pokeman

looks like a last minute 1.7.1 as well, one more thing to update guys.

So I just unlocked the Arcadia turbofan from the aeronautics pack in my current career and I'm pretty sure the cruise mode thrust position is a bit off, has anyone else noticed this or can confirm?

The limited control toggle doesn't seem to work in this case though, unless we assume scientists can tell probes what to do without KSC or a pilot. I'm alright with how the system works it just seems weird.

That's true but with a scientist or engineer you get all the fine control (steering, throttle) and SAS hold and aligns with no signal, even with the "require signal for control" option toggled. So currently any kerbal can make a probe core function while out of range of comms.

So in my current career save I have been playing with the new comms system and I've ran into a small quirk. Turns out that a ship with a probe core maintains full SAS control without a com signal if its manned by a kerbal. Sounds good when thats a pilot giving commands to the ship but you also retain control even when it's a scientist or engineer. This means that once you've unlocked probes you no longer need to maintain a com signal or have a pilot for full attitude control, the only thing you lose is science transmission and the ability to place new maneuver nodes. It seems to me that the much loved scientist + probe core combo would be less appealing if it required a signal for SAS hold etc, adding a bit more of a trade off to leaving Jeb behind when you go beyond com range. What do you guys think? Do you still find use for pilots in the mid/late game?

Having the same problem here, got it on steam too but I was after the zip.

That feature is quite important to lifting surfaces inside fairings and bays that would otherwise flip a craft backwards. It would be nice if the detection of what parts are occluded was more precise though.

After using the MM engine patch provided earlier in the thread for a while I haven't experienced unexpected issues and many of my designs are working much better. So while this is quite annoying at least there is a quick and easy fix available for the designs prohibited by this.

Yep this sounds good to me. Just having the game store a couple of previous quicksaves/autosaves you can avoid the problem with no extra hassle on quickloads.

It is nice to have antennas that wont deploy through the side of fairings and I don't think there would be any uses for having a deployed solar panel (no sun while occluded) or RCS thrusters, assuming the detection gets better so things like moving inside a closed cargo bay while undocked from it, unstaged fairings causing "stowed" etc. However I agree that with the people here saying its unnecessary for engines to have this restriction, since fixing staging errors is a big part of designing a craft that we all learn instantly on our first flight when the parachute and engine fires at the same time.

This is the method I've been using too. Once you've got it just right the loses are very minimal i generally have an Ap only 1-2km above the target and am 90% of the way to orbit. To familiar targets like a LKO station I am usually docking by the T+8 min mark, that's with a rocket not a spaceplane though. It's not as fast and there's a much smaller window especially when the target Ap is <85km. A quarter of an orbit can take ages to catch up if you can only get 10km below your target. So it's more efficient yes (maybe ~25m/s to LKO) but less reliable and harder to meet a craft in less than one orbit, at least from my experience. EDIT: 18 mins to target with a spaceplane is pretty damn good, any payload or just kerbals?

But the problem here isn't the primary usage, interstage fairings currently work in a way that doesn't account for alot of plausible designs and doesn't add any additional gameplay. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in a proper staging sequence. Changing this doesn't affect any current designs and allows more freedom to build. If there's no reason other than suicide (for that craft) then dont activate the engines, the game doesn't have to enforce this we have stages for that. It works great for antennas solar etc but it's unnecessary for engines which obey staging.

Why wouldn't you want the engines to activate, if they are in the desired stage there is no need to override the player. It's like if the launch clamps wouldn't release unless there's an active engine in the same stage, 99% of the time it would be fine but it doesn't need to be forced by the game because that's what the staging system is for! There's also no need to get change the antenna stowing, engines are the main problem here.

No idea what the best solution for this bug is but I know that removing the stowed restraint from engines is a good start. Seems everyone who objects to removing the "feature" doesn't want solar panels and antennas to deploy, which makes perfect sense, so keep those how they are but there's no reason an engine shouldn't be able to fire in a confined space. Why do we even need the engines to do this? Restricting design choices and potential accidental explosions seems like a very un-kerbal "feature" to me.

Really the main upside is the ISRU drilling like you said, with a little EVA science as a bonus lol.

Just here to add my name to the list of people who will miss the offset indicator. I use it all the time Don't feel like updating anymore tbh.

NFE seems to mostly work, save for some weirdness with the curved panels.

Kuzzter is a genius, I noticed this problem and using tweakable angles on the door is the perfect solution.

Interplanetary surface rescues will potentially give another reason to use rovers in certain circumstances so that'll be nice.

If I recall correctly this issue is a consequence of the way the seats work, more like a docking port for the kerbal "part". So it's not as simple to add crew in the VAB on the code side as the normal pods.

Does anyone have a workaround for the KSC vanishing bug in the meantime while we wait for the update?

I had noticed this in .24 but thought it was one of my mods, now I'm starting to think it's spaceplane plus considering it's been the common thread.

I'm seem to be getting the bug noted on the previous page. The airbags deploy fine in the VAB but symetry messes with them in the flight scene.

Autorotation is the maneuver you are thinking of where a unpowered helicopter can land safely, obviously that can't happen if the rotors are damaged as in the case of most crashes. EDIT: Ninja'd lol

Is anyone else having problems with some of the satellite orbit contracts? They seem to require a precision well beyond the map screens capabilities, without giving us the exact numbers it just becomes a guessing game at some point. EDIT: Basically ninja'd by the above post haha. You could do what I ended up doing and using the new section of the ALT-F12 menu to complete the mission.