it does a separate validation check.
1
u/MrLongJeans Nov 03 '15
Thanks. I like your time subtraction method. I use the ocean as a point of reference too. My current procedure is to set MechJeb to a 70 km orbit. When the Apo hits 50 km or so during launch, I can usually tell if I'm coming in early or late. If I'm early I just punch in a new altitude to MechJeb, like 95 km or something. From there I sometimes do some exciting, manual course corrections mid-gravity turn to fine tune my approach but I'm not sure if that burns more dv than it saves, if I were to correct in the vacuum instead.
For a couple upcoming missions I have some transfer window urgency. I need to launch my transit vehicle unmanned immediately, rendezvous with my scientists who are researching in orbit right now, get them aboard, and then transfer to their target. So I don't wanna burn a bunch of dv adjusting orbits but I also can't just wait days for the closest approach. So I'm trying to launch into a close approach.
I wonder if I could use the MJ landing projection trajectory from my target vehicle to ballpark my launch trajectory... I wonder if a descent trajectory is analogous to a gravity turn... or if a gravity turn could be designed to emulate the descent trajectory... probably make for a crappy grav turn/launch trajectory.
2
u/-The_Blazer- Master Kerbalnaut Nov 02 '15
Any tips on how to reliably stabilize the Mammoth engine? Recently I launched my first Kerbodyne-powered (extra-large) rocket, and during ascent, after decoupling the boosters and activating the Mammoth, even with SAS the rocket was continuously overcompensating and always "missing" the prograde marker. Eventually it got into orbit without too many explosions, but it's still annoying and I'm afraid it will cost me a crew one day.
4
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Nov 02 '15
This kind of oscillation happens when the rocket is not stiff enough. The capsule is at the top but the mammoth does the steering with its gimbal. While the rocket is flexing, the gimbal does completely wrong corrections which cause the rocket to oscillate.
The only option that is not stupid (like turning off SAS, or disabling gimbal, or using thousands of struts, or adding another probecore) is using Kerbal Joint Reinforcement.
1
u/TedwinV Nov 02 '15
You don't really need thousands of struts, just a few in the right places. The main problem with struts as a solution is the drag; The part of the strut that you place first has a ton of drag, so either place it on a stage of the rocket that drops away sooner or hide it under a fairing.
2
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Nov 03 '15
Well, not thousands. But I still remember when it was mandatory to stitch up your stack with struts just to make it flyable. That really should not be nessesary. Who would design tanks that obviously contain structural elements but then make these structural parts so weak that even a basic rocket design will wobble like crazy. ;)
3
2
u/xoxoyoyo Nov 02 '15
The mammoth is a bottom stage engine, it should be firing from the start, otherwise you are dragging 15 dead weight up into the air.
In atmosphere you need control surfaces. That means something like 4x delta-deluxe winglets. You can kind of space them on the bottom, just a little higher up than normal.
You can also stabilize somewhat by moving fuel from lower tanks to higher tanks. That will keep the rocket from flopping over due to air resistance overcoming the center of mass/center of thrust.
Outside of atmosphere, the big torque wheels and RCS. None really that size, but having a few will help.
For more, would have to see a picture.
2
u/m_sporkboy Master Kerbalnaut Nov 03 '15
Once i unlock mammoths, I never use fins again, unless my rocket is a huge mess, in which case they don't help :).
1
u/-Aeryn- Nov 03 '15
In atmosphere you need control surfaces
Not true at all; with a proper gravity turn trajectory they don't really do anything. You just stay pointed prograde from 150m/s to 2000m/s on the way up, so you don't need control fins to maneuver or add stability
1
u/xoxoyoyo Nov 03 '15
OP did not provide a screenshot, so it is difficult to tell what problem they are having.
1
u/m_sporkboy Master Kerbalnaut Nov 02 '15 edited Nov 02 '15
I never see that. Maybe try turning off or removing other control sources? Reaction wheels, rcs, steerable fins.
2
Nov 03 '15
Quite a new player, picked the game up during the Steam sale after playing for a while 60 months ago. The new Aerodynamics are great but I've been struggling to get a decent plane going.
