Rulare

I was on RC 2.2; I updated to 2.3 and my altimetry map works. Thanks!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/sh1n65uds7giuls/Screenshot%202014-06-11%2009.22.02.png I've tried everything between 70x70 and 4x4 km orbits. (I even hit a mountain.) LO has been green, blue, orange, grey, blinking between different colors, and all I'm getting is a completely flat grey altimetry map, and a biome map.

I tried poking around the documentation, so if I missed anything obvious I apologize; I've got a satellite around minmus with the RADAR Altimetry Sensor and the Multispectral Sensor both running. I seem to be able to pick up Biome information just fine, but Altimetry and Slope are a blank grey in either color setting.. I've tried different altitudes and stuff, but to no avail. Do I need a better sensor, am I doing something wrong, or is it just installed improperly?

Okay, I think I might've got it. I goofed up thinking that there had to be another interstage fairing adapter attached to the floating node - I didn't realize that you could just stick just anything there. This makes a lot more sense! Thanks.

I don't really understand how the interstage fairings are supposed to work. What exactly is the adjustable node floating above the fairing supposed to attach to? Stuff I stick to it gets welded to the world upon launch, but the fairings don't automatically size themselves unless I connect something to that node. I thought it was supposed to be another interstage fairing pointing downwards, but that seems to be what causes it to get stuck.

I can't seem to use the bottom attach node for the ISRU. :< Is this a problem for anyone else? Anyone know how to fix it? It snaps to attach, but stays red.

The dev build of mechjeb consistently oversteers my rather basic rocket (small chute, mk1 pod, decoupler, materials lab, FLT200, LV909), sometimes by over 180 degrees past its intended point. The only thing that seems to be able to consistently achieve a heading without just spinning around the desired point in wide sweeping circles, is the pod with the parachute left. :[ disregard, I stupid not fresh installed derp

I get Not allowed file type. when I try to download. Yet it let you upload it. But not me download it? No wonder the guy who wrote spaceport was let go.

Yeah... We've kinda already been there done that with the confirmation dialogue.

Yeah, pretty much. I'm positive the jets aren't intended to be running at 40k. Isn't the point of spaceplanes to be a greater challenge than a rocket? If you're stacking intakes, why even bother? Just strap more engines and intakes to a wingless rocket, it'll still get to orbit; With intake spam it doesn't much matter how your aircraft is designed. It will go to space, because having (I've seen up to) 56 TIMES the amount of intended intake air for the same intake surface area makes that almost impossible to mess up. With only a small amount of intake clipping I saw some guy make an aircraft that can SSTO... seven times. On one supply of fuel. It's just such a crutch. With the right flight profile you can SSTO with one engine and one or two reasonably placed intakes and still bring a satellite with you into orbit. Yeah, it's a sandbox game, and what other players do doesn't affect me, until they come on the forums or wherever and I get to see the fourth intake spam SSTO for the day from someone trying to score themselves some easy validation from the internets.

When you start clipping resource storage you're getting into "just mod the part already" territory. Less lag.

Love the components hidden in the hollow parts of the craft - most people don't know about that.

I took it in exactly the way it was said. Let's not make this a personal thing about my reading comprehension. Your railing against people discussing new features in anything other than a totally 100% positive light is going to stop people from discussing things like this; It's also going to stop the devs from fixing things like that when they don't hear about them. If you shoot down people for saying "something seems wrong with this" just because they haven't scientifically broken down what exactly is wrong with it and presented a notarized form detailing what code needs to be fixed, you're doing a disservice to the game and its developers. Other people can come along later and pin it down more precisely. That's the magic of a community. If there was really nothing wrong with it, then no harm done. The developers can make that decision themselves without someone policing all opinions.

This line really stood out to me. This argument is silly and infinitely expandable. If it's in the game presently, it was obviously designed, tested, and approved by developers. Like intake clipping. Obviously designed, tested, and approved by developers. Or the old aerospikes. Obviously, those were also designed, tested, and approved by the developers so no changes should've been made to those. The old ASAS was designed, tested, and approved by the developers so no changes needed to be made to that. See where I'm going with this? Just because it's in the game does not mean it was intentional, does not mean it was heavily tested, does not mean it has been 'approved'. It means that they're building a game up and they're going to do many balance passes in the future. Passes that need our feedback in order to occur, most likely. Why stifle discussion?

But this is obviously a bug so don't design a craft around it or you'll have to just redo it when they fix that.