Pet peeves

[Wanderfound]

To the best of my knowledge, I can't resize the navball, without also blowing up the rest of the UI to nonsense levels. Give me a bigger navball. It's the most important part of the screen.

As usual, there's a mod for that: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/50524-0-24-Enhanced-Navball-1-3

But yeah; should be stock. Personally, the thing that was driving me crazy was the inability to shrink and relocate the navball. It was constantly getting in the way of things that I needed to see. Centre screen is a daft place for it.

[MadChris48]

To the best of my knowledge, I can't resize the navball, without also blowing up the rest of the UI to nonsense levels. Give me a bigger navball. It's the most important part of the screen.

Enhanced Navball Mod

EDIT: Ninja'd!

[EdFred]

i cannot do frontflips with eva jetpack engaged, theres no keys to rotate vertically.

timewarp doesnt autostop on SOI change or before nodes.

kerbin has no cats.

Kerbal Alarm Clock.

[Toshogu]

The way the technology progresses doesn't make any sense to me.

[EdFred]

The way the technology progresses doesn't make any sense to me.

Why should it? It's the Kerbal Universe, not ours.

[cantab]

*Why does the nose of my airplane need to point up by 15-20° in LEVEL FLIGHT?... ???... what the (Beeeep)! In other words: Why is your aerodynamic model that bad?

Because you built the plane with zero angle of attack when the fuselage is level :-p 15 degrees is a reasonable AoA for maximum lift.

Anyway, what annoys me that shouldn't: why can't I get a wide engine fairing around a narrower engine?

[regex]

Hrm... Off the top of my head, KSP why do you:

• </p><p>
• have such tiny, unrealistically dense planets?
  
• not have more of said tiny planets?
  
• have said planets in orbits so clumped together?
  
• have such unrealistic aerodynamics?
  
• always put Jeb in the cockpit first?
  
• have such dumb timewarp restrictions?
  
• only have asteroids show up in one place when it is clearly possible to place them elsewhere with minimal code, as demonstrated in a development thread that literally spanned one day of modders messing around in their spare time (talk about dropping the ball!)
  
• have such silly engine models?
  
• not let me place symmetrical parts when there is clearly room?
  
  That should be enough for an immediate list.

[corvustech]

Why, on a game which sells on Steam, is the throttle up key one if the keys used to respond to Steam messages?

[Razor235]

Why, on a game which sells on Steam, is the throttle up key one if the keys used to respond to Steam messages?

Use your right shift key.

[Maxwell Fern]

This while annoying is easily explained. You warp through stuff at high warp including planets so this stops people from warping through as they approach the planet. It has nothing to do with leaving it but the computer can't tell the difference so there is the reason.

Of course it can:

IF in orbit THEN don't limit timewarp;

The only reason why timewarp should be limited is when the periapsis is in the atmosphere or below. Maybe extend that to parabolic trajectories, i.e. kill time warp if you have an intercept.

Other than that, there is no sense in limiting time warp on a ship that is, for example, on a 100x100km orbit. It's not like it's gonna go anywhere.

i cannot do frontflips with eva jetpack engaged, theres no keys to rotate vertically.

Left click + move mouse

Hrm... Off the top of my head, KSP why do you:

• </p><p>
• have such tiny, unrealistically dense planets?
  
• not have more of said tiny planets?
  
• have said planets in orbits so clumped together?
  
• have such silly engine models?
  
  
  Those are all obvious gameplay choices. I really hope they don't change that, not because I like it, but because that's the friendliest model to new players.

  • </p><p>
  • not let me place symmetrical parts when there is clearly room?
    DUDE HOW COULD I FORGET THAT ?
    You know, when you place 6 tanks symetrically, then try to add 6 engines at the bottom of them, but just one is red, so you have to remove everyting, replace the tank with no symetry, add the engine, remove the tank, set the symetry, then place the tank + engine. Or when the editor won't let you place a part somewhere, but after shaking it for a while it just turns green for no reason at all.
    Phew, what a hassle.

    Why, on a game which sells on Steam, is the throttle up key one if the keys used to respond to Steam messages?

    Even without the Steam Friend thing, you can focus through different bodies from the Sun to Eelo using TAB, and the other way around with shift+TAB... Wich is a very very bad idea, since Esc doesn't pause the game once you hit shift+TAB...

Edited August 7, 2014 by Maxwell Fern

[Javster]

I just wish the game wouldn't try to organise your stages: it just doesn't do it right and causes more trouble than it's worth.

[Maxwell Fern]

I just wish the game wouldn't try to organise your stages: it just doesn't do it right and causes more trouble than it's worth.

Is it just me or this has become way worse since .24 ?

[regex]

Those are all obvious gameplay choices. I really hope they don't change that, not because I like it, but because that's the friendliest model to new players.

I could make some arguments regarding what's actually friendlier to (or better for, or more intuitive to) new players, but I really don't think you have anything to worry about; the devs are pretty commited to the game being unrealistic.