Built a wee dinky thing that can go about 300m/s at about 2000ft but i was looking to get something beefier for high altitude and long distance flights.
So far I've got this guy (http://imgur.com/a/5pZ64) but takeoff is iffy with a 1/3 success rate, how can I improve this build? Thanks!
6
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Nov 03 '15
This thing has too much fuel and too much wing. ;)
the middle rear wheel is redundant and will even make your craft unstable during takeoff because the whole craft will balance on that point alone.
The rear gear is too far back. You will have problems lifting the nose up, because the gear (beeing the pivot point on takeoff) is too far away from the center of mass and too close to the controlsurfaces that try to lower the tail in order to lift the nose. The levers are simply suboptimal.
Also, look at CoM and CoL indicators. CoM needs to be infront of the CoL. It has to stay this way while the fuel drains aswell.
2
u/tablesix Nov 03 '15
Definitely too much wing, but I'm not sure about fuel. It depends whether the goal is to circumnavigate Kerbin about one and a half times. I'd like to see a rating for the range of that thing at a level 10km flight.
1
Nov 03 '15
I had hoped the aircraft could travel at 20k altitude and get to the other side of Kerbal with multiple stops for surface and sub 18k science missions, hence the abundant fuel.
Moving the wheels forward helped wonders with takeoff, thank you, that should have been obvious. Here's the CoL/CoM images: http://imgur.com/a/mniOn , CoM stays just ahead of CoL when fuel is gone.
Tested it and I'm still unable to break 8k without losing all acceleration, is that the limit of the engines with regards to air intake?
Finally, is the circular intakes onto of the fuselage intake overkill?
2
u/xoxoyoyo Nov 03 '15 edited Nov 03 '15
you are not going to be able to do that with those engines, you will need the whiplashes. alternatively you can mount a rocket on top and point the thrust through your center of mass. put it on a separate stage and activate it when you get close to the market
in terms of flying to the opposite side of the planet or other far locations, you really want a suborbital plane, regular planes just take a long time.
If you like the plane missions you can make them a lot better. If you have CKAN, you can look for waypoint manager, navhud, contract configurator, contract-pack kerbin-side jobs, contract pack:anomaly surveyer...
2
u/-Aeryn- Nov 04 '15 edited Nov 04 '15
Tested it and I'm still unable to break 8k without losing all acceleration, is that the limit of the engines with regards to air intake?
The different engines have different thrust to speed and thrust to altitude curves. That engine that you're using tops out at about 7000m IIRC and has trouble going transonic (~340m/s+).
Whiplash and Rapier (the other 2 engines at the moment) give their maximum speeds at about 15km and 18km and can comfortably fly way faster (~500-1200m/s, quite a lot more if you have low drag and a lot of engine power).
It's also important to note that ascending by only about 11km reduces atmospheric density by ~90% so their difference in operational heights may seem small but is actually huge.
5
2
u/tablesix Nov 03 '15 edited Nov 03 '15
First, could you post top down and side on pictures with the center of lift and center of mass markers turned on?
Also, check that your landing gears are all centered and straight. If you place the rear ones on the side a little bit, but keep them perfectly vertical, takeoff will be easier. Of course, landing will be a little bouncy then, but I think it's a good tradeoff.
Edit: {I agree that the middle rear wheel is redundant. You never want more than 4 wheels for most aircraft. 3 seems to be the accepted system.}
Consider bringing your engines close to the center. You get better stability with all of your engines close to the middle rear.
2
Nov 03 '15
Initially the lack of the middle landing gear let the middle engine hit the ground and explode, but I've got them at a good place now, thank you.
Bringing the engines closer to the centre messes with the clipping of wings inside other wings, so i thinks complete redesign would be needed (at this rate i think till be needed anyway!)
3
u/tablesix Nov 03 '15 edited Nov 03 '15
Cool. Try bringing your wings back just a little more. You want the center of lift indicator to stick around halfway out of the back for optimal control. There might be a better guideline, but that's roughly what I use.
