bewing

You may have had your graphics rendering set to something sub-default on 1.0 for performance reasons, and you don't need to do that anymore. We had a lot of debates in beta testing about image quality -- text actually seems to be a tiny bit fuzzier in 1.1, but graphical rendering of the world with identical settings is nearly identical (specular reflections are not as shiny anymore, either).

Having an AoA of 0 maximizes the heating of the nose! Don't do that. Make your AoA 90 degrees, and you will not have the tiniest heating problem. The aerodynamic stresses are negligible -- you don't need to worry about them.

Yeah, using the tracking station was the only way to rename debris that did not contain command modules.

There is a longstanding bug in the runway colliders that causes the left-side wheels to have slightly more drag than the right-side wheels. This always causes your plane to veer slowly to the left as you roll down the runway. Your SAS system will try to compensate for this with aerodynamic, gimbal, and steering control inputs. But with your current settings on your wheels, your plane is not stable when rolling. You need to modify the friction settings on your wheels until the plane is stable when steered during takeoff -- there really is no other solution. Try setting the front wheel friction to .3 or lower, and maybe set the rear wheel friction to .4 to .6. You just have to try some values and see what works -- there are no rules.

No, even in 1.0.5 (and 1.0.4) they massed exactly the same. The cake is a lie.

No. If a ship has SAS turned on and you switch away from it, it will always revert to "stability" mode only. Only the currently active ship can have any other SAS mode selected.

Do you want to drive over the bumps, too? If you are just hankering for the looks of it, you could hyperedit everything you launch over onto the "old runway" on the island.

Huh. On the status window after the explosion, is it saying that "the linkage between part X and part Y failed", when part X and part Y are not connected to each other? Is this a big rocket?

Mine is a little tricky to get to orbit, but I don't have KER currently so I can't give you an LKO dV readout. If you want to try flying it you are welcome to see what it can do. I can give a (fairly) short list of launch instructions. I can either post the craft file here or email it to you.

Really?? I find going to minmus and back to be very simple with a stock ssto and no cheats. What kind of proof do you want?

That's the thing -- a linkage between two distant parts sounds like a strut to me. So it sounds like you've got invisible struts. *shrugs* So is it a problem with the craft file being incorrectly ported to a new version? Is a mod making invisible struts? Are you running KJR? Have you tried taking the ship apart and putting it together again?

I still think that we should be warned just before doing an EVA, if the resulting suit temperature will kill the kerbal. I've never tried to make it happen, but I've done what the OP did, and did an EVA from a capsule just after reentry -- and had an instant red heat bar on Jeb. Scared me silly! But I can easily land a pod that's glowing red and try to EVA from it and see what happens.

Well, it's certainly pretty -- but I'm thinking you have too much airbreathing engine, too much wing, you need nice canards, you should get rid of the ailerons, and there has been a bug with those fuel ducts and struts creating an insane amount of drag. (And I'd get rid of most of those RCS ports -- one vernor should be enough.) Oh, and you should move the front wheel back past the nose section -- and maybe even cheat a little and clip it into the fuselage a bit to reduce its drag.

The destruction itself is, I'm sure. But a strut doesn't just fail for no reason. So there is either internal stress from a clipped part, or aerodynamic stress that will show up in the form of pieces of the craft starting to wobble. So any wobbling that shows up just before the explosion is interesting. But we beta testers were in fact seeing non-part mods causing in-flight issues. So don't rule them out completely.

I've had that happen to me also. Except it was a little worse, as the brakes were invisibly engaged -- the symbol for the brakes action group was not lit. After an hour of frustration and trying things, I tried toggling the brakes and that suddenly freed up the rover wheels.

Well, I can say for certain that the "parts missing after reverting to launch" thing is a new bug that I've never heard of before (and I keep close track of the bugtracker). You do have one mod loaded (at least) -- and you really have no choice but to also try removing all the mods and launching the rocket again to look for differences. One other thing I can say is that I know it is possible to slow down time. I'm not exactly sure how to do it, but I saw it done once on youtube. So you may want to figure out that trick, go 50 seconds into your launch, and slow down time so you can maybe see better. It's not an answer, of course, but we all need more info here.

Hmmm. And it still gives you that same status report when it explodes, after removing the struts from the nosecones?

It is always the same linkage that fails? If so, try adding a strut. Or remove the girder.

Funny that nobody is mentioning the resizable and movable navball? Very nice! If you want to email me your .craft file (bewing0 at gmail) -- I'll take a shot at figuring out the reason. There are many honest reasons for a jet to veer, that are not bugs. My planes are working very nicely. Rebuilding some planes from scratch actually seems to make a difference, too.

Are you using any mods? It looks like this is regarding a Mystery Goo instrument? If you right click on the Mystery Goo, is there a Collect Data button? If you click that, does a new window pop up? Is there a "Remove Data" button for you to click? The warning message on that window is not about problems collecting the data. It involves resetting the instrument to take another measurement afterwards.

No mods at all here, just pure stock 1.1.1. If anyone else is seeing this -- I just wanted to warn people to check and be careful.

I haven't been doing anything in KSP except watch a few ships doing some orbits for maybe 8 hours. My KSP.log file is suddenly 95MB, and my output_log.txt file is 254MB. (I just created a bug report on a different issue and tried to upload those 2 files without looking, until it errored out.) So keep your eyes open! Don't want to overflow your disk space and all that.

I have a very small pod (about 1 ton) in an elliptical orbit around Kerbin. The Pe is around 68km, the Ap around 330km. I am mostly watching the thing orbit in realtime. When I am not timewarping, both the Ap and the Pe fall. (In 1.0, it used to be true that when the Ap fell, the Pe would rise, and vise versa.) The funny thing is that it's acting like a drag that's decreasing with altitude. Like the 70km atmosphere cutoff no longer applies. Is anyone else seeing something like this?

Generally, canard designs are more efficient than designs with rear stabilizers. (Stabilizers push the back of the plane down, which robs you of lift.) Here's a very easy canard design. The fuel tank is half full. 3.6 tons total. You can replace the girders with an empty fuel tank, or a SciJr or two. On any design, you have to be very careful about making sure the LY05 (steerable) gear is mounted vertically to the ground, or the wheel will not work.

OK, my orbital rendezvous took many more orbits than I hoped, but I finally was able to test. And I didn't see anything strange at all. I loaded up 345 experiments into the MPL. I was able to scroll more than 40 of them (forward and back), process them, and everything.