Tyko

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. Your posts have historically been about consistent quality and perceived flaws or unrealistic modelling, and there is merit to most of your arguments. But bolts and rivets are seen on all sorts of rocket parts in real life and arguing against them is no longer a critique of the art quality but rather a highly subjective preference for a certain style. It's unrealistic to expect the artists to agree with that, don't you think?  I honestly don't care which style they adopt. I just wish there was some consistency. The fact that there are more panels and small details on a structural adapter than on a probe core is what bothers me. I'd imagine a probe would be greebled like crazy to represent all the various functions while a structural adapter would be really clean and simple since its only job is to hold other parts together in as aerodynamically clean and light way as possible.

Thanks..I didn't have time last night to play with it more. Any chance of adding the cross back in as an option? That used to be very accurate in all the views.

@Kerbas_ad_astra are the docking port lights fixed in the latest build? The build I'm using I can still light up the planet below with the docking light.

Thanks for the replies It's not a pixel or two...refer back to the pix I posted above. In the first pic I placed a waypoint as "exactly" on the equator as I could. I carefully positioned the mouse right on the equator and clicked. When I go out to KSP map mode the equator , as shown by the orbit line, is a good 20% of the way up the waypoint icon. If it were off by a pixel or two then the line would still be passing very close to the tip of the waypoint icon, not quite a ways up the icon.

SWEET

Actually...here's a real pic of the Ares 1 launch. Note the rows and rows of bolts all the way down the booster...I don't like them either, but there are RL examples

I tried that. It's not the initial placement that's the problem, it's when you are in the KSP map mode and you're trying to match your trajectory line with the correct point designated. there's no clear visual cue on the giant teardrop as to exactly where I placed it in the first place.

@DMagic How do you precisely place the "teardrop" marker for precision landings? the old X shaped market was easier to understand because the center of the X was the target point. With the teardrop the actual point targeted seems to vary depending on which view i'm using. Here's the ScanSat view. I put the mouse pointer exactly on the equator and clicked. The marker is circled in red. I'm trying to land in that little dark lowlands area, so I don't have a lot of margin for error: Here's the same marker viewed from Map mode. I was trying to use the marker as a target, but now a big portion of the teardrop is below the equator. I could easily miss that small Lowlands area because of that difference.

did you read all the instructions on that page including the "idiot proof instructions" link?

it's still a problem. As I increase dampers the bounces become shorter, but don't entirely go away. When I set dampers at maximum the bounces become very short but the frequency increases so the craft appears to be vibrating and slowly vibrates down even a gentle slope or in a circle if it's on flat ground. This is really annoying. This wasn't a problem for me in 1.3.x and it's been a problem ever since. Landers working should be table stakes for a space game and needs to work right.

The Ant is awesome. there's also a compact version (without the 0.625m ring at the top) called the Fire Ant in Ven's Stock Revamp. I use clusters of 2, 3 or 4 Fire Ants for small probes all the time.

I've been testing out all the various sounds and they're a massive improvement. I agree with @Gordon Dry that verniers and other small engine sounds, might need a volume check.

I forgot that movie! Have to go back and watch...the little robots were interesting.

Cool... I wish you'd keep a really basic dark variant of FL-A5 though. Those two new textures look too fancy for the many utilitarian uses that part can have. They're not going to bother to paint everything and that isn't really a "stack" part. It's more often (at least for me) used as a structural element that probably wouldn't be painted. Bottoms of landers, for example.

Dunno...I wasn't trying to create a better booster. I was offering a suggestion for a way @Kroslev Kerman could have his SRB "fuel tanks" and not have to liquefy the solid fuel - which, to your point, would be silly. That said, I'd imagine the reason NASA uses one big booster is driven by complexity and cost. Since complexity and cost are the two main reasons SRBs are used at all (in KSP or RL), it would be counterproductive to have multiple stages with multiple nozzles.