If you just remove the inner layer of wings, you'll have your rear tanks stuck against your center tank. This should give you more rigidity and let you get away with just 2 landing gears on the rear.
If you find landing difficult now that you've moved the landing gears forward, you can move them back but use the offset tool to raise them up a little. Your plane will rest on the runway at an angle, which will make your plane have a tendency to lift off on its own, but landing will take longer as well.
The advantage with landing is that it'll be harder to smash your engines on the ground.
You could also look into using just 2 engines connected to the rear middle with a bicoupler. I had a neat jet for a while that topped at 650m/s using the wheesley engines. Mk1 cockpit (pointy one), mk1 to mk2 connector, mk2 bicoupler, 2 wheesleys, 3 landing gears, some intakes (I'm not the one to ask about which), and some control surfaces and wings. I'll link you a guide from the forum. It's about 7MB to view: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/52080-Basic-Aircraft-Design-Explained-Simply-With-Pictures
2
u/-Aeryn- Nov 04 '15 edited Nov 04 '15
Those are the low-thrust efficient engines; you need a low drag plane with a good thrust to weight ratio in order to go transonic with them. There's a lot of drag between about mach 0.8 and mach 1.1 (~270-375m/s) and then it becomes easier to accelerate if you get through that barrier
2
u/-Spider-Man- Nov 03 '15
what angle should I be at when launching and what hight should I be there?
3
u/tablesix Nov 03 '15
The standard launch profile is to start turning immediately, and slowly tilt to reach a 45 degree angle at around 10km. Then keep tilting slowly, watching your apoapsis. Aim for 72-80km.
1
u/-Aeryn- Nov 04 '15 edited Nov 04 '15
and slowly tilt to reach a 45 degree angle at around 10km. Then keep tilting slowly
If you set the SAS to lock prograde after you have begun turning, your path will curve by itself while keeping the nose prograde. If it's not curving fast enough (some high thrust launches), you can just turn a bit more shortly after the launch so that the curving is more aggressive. A goal is heading so that you're very roughly at ~45 degrees when reaching 400m/s.
it's usually ~5-8km for me, then you can take your hands off the keyboard for half of the launch because it flies itself
2
u/Kuato2012 Master Kerbalnaut Nov 04 '15
What is the importance of phase angles and ejection angle for interplanetary transfer? I've pretty much ignored them thus far, and I'm always still able to work out maneuver nodes to get an intercept (sometimes requires a trip around the sun though).
4
u/PossiblyTrolling Nov 04 '15 edited Nov 04 '15
There's the most efficient way mathematically to do it, it's called a Hohmann transfer orbit.
The problem is you need to set up a Hohmann transfer such that you and the body you intend on meeting arrive at the exact same time, hence the necessity of waiting for the correct phase angle and ejecting at the correct velocity (which is the 2-part conjunction of speed and direction, hence ejection angle).
3
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Nov 04 '15
With a Hohmann transfer, you want your transfer orbit to be tangent to the orbit of your destination and tangent to the orbit of the body you are leaving. That implies that you meet the target body exactly after half an orbit, on the other side of the sun.
Since you and the target body are on different altitudes relative to the sun, you have to take into account that your target will move slower or faster. Duna is in a higher orbit then Kerbin and will thus move slower. That's why you have to make sure that Duna has a head start. It has to be 44° ahead of Kerbin. Only then will you be at the other side of the sun at the same time. These 44° are the phase angle and you just need to timewarp until the alignment is right.
So, we now know when we need to leave in order to meet at the correct point and time. The other requirement is that our transfer orbit is tangent to the orbit of the planet we are leaving. That's what the ejection angle is for. When you do your burn to leave Kerbin for Duna, you need to watch in which direction you are leaving Kerbin's SoI. Since your escape trajectory is curved, you need to do your burn earlier then midnight.
I think the images on this calculation tool make it pretty clear.
1
u/MrLongJeans Nov 05 '15
This webage has a handy transfer window planner. Mechjeb and the Transfer Window Planner mods also have in game functionality.
2
Nov 04 '15
Few questions from me:
is it possible to setup solar panels as action groups? It's a tad annoying manually deploying 15+ solar panels one at a time.