[spaceman1999]

The smoke has no shadow! Nooooooooooooo!

[Vanamonde]

Merged into the existing thread for niggling little irritations.

[ThinkOutsideTheHangar]

Is it just me or this has become way worse since .24 ?

I think the auto staging is based on how you place your parts, for example, if you place a parachute first, it puts that first.

[Javster]

I think the auto staging is based on how you place your parts, for example, if you place a parachute first, it puts that first.

The fact that we don't know is worrying.

[Caelib]

There are few usability issues with maneuver nodes that irritate me, but not so much that I do not enjoy the game.

The main problems for me are:

1) it's really hard to select a maneuver node if you're zoomed way out and it happens to "collapse" back to its default state and you need to make adjustments ... which requires you typically to zoom all the way back in, select it, and then zoom out.

2) non-planetary, orbital rendezvous intercept markers are hard to see based on what object you're focus upon -- it would be amazing if we could set focus on these or get some kind of preview window when adjusting maneuver nodes.

3) (there's already a bug report for this one) planetary intercepts frequently cause an issue where you are unable to place a maneuver node on the "blue line" (pre-intercept orbit) when a "purple line" (post-intercept orbit) is near it -- it gets confused on which line you wish to place the node.

[itsmagic2009]

1. Launch stabilizers are automatically placed in the wrong stages most of the time. How hard can it be to put them automatically in the bottom stage?

2. Pressing G twice to deploy lander legs

3. I hate it when i do interplanetary course corrections, the periapsis moves closer to the planet and then suddenly the encounter is gone :-(

[Rabid Bat]

Most things in game don't bother me to much, but the up/down in eva that one drives me nuts.

I do have a pet peeve with the way some people post pictures. Why post a black picture whats the point, wait for the sun, time warp, there is even a mod for it...... Ambient Light Adjustment.

[HorusKol]

Carefully crafting a sub-assembly for radial mounting, saving it and then trying to mount it onto your core and realising that it wants to mount the opposite way round to how you built it...

[merendel]

Carefully crafting a sub-assembly for radial mounting, saving it and then trying to mount it onto your core and realising that it wants to mount the opposite way round to how you built it...

And this is why I always build my radial sub assemblys with a root part that has a clear directional attachment. Girders and decouplers are the most common for me. Trying to build the sub assembly off a round root part like a fuel tank or materials bay 9 times outa 10 will come back to bite you.

For me my pet peeves are vanishing encounters, particularly when your on a collision course with the target and yet you cant see it till you hit the SOI. The other is close approach indicators being really twichy when trying to hit a small SOI from long range. Try to actualy intercept moho without aiming for the accending/decending node with your PE to see this fun one in action.

[Superfluous J]

For me my pet peeves are vanishing encounters

I have a similar one, when I've got KAC set up to auto alarm on SOI change. I see the alarm, figure I'm good, hit fast forward full speed. In a flash I see the moon flash by, and THEN KAC slows me down because the SOI change to EXIT the SOI slows me down.

(Not KAC's fault, of course. But still annoying)

[NecroBones]

It's probably been mentioned before, but one of my on-going pet peeves is the texture alignment on the new SLS parts, since 0.23.5. When I first started playing the game, I was very pleased to see that the textures had visible cues that aligned to the snap directions (such as the stripes on the FL-T800), making strut placement, and placement of radial parts fairly easy to line up visually.

But then came the 3.75m parts, which look great, but the textures are misaligned:

* Kerbodyne S3-14400 Tank: Rotated roughly a few degrees from the snap positions and cardinal directions.

* Kerbodyne S3-3600 Tank: Rotated 5 degress (almost perfectly), relative to the Kerbodyne S3-14400 Tank, compounding it's alignment error.

I'm highly tempted to modify copies of these textures and use the Texture Replacer, to fix it for myself. I'm not an overly OCD-type of person, but this bugs me to no end.

[Red Iron Crown]

It's probably been mentioned before, but one of my on-going pet peeves is the texture alignment on the new SLS parts, since 0.23.5. When I first started playing the game, I was very pleased to see that the textures had visible cues that aligned to the snap directions (such as the stripes on the FL-T800), making strut placement, and placement of radial parts fairly easy to line up visually.

But then came the 3.75m parts, which look great, but the textures are misaligned:

* Kerbodyne S3-14400 Tank: Rotated roughly a few degrees from the snap positions and cardinal directions.

* Kerbodyne S3-3600 Tank: Rotated 5 degress (almost perfectly), relative to the Kerbodyne S3-14400 Tank, compounding it's alignment error.

I'm highly tempted to modify copies of these textures and use the Texture Replacer, to fix it for myself. I'm not an overly OCD-type of person, but this bugs me to no end.

A quick fix for the S3-3600 is to flip the tank.

Agree that it silly to have to do that, though.