swjr-swis

I tried that one before, but I got a server unreachable error. Glad to see it's up somewhere, even if temporary.

I do know that table, but I meant the actual graphical height maps that used to exist online at several locations. Some of them even had overlays with points of interest, which I think included highest and lowest points. Here's a reasonably recent thread offering some screenshots pinpointing a 7540m location on Eve:

I am not a console user, I don't know. Do consoles these days allow access to the game files somehow? If not, then you can't use this workaround. Your only avenue then would be to submit a bug report and see if they decide to fix it - they did just mention they are again looking into another update to the console versions, so now would be the time to create bug reports.

Well, they did remodel the Kerbals for 1.5 - it would not be surprising at all if it turns out the new and improved kerbals have ended up with a different (bigger?) collision mesh than the 'old kerbals. That would explain why they now invisibly hit parts sooner than before.

The part cfg file for the external command seat has a variable that tells it how far in what direction the kerbal is 'ejected' when getting out. Why a kerbal needs to be ejected in any direction at all is a bit of a mystery, but there you have it. You can try tweaking these values until you get a more sensible behaviour for your craft. You can find the part cfg file at <KSP main dir>/GameData/Squad/Parts/Command/externalCommandSeat/externalCommandSeat.cfg. Search for ejectDirection = 0.0, 0.1, 0.1 - those are the values you can play with. Make backups, use ModuleManager, beware of rabid dogs, all usual disclaimers apply.

You are missing my point: There is no reason for them to hold back on giving any kind of statement out of a false fear for either 'raising false hopes' or 'disappointed backlash'... because both of those happen anyway, with every single release and/or feature added, even without multiplayer being in the mix. It's the norm, with every single release - some people get false hopes on what the new release or patch will add, or what the newly announced feature is going to be like, or how well/complete/stable a new stockified mod is going to be, and inevitable when the release drops, some people end up disappointed and become vocal about it. It happens e.v.e.r.y. time. So there is no point in suggesting that they keep quiet about multiplayer specifically to 'avoid' raising hopes or later disappointment... it's gonna happen anyway. By refusing to make any statement at all they are actually perpetuating this cycle for multiplayer specifically: because silence doesn't mean a definitive NO, every announced release people get renewed hopes up and start asking 'please include multiplayer' and then end up disappointed when the new release doesn't include it, with another storm of posts complaining about it. The 'hopes' -false or not- are already there, and will always be there as long as Squad refuses to either do it or put the subject to definitive death by SAYING IT. The disappointment and following moaning when the feature continues to not be included in every next release is a guaranteed result because of that.

Given how there's always 'some of the community' reacting with disappointment to every single patch or release of the game, or new features added, that could hardly be a consideration anymore; they would've stopped development entirely already.

Highest point on Eve according to my notes (in spoiler): I have no screenshot of this though. There used to be an online elevation map around that had the highest/lowest points of each of KSP's stock celestial bodies, but the links I have seem to come up dead.

You are not wrong. Place one or more of the relay dishes (or even deployed direct antennae) inside of a bay or a fairing, and you can have all the signal strength you'll ever need.

Came to this thread to voice my support for mobile land or sea launch platforms. Left disappointed.

Ahh that brings memories of wholesale Y2K conversions from mainframes to open systems. Makes me wonder why it would still be 'insanely expensive', in this day and age of almost limitless options for virtualization. Don't get me wrong: I am not telling modders how to do their checks. I'm just reminding those who still check for buildID.txt that this may be about to no longer be an option. Why would you purposely use a non-mod directory to save mod-specific telemetry? Aside from the general no-no of a plugin contaminating the host software's working directories and ignoring the general consensus -if perhaps not specifically mandated one- of saving mod files in the mod's own directory structure, you are exposing yourself to being 'evicted' by development decisions of the host software. I am generally very much in favour of avoiding breaking workflows, but this one in particular seems to be rather self-invoked.

That really should not be happening, not even in a stock game without autostruts. You mention MJ and FRMS, so you are playing a modded game, correct? If you're not using it yet, perhaps KJR can help.

Examining the screenshot closer, it looks like you have the gridfins attached to the nose cone. If you have autostruts on those fins, try disabling them, or attach them to the booster tank instead.