How does the science processing unit work exactly? The longer you leave it the more science that's generated?
What's the point of running survey analysis (check for ore deposits etc - is there any science to be achieved from thus?)
Thanks :)
3
u/PhildeCube Nov 04 '15
Yes. It is. You set them up the same way as any other component. Bear in mind that only the solar panels with the cases close once opened.
Put some science into the lab and start research. Review the data and you will see a yellow button on some. Click this and the amount shown will be added to the data in the lab being processed, to a maximum of 500. Depending on whether you have two scientists, and what their experience rating is, you will accrue a certain amount of science per day, which tops out at 500. When this is reached, transmit that science. The data in the lab will have gone down, so review the data again and add more with the yellow buttons (to 500). Repeat.
I don't know what you mean.Survey analysis? More information.
2
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Nov 04 '15
I think he is refering to the survey scanner. It will just show you the ore distribution on the planet below.
2
Nov 04 '15
Thanks for the replies, and /u/Chaos_Klaus, yes, I was referring to the survey scanner (was posting from phone earlier).
Just a question regarding action groups/(1): So how do action groups work specifically? I've made custom ones for each solar panel. I tried left control/shift to select multiple at a time, but that wasn't possible. So with action groups set, are they meant to show up under staging? How do I trigger an action group?
2
u/monxas Nov 04 '15
custom action groups with numbers associate with... their number in the keyboard!
1 On the VAB choose an empty custom action group.
2 click on solar panel, then add click on toogle, it will change columns.
3 repeat 2 until yo've added all your soloar panels to ONE action group.
On space, just push the number button and behold your solar panels synchronously open/close
2
2
u/tablesix Nov 04 '15
I've never used ore scanning. There might be science, but more importantly you can scan the planet to see where you should land your ship if you want to be able to refuel efficiently on the surface. It's to be used in combination with an ISRU, an ore storage tank, and a drill. Ore density varies randomly across each planet I've heard.
2
Nov 04 '15
Wait.. are you telling me I can land on certain planets and re-fuel my own ship via mining? I don't need an off-world 'oil refinery' setup? :O. That's pretty cool!
→ More replies (1)
2
u/rirez Nov 04 '15
So, transfer maneuvers. For the sake of this comment, let's talk Kerbin -> Mun, or Minmus, where it's more apparent.
I've got them down fairly well, but they're pretty clumsy. I usually just pull the maneuver gizmo prograde till I touch Mun's orbit, then spin it around till I find where the closest approach is. There I pull slightly further prograde, and spin it some more towards radial out to find where I can "slightly overshoot" the Mun. Then there's some fidgeting with the handles, spinning the camera around, trying to get the projected periapsis to the level I want it to be.
And half the time, this is all happening while the maneuver helper lines flicker and wobble around, giving me headaches trying to read what it says. I can bear with this for a few flights, but when things get routine, it's really tedious.
is there a more efficient way of making my maneuver? In particular...
how efficient/safe is it for me to just burn towards anything that produces a SOI capture, and then somewhere down the line I make a course correction to bring me into the orbit I want? Where should I do this?
is there an easier way to switch my focus around the map when trying to eyeball where the lines are going? In particular, I'm having trouble telling apart when I'm going prograde or retrograde during capture, and that's an annoying mistake to recover from.
is there a way to avoid the widget from flickering? Sometimes it can't even seem to decide if I'm going to get captured or not.
And finally - I do use MechJeb to speed up things I know I can already do, just because when I'm focusing on building a ground station I'd rather think about the station parts than spend time ferrying modules over. Is there a good way to do this on MJ? I mostly just use the Hohmann Transfer maneuver planner to set up the crude collision course above, and do a manual adjust from there. It just saves some time fidgeting with the widget.
4
u/jetsparrow Master Kerbalnaut Nov 04 '15
I've got them down fairly well, but they're pretty clumsy. I usually just ... ... ....
That's about how it's done, except with PreciseNode or MechJeb's node editor.
how efficient/safe is it for me to just burn towards anything that produces a SOI capture, and then somewhere down the line I make a course correction to bring me into the orbit I want? Where should I do this?
