Dixi

I think topic is more about "single parent" for a connection, i.e. no circular connections. As I understand this is fundamental design part of KSP and several other vehicle building games. Yes it's still annoying and I bet as soon as some game dev overcome this problem it will make their game much better, because it will allow much more mechanic-realistic constructions to be made. I think here this solution cause less troubles, compared to other games, for sample to Space Engineers. Because there you really have a problems with heavy movable parts of construction, attached to main structure in a single point (usually massive blocks of drill heads). But in this game, since we usually assemble all weird things in a zero gravity and vacuum, single attachment point is less problematic. And you can use sticky strut addon, as I remember.

I usually write name (biome) of a place. Like: Flag on Minmus highlands.

Anyone tested aerobrake/aerocapture for other planets in 1.1? It was working well before 1.0. Might be a little easy but it was fun to use. Since 1.0 release aerobraking at Jool blows my ship almost instantly at altitude much more then 130km. As I remember around 178km. And if I flight a little higher I'm loosing very little speed. I dunno is it more realistic or not, but it's definitely not fun! Since KSP in whole uses various simplifications, I see no problem in fixing other planets atmosphere, to allow not so problematic aerobrakes and aerocapture.

So there is a way to aerobrake at Duna. But what about Eve? I came to Eve from Kerbin, and got into higher atmosphere at 5500m/s. With awful results. Eve has 90k atmosphere height. When I dive into it with 82500m PE I see whole ship temperature destruction before I reach PE point. When I fly at 85k PE I still have some modules, including main engine destroyed but loose very little speed so I do not get to any circular orbit. I have 4 radial radiator panels on my ship, dunno are they help at all vs such extensive heating. Should I try to use some aircraft airbrakes? Was resulting orbit circular? Or you just lost some dV and still had to burn engines to get to circular orbit? I think possibility of effective aerobrake and aerocapture was a cool feature of the game before 1.0. Did we lost it almost completely?

I saw no point in using heatshield in my case since I have maximum diameter fuel tanks and engine, everything else, except side fuel tanks is less base diameter, so when aligned retrogarde is protected by fuel tanks. Here is a link, since I dunno how to insert a picture here. http://i.imgur.com/uVAlEyz.jpg

Tried again in 1.05 On a travel from Kerbin to Duna I did an aerobrake, starting at speed of 878.1 m/s at a distance 47'400.km, aimed at Dune PE 13km CCW, and finished on a reasonably elliptic orbit PE 12km, AP 893km. Nothing broke except all already opened OX-4L 1x6 solar panels. They got blown away around 25km height in Dune atmosphere. Going to replace them with SP-L 1x6 panels. Question is: is old aerobraking calculator still valid, and one just need to use different drag coefficient?

After a little hard landing on Mun I was very very impressed that a kerbal, while walking outside, can repair landing legs.

So far I ignore existence of any fairing or any aerodynamic elements for vertical launches. Works like a breeze :-). Less parts = less mass = more dV saved for orbit. Most problematic for me since 1.0 are aerobrakes. Like braking in Jool atmosphere.

You should remind this in some readme or just add it to an archive. I had to read about 8 pages of forums, before I found what I was missing.

I think that 1.0.2 aero model is not so hard to adopt to. It's just a bit more realistic, but it does not spoil game fun. I still can launch asparagus kind rockets, I still ignore all aerodynamic fairings and I still do interplanetary aerobrakes without serious consequences. So I disagree with idea that new areo model is too difficult or too realistic.

As I understand new reentry mechanic is more realistic, not as much as in Deadly Reentry, but not completely safe, as in ksp 0.9. So not every old version craft can return safe now.

I took my old ship for planet exploration (works well in ksp 0.9) and went to Eve. On typical aerobrake maneuver with minimum altitude of 65km I've lost a lot of attached hardware... I'm quite scared what will happen on Jool aerobrake, since arrival velocity usually higher there as I remember. When I've tested same Eve aerobrake at 59km I've lost all sensors and ladders, and a few km lower whole ship blows due to overheating. How I'm supposed now to build less squishy ships? On just mentioned above Eve aerobrake I've lost all ladders (retracted) on landing module and some of sensors. Ok, for sensors there is a new crate. But what about ladders?! For correct braking altitude I was using KSP Aerobraking Calculator http://alterbaron.github.io/ksp_aerocalc/, it also do not knows about new aerodynamic in 1.0. Any other program or addon can do it correctly now?

Do I understand correctly that currently MehJeb is a bit confused with new aerodynamic model? Because I had no problems with MJ ascent guidance before, and after 1.0 I got a lot of air disassembles, and other nasty unplanned events. Also, as I got from ksp 1.0 patch notes I should pay more attention to aerodynamic of my rocket. Do MechJeb have any info window to check effects of fairing and other aerodynamic elements I'm installing on a rocket?

About crush landing. As I understand they probably need bigger landing pad or more powerful RCS, since real life landing conditions in the ocean are less friendly compared to short lift/descents they doing successfully on a ground.

So, if I do not want mods, the only way is to put shot struts to connect loose points. I'll try, thanks for info.