Are you using autostruts? This happens often when the autostruts reconnect after a staging, docking, or loading event, and the autostrut setting is ambiguous. Eg. when you have it set to 'heaviest' (the default) and at the moment of staging or loading the heaviest part is not the one you would expect, or there are multiple parts of identical weight that are not symmetry partners.

As @razark says: if you have SAS on hold (the default when it's on), it is actively working against any attitude changes, including turns. You can't directly compare that to a paper airplane that does not actively steer at all. To get your plane to act like a paper airplane and see how rolling does indeed result in turning in KSP, turn SAS off and use trim. With a well-built plane, you could also use SAS prograde and see the same thing. In both cases you need to also be flying in a state of equilibrium: speed, altitude and thrust should be at balance for that specific plane - otherwise the unbalanced forces will tend to have more effect than what the roll will do. The best situation to see this in effect is in stable cruising flight. I've never flown an actual plane like others here, but I do fly a lot in KSP, and I can tell you that in stock KSP planes do turn when rolled/banked. When I am doing long-distance flights in KSP and the destination is still far off, a slight roll (and no pitch) is how I correct deviations from my intended heading. It exchanges a tiny bit of altitude for a slow turn back towards the correct heading. You tend to gain a bit of speed too, which is exchanged again for the lost altitude after you level out the roll. It's a pretty smooth and stable way of adjusting your heading in KSP. And because it's performed without pitching, you avoid fighting SAS if it's set to follow prograde (with the current SAS code, pulling away from prograde can easily cause very unpleasant self-amplifying see-sawing, so it's something to avoid whenever possible). For faster turns (close to the destination or in chase/dog-fighting), or just generally when flying with SAS on hold, you will need to add pitch to the roll, as @Rocket In My Pocket says.

While you're busy culling superfluous stuff, how about also removing -and stopping KSP from auto-creating- all those empty unused directories in the main game directory? Internals, Parts, PluginData, Plugins, Resources. And that launcher that has been useless for a few versions now. Btw, mod creators: this probably means that buildID.txt will be removed in favour of buildID64.txt. Time to adapt your check routines and ensure you look for the correct file.

Hear, hear.

See this thread (and that post in particular):

I agree: if you do the variants, it would seem fitting to make heat resistance (and perhaps cost) different between the two.

Hmm. It's going very far to call what I did 'modelling'. I was basically just putting together what I saw inside Blender and a few things mentioned by others in the thread you linked. I'd call it 'tinkering', at best, and I remember not being very satisfied - I was just showing how I got it working, figuring someone adept at these things would provide a more polished result. As I remember it, the glow texture I added was a quick and dirty job just to prove the effect, which was meant to be replaced by something better. And didn't the off-white surface of the cockpit end up with an unintended sheen? I do hope the published version had those things corrected, cause my Blender/mu importer setup is non-functional at the moment. I'm afraid the explanation of my steps in the thread you linked is all the help I can offer on the subject.

If you mean the 'smiley face' ocean bottom trenches south of the KSC... that's been part of the Kerbin height map for ages now. I still don't see the connection with the OP mission 'description' though. Anyway, I went and accomplished the mission. Can I get added to the leaderboard, please? (I think I did anyway - I seem to have no rum left and I'm home again, so I'm assuming I forgot all about it)

Jeb's favourite words. It's also usually when I start getting nervous...

Sometimes this forum pulls a fast one on me and hides even the link to pictures or videos. I can see the Kerbin height map.. but it doesn't show anything marked on it. None of the text visible in your post explains what 'this spot' is, nor what 'the mission' is. So I guess I'll be the spoilsport that asks the question instead of pretending I understand. What spot, and what mission, are we talking about here?

Sorry, but this statement is not correct. Engines can and will draw air from multiple intakes to fulfill their requirement. It's quite easy to demonstrate in-game: occlude a Goliath by attaching its front node, so its own intake is no longer working. Add a bunch of smaller intakes (say, 4x circular ones at the end of an inverted quad-coupler). Fire up the engine at full throttle, and then close/open one or more intakes at will to see quite clearly that there will absolutely be multiple intakes feeding into the Goliath - its max output thrust and the time it takes for the engine to choke will vary linearly according to the nr of intakes left open.