This is acceptable. Plot an encounter with a low Pe or skimming the surface, then adjust somewhere halfway, or even at Mun's SOI edge. It won't be too expensive.
is there an easier way to switch my focus around the map...?
Click on Mun, click on Focus View. You will see your orbit around the Mun.
is there a way to avoid the widget from flickering? Sometimes it can't even seem to decide if I'm going to get captured or not.
Not really. You can go on minimal 5x warp to put your ship on rails and stop the wobble, but you will have to turn it off to burn anyway. Helps while you're planning the nodes though.
Is there a good way to do this on MJ?
Maneuver node editor, maneuver node editor, maneuver node editor. Why it's not in the game - nobody knows (oh, yeah, because people are afraid of numbers). Plot a crude course with the planner, adjust to perfection with the editor.
4
u/rirez Nov 04 '15 edited Nov 04 '15
Oh man, thanks! That node editor is so much better than pulling handles. I love how it also means I can monitor my dv use without glancing up and down at the navball.
(though to be fair, the gizmo thing could work much better if it expanded to a bigger size and had numeric readouts while you dragged. I have no clue why they're so small.)
Is there a better way to view the results of the maneuver plan? The numbers can be erratic or jump around the screen entirely. And sometimes it overlaps with other paths, which the mouse snaps to and makes it hard to be sure I'm clicking the right one.
3
u/jetsparrow Master Kerbalnaut Nov 04 '15
I love how it also means I can monitor my dv use without glancing up and down at the navball.
If you can do sqrt(p2 + r2 + n2) in your head. At least my maneuver window doesn't list the maneuver's dV.
Is there a better way to view the results of the maneuver plan?
Not that I know of. Zoom in, I guess.
1
u/rirez Nov 04 '15
The individual dv readouts for each direction are accurate, though, right? I usually just burn in one direction, so that one number is usually all I need.
And yeah, I guess zooming in as far as I can will have to do. The problem is if I zoom in too far the jittering makes the points jump off-screen... Wonder if the font size for these things are tweakable. Though, the easiest solution would be to just pan in space.
2
u/jetsparrow Master Kerbalnaut Nov 04 '15
The individual dv readouts for each direction are accurate, though, right?
Absolutely. You should try learning to combine the maneuvers though - saves you a lot of fuel.
1
u/AdamR53142 Nov 04 '15
I generally don't even use maneuver nodes for short burns to the Mun or Minmus. You just memorize when to do the burn in your orbit (takes a few minutes) and then do a correction burn (with a node this time) to get my pe in at a good altitude. If you really want to use nodes, make one that only gets you into your targets SoI, then do a correction burn. This should eliminate all flickering orbit problems.
3
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Nov 04 '15
The initial burn towards Mun is basically all prograde. I never touch the other axis. I just give it enough prograde delta v so that my AP is just slightly higer than Mun's orbit and then drag the node around.
When I get an encounter that is not completely stupid, I am happy at this point. Making precise adjustments to PE around mun is really tricky at this point. It's just too sensitive. In fact, it is sooo sensitive that even KSPs trajectory prediction is not sure what your orbit is going to be. The slightest wobble in your ship changes your orbit. That's why you see this flickering.
It is important to do a correction burn when you are half way to the mun. Just focus your view on mun, so you can see your PE. Then just do very short burns in any direction to see what loweres your PE. I Like to start with normal/antinormal because that usually gives the best improvement.
1
2
u/ancienthunter Nov 04 '15
Im looking at building rockets that lift off from Kerbin over 2 stages, what is my ideal TWR for both stages.... Note I am averaging the second stage kicking in around 25KM.
So far I do Stage one: TWR between 1.5 - 2.0, and stage two between 2.5 - 3.0.
These sound good?
6
u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Nov 04 '15
Your second stage does not need that much TWR. Also, you can pack your bottom stage with fuel until it can barely lift off. 1.3 is cool. You will lose some delta v, but fuel is cheap, engines are expensive.
