cantab

It was probably FAR, still including the previous version of MFI.

Regarding performance, I have found that multiple planet packs have a cumulative impact on framerate, even without using Galactic Neighborhood. It's not much, I have about 80 mod worlds and take a 10% fps hit from that, but it's there and measurable.

This is legal nitpicking. From an end-user's point of CKAN is effectively distributing the mods.

"The solution" is simple: stop accepting metadata from every idiot on the internet.

Full reproduction steps includes details of your KSP installation, including what other mods if any you have installed. And if you can't reproduce the issue in a clean install with as few mods as possible, then it's an issue with FAR interacting with some other mod.

A question: Does CKAN have any concept of a "maintainer"? That is something Debian and other Linux distributions do - they have one person responsible for each package on an ongoing basis, and often encourage queries to be directed to that maintainer rather than to the upstream developer. As someone else mentioned, it's not uncommon for Linux package maintainers to be at odds with upstream developers, but at least Debian, Fedora, Arch, and so on don't just let every Tom Dick and Harry put a package in the official repository.

I will add that if you have a cluster of engines, you can null out that offset by adjusting thrust limiters on individual engines. KER will show you "thrust torque" and you can tweak until this is small, or you can just do a bit of a burn with SAS turned off and see which way the asteroid turns and reduce thrust on the 'outside' of the turn. On a smaller scale, such an engine cluster approach lets me easily move my lopsided station around, https://flic.kr/p/HCJqqS

That seems unnecessary given that a gravity turn can be done by holding prograde. Or for an aerodynamically stable rocket by making no control input at all after an initial pitch which can be set on the launchpad.

I have two monitors, and yes, sometimes do something on the other monitor. Though it's rarely during things like burns or timewarping, more normally it's just through getting a bit distracted but not closing the game.

Does Wikipedia to look up or check interesting people count?

Bit fiddly with the colliders, but yes that trick for extra engines is pretty neat. Also consider the BZ-1 attachment point which might be stronger. My updated version of my shuttle has Twin Boar+Skipper boosters.

I think Derso is currently a placeholder body - it actually looks like an inflated Gilly - because KA hasn't finished the real Derso 2.0 yet.

Except that's not what I meant. What I meant was that if a New Better Mod Manager comes up and doesn't immediately and totally replace CKAN, I don't agree with ferram's claim that that would make the NBMM useless.

Badly

I think you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good here. But in the long run, a good mod manager ought to displace a bad one. Even if it's still CKAN, an "official" repository that has proper support and is well tested has a good chance of largely displacing an unofficial repo that's full of bugged metadata. Except when doing that doesn't work and instead means that Mod X clobbers the stuff Mod Y needs. I can't see that kind of policy as a good idea, and if it ever happens I'd be deeply concerned. Something everybody involved should think about: do you want Curse to move in? Because the longer CKAN and other community-developed mod managers are a basketcase, the more likely that is to happen. This brings up what *may* be an option for strongly anti-CKAN mod developers. Host your mods on your own website, and write the terms and conditions of that website to ban their download by CKAN. (If CKAN provides a meaningful user agent enforcing this is simple, otherwise it might be a bit problematic but you can still complain to Squad maybe). Now if the mod is under a permissive or copyleft license you can't stop someone else re-uploading it to another site to serve as a CKAN repo, but it's an extra step for anyone who wants to go past you - hopefully someone who wants to make their own CKAN-compatible mod repository will try and do a decent job.

Granted. You can at will create a black hole *somewhere* in the Universe. But the chance of it being anywhere you even know exists is minimal. I wish I was asleep.

"If it ain't broke, don't ship it." - Ezequiel and Adrian Kerman KSC guidelines now prohibit ____________ on spaceplanes.

That was change in the 2.0 release. Eli now orbits Sonnah, and Lave is gone. @KillAshley you haven't updated the OP to reflect that yet.

As to the original issue, try rotating the whole plane up a bit in the SPH and see if the CoL stays behind the CoM. If any of your wing pieces are angled it might not. Secondly, as was mentioned, what really counts is the overall centre of pressure, and the CoL ball doesn't display that. Usually the wings are the main impact, but not always. As for the landing issues, well "cannot pitch up" usually means you have the CoM too far forward compared to the CoL, combined with not enough pitch authority, which means you basically land dart into the ground.

On the contrary, kind of the definition of "random data" is that there is no repetition and no redundancy.

4nowish2 I wish the Tour de France had no rules.

Correct. The "opposition class" mission profile uses a slightly higher energy departure and a significantly higher energy return, with the trip back to Earth cutting inside the orbit of Venus - and in some plans using a Venus gravity assist. I've not seen any that make the higher-energy trip the outward journey. I assume this is because on the way back the capsule can just slam into Earth's atmosphere and land and the rest of the ship is ditched, whereas on the way out you need to capture the whole thing into Mars orbit. If we could confidently aerocapture in real life though, then making the higher-energy trip outwards would let the expensive Earth ejection burn be done with efficient hydrolox engines. http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum39/HTML/000121.html

I don't believe in giving people like that clicks. This kind of thing happens from time to time. "I'm so convinced X is impossible I'll give money to anyone who I think proves me wrong." And that kind of person won't admit when they're shown wrong, especially not when they're already wrong. Case in point, the saga of compressing random data: http://www.patrickcraig.co.uk/other/compression.php Nobody involved in that is a crank, it's just that the guy making the challenge overlooked a loophole in his 'rules'. That case was resolved pretty amicably, probably because everyone involved knew it was blatant loophole abuse, but it's pretty clear the challenger had no intention of giving up their $5,000.

I've suggested before, some way for FAR to indicate the Flight Assistant is on might be warranted though. A highlight on the FAR icon, perhaps? Or how about only having it on when the FAR window is open, and turning it off when that window is closed?

Do you see another way forward? As I see it, things are going to get better for everyone involved if a better mod manager than CKAN is made. From the point of view of end-users, "better" is going to include having lots of mods. That means that either the mod developers get on board, or the mod manager developers just put things in anyway, and CKAN shows how the latter approach goes. I would venture that "better" for the mod developers is going to include not creating bugs and issues from screwed-up installs, and that too is most achievable with the input and involvement of those developers.