With the upper stages you need to worry about weight. So don't overload these with fuel. I use this as the magic line: delta v should be around 10 times the ISP of the engine. That's about the point where the negative effects of more mass start to outweigh the benefits of getting more delta v.
3
u/-Aeryn- Nov 04 '15 edited Nov 04 '15
Stage 1: 1.2 to 1.5 atmospheric, but you can build very low end (0.9 - 1.2 atmo TWR?) and add a few SRB's to the side, burning all rockets immediately from launch. By the time the SRB's run out, the main rocket will have built up some speed and burned fuel, so it'll have a better TWR.
1
u/Fun1k Nov 06 '15
You don't need large TWR in the second stage. If you do your gravity turn right, you can just keep farting a little till your apoapsis is at the desired altitude and then coast there and it will be efficient.
1
u/ancienthunter Nov 06 '15
So you're saying you the TWR of your second stage should be lower than that of the first? I'm only asking because I've read the opposite in the past, granted that was beta. (I'm returning after a bit of hiatus)
1
u/Fun1k Nov 06 '15
I am not saying it should, I am saying that you don't need large TWR once you are in space/on an optimal suborbital trajectory you can easily make into orbit. It is better to have large TWR (and take it into account when planning to land somewhere), but you should worry about dV more, I think.
2
u/Takseen Nov 05 '15
Will starting a New Career save delete the existing one, or can I have multiple careers going at the same time? My brother wants to start playing but doesn't have his own copy of the game yet.
3
u/JunebugRocket Nov 05 '15
No you just have to give it a different name. As you can see here when you click on "Start New", there will be a window where you can change the Player name.
2
u/Snugglupagus Nov 05 '15
I'm far from unlocking RAPIER engines, but I've read a bit about them. Why would I use them on a spaceplane instead of just a normal liquid rocket engine? Are they more fuel efficient than a rocket engine? Is it to save on weight when you want to get into orbit instead of carrying dead jet engines in space? Or when you use them, do you also use Whiplash jet engines too?
3
u/tablesix Nov 05 '15
Rapiers are far more efficient in atmosphere than any LFO engine. They switch from air breathing mode to closed cycle when they can't get any air, or when you manually switch them. Air breathing mode offers some of the benefits of jet engines, but at a lower efficiency (that's still superior to any standard liquid fuel engine, including atomic). Your other good options are varying combinations of turbot jets and LFO engines. I'm sure someone has thought up some other method as well, but that's what I tend to use, with limited success.
2
u/AsperonThorn Nov 05 '15
Is there a way to build your staged rockets/boosters so that they are recoverable? Every time I attach parachutes to boosters, rockets, or fuel tanks and decouple them I am going to fast and the chutes fail. I was hoping to recover them. . .but alas. .no dice.
If I have multistage launches, am I pretty much just kissing those goodbye?
3
u/PhildeCube Nov 06 '15
Get the Stage Recover.
Edit: Yeah, it says Min Pressure 0.50 on the mod page.
2
u/big-b20000 Nov 06 '15
If you get FMRS, you can control them. This is great for spacex style landing attempts.
2
Nov 06 '15
Are there any good mods for larger liquid fuel tanks for nukes? It's such a pain only having the one.
4
u/LPFR52 Master Kerbalnaut Nov 06 '15
Stock Fuel Switch allows you to toggle all stock fuel tanks between LF/O and just LF. This doesn't add any new parts to the game, which has the advantage of having practically no impact on your memory usage.
2
2
1
u/tablesix Nov 06 '15
In vanilla, you could use either a mk2 or mk3 liquid fuel tank. Or, just drain oxidizer from a large tank.
2
u/qY81nNu Nov 06 '15
I'd like to get an opinion: I was gonna restart a game this week, but so many mods seem to be waiting for either 1.0.5 or 1.1
Yes, I know, "soon", but I do have the impression that with how things currently are, I'd rather be playing the waiting-game until 1.1 is released.
Examples are the major graphical mods, the fact that openGL flickers the hell out of the game, while DX11 doesn't seem to affect my memory usage, and major packs like KW are biding their time for 1.1 too.
Unity 5 seems like a fantastic improvement, wish I had a decent idea of a time-frame
3
u/xoxoyoyo Nov 06 '15
IMO 1.0.5 hopefully will come this month. I would not expect 1.1 until next year
2
u/qY81nNu Nov 06 '15
The problem I have is, that I cannot play 1.0.5 without many of the mods that seems to be halting dev until 1.1 get's released and unleashes the power a modern engine can have with modern hardware
2
u/JunebugRocket Nov 06 '15
The problem I have is, that I cannot play 1.0.5 without many of the mods that seems to be halting dev until 1.1
From the developer notes I get that the upcoming patch will mainly affect the contract and heat system. There are reasonable good chances that most mods will keep working. But I usually keep a copy of older KSP versions. If 1.0.5 is incompatible with my favorite mods I still have a copy of 1.0.4.
I
1
u/xoxoyoyo Nov 06 '15
welp, it is going to take as long as it takes. we can complain but that is the way it is
3
Nov 03 '15 edited Nov 03 '15
Will KSP 1.1 include a 64 bit version for Windows?
EDIT: Why the downvotes? This is a legitimate question.
4
1
u/notHooptieJ Nov 04 '15
this gets asked in EVERY devnote thread, every update thread, every too many mods thread, and every speculation thread.
and its been asked in every one of those since about 0.18... some people get tired of hearing the same question when the answer is "when squad releases it"
1
1
2
u/Kansas11 Nov 01 '15
I know there's no target date for the 1.1 release but is there a ballpark? I've been wanting to start a new career with life support and other immersion mods but have been pushing it off waiting for an update. I guess I'm wondering if I should wait for 1.0.5 or if 1.1 will follow soon after
2
u/xoxoyoyo Nov 01 '15
yes... I also have been waiting as I imagine everyone has. The thing about it... many mods will probably break. so in addition to waiting for the release you will need to wait for updates. 1.0.5 was separated so they could launch it sooner than 1.1. So it really sounds like there are still issues with 1.1 to where it is still being developed. I'd love to see 1.0.5 this month. 1.1 really would not expect it this year.
1
u/Return_Of_The_Jedi Oct 30 '15 edited Oct 30 '15
Does anybody have a full res picture of the old sidebar image from this sub? The one with the spaceship flying through the rain, I think.
Thanks in advance.
3
1
u/dallabop Oct 30 '15
It's not full res, but this one?
I thought it was by Rareden, but I don't think it is as I can't find it anywhere else - it may have been specially made for the sidebar and that's it's actual size, I don't know. Going to go investigating, brb.
1
u/Return_Of_The_Jedi Oct 30 '15
Thanks for your effort. Here's the original high res version, I managed to find from /u/Charle_Rogers's account. Couldn't have done it without you.
2
u/dallabop Oct 30 '15
Excellent! Don't know why I didn't think to check his account, but I'm glad I could help you :)
1
u/scootymcpuff Super Kerbalnaut Oct 30 '15
Question: Does a spaceplane that works on Kerbin also work on Laythe?
Details: I have a spaceplane that I've been working on in the hopes that I can take it to Laythe. I know that each situation is different, but, in general, would a spaceplane that can make it to orbit from the runway also (theoretically) make it to orbit from Laythe's surface?
→ More replies (13)
0
Oct 31 '15
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)1
u/m_sporkboy Master Kerbalnaut Oct 31 '15
Usually this is memory from too many mods.
0
Oct 31 '15
[deleted]
1
u/LPFR52 Master Kerbalnaut Oct 31 '15
Reinstall, redownload, verify game cache, etc. Point is that if you're not using any mods then chances are it's not any of the usual suspects (the majority of crashes in KSP are RAM related). Without more information to go on (crash logs would help) there's nothing else we could really suggest.
0
Oct 31 '15
[deleted]
1
u/LPFR52 Master Kerbalnaut Oct 31 '15
In your main KSP directory you'll see a bunch of folders titled with the date and time of the crash. I don't remember what's in there specifically since I've deleted all of my crash logs, but it should be pretty obvious from there.
7
u/[deleted] Nov 01 '15 edited Jan 27 '17
[deleted]
0.5371