Dark Lion

This is not a true statement, as history has proven in life, and in KSP simulations. I'm already doubting this is any fault of the game's. This doesn't make sense either, because the moment you roll a craft enough to make your rudder any kind of perpendicular to the force of gravity... it generates lift! Stunt planes count on it in knife-flight maneuvers... This is really best tested on a craft using no other wing parts besides that in question. I've done so and in quite a few different placement ranges. No result so far displaces CoL without using Mk2 parts which have been placed with subtle roll orientation. I can imagine how one might overlook that until you compare CoM + CoL. I highly recommend setting up shop on Imgur for easy screenshot uploads here on the forums. In order to best learn the err of our ways, we can't be blind to the mistakes we make/made/are making. Don't give up!

So my first question is "are you certain you installed correctly?" Knowing you followed the proper procedure and put files in their respective file paths would be quite helpful. The DLC needs to be downloaded, extracted, then installed, unlike any mods we might've used thus far. If you're savvy about all that, be sure to read the KSP logs generated by the game each time you run it (or at least try to start the game.) Copy that file into a "spoiler" tab here on the forums and I bet you'll get a much more specific answer. You might even be able to troubleshoot on your own, if you're able to understand and identify the problem found in the KSP log. You can find your latest KSP session's gameplay logs in a .txt titled "KSP," right next to the game's main executable, available after your first attempt to boot the game. Good luck!

RAH! Self-imposed "Most Stylish" commendation. A belated 'grats to TOTY @boolybooly ! And a fine way to get it, too. A quick question: any reason I couldn't come back in a month or two, with a better vessel, for more (and legitimate )commendations?

Yes, but not just. By the same logic: DLCs aren't necessary at all then, are they..? One might enjoy countless hours of gameplay, regardless. I thought that's why they themed it as "Making History," even going so far as to give up new replica part models which all share a thing or two in common. If I ask a space-flight enthusiast "what engine is this?" while pointing to a DLC engine, said enthusiast would likely be able to tell me about its real life counterpart. If I ask the same person "what triangle is this?", suddenly an enthusiast turns into a geometry teacher. What about a structural panel in the shape of a triangle or square of varying size alludes to the history of spaceflight? Seems to me that Squad wants you to miss out on those parts or whip out your wallet for it. Even though it seems very much like the same kind of abysmal over-sight as the lack of any deltaV HUD element for a sandbox game built on the pretext of space-travel in general... But does that mean I should buy the DLC every time, just to keep Squad fat and happy? Or would you prefer micro-transactions? Maybe pay-to-play would suit you better? I understand they want to get paid their worth, but who decides what you do with your money?

"Yeah but the--" *Drinks it; crushes mug; belches loudly* Pardon me.

About those assumptions folks are making... I do indeed. Not many, admittedly, as my taste in gaming might be considered niche. However, my experiences in such cases were positive in the sense that I was aware of the happenings, what exactly they entailed and when it was happening. Y'know... disclosure. In each case, the developers even had a set release date that didn't have the word "SOON" in it. Nor did I ever find myself surprised with new EULA or ToS... I was just minding my own business, watching Youtube. There! What's that little green man doing on the moon in the recommended vids?! It's called Mun?! Kerbal WHAT Program?!!... *DOWNLOADING KSP, never to see the sunlight again*

To be fair, that very action leads me to assumptions like this: That's never been a thing I want to hear or think about when playing a sandbox-style engineering game. I like my options. Oh, wait. I agreed in order to get the update? ...Hm. I guess I'm just so optimistic after that wonderful stranger offered me koolaid in a paper cup...

@basic.syntax I absolutely agree. These structural parts have no clear connection to the theme of the DLC whatsoever, and thus, should be available to all players.

Agreed. More parts are better than old, or reskinned ones

Then why do I no longer see this prompting when I first update(clean installation from the KSP Store?)

I run very few mods at all (KER, AP+, BDAc, not much else) and also have a very weak laptop to play KSP on. Considering the usual update routine, I put all the stuff on the lowest graphics settings-- BUT! the game automatically reset those options for me almost immediately afterward (I think it was the second time I opened KSP.) The game is running as smoothly now as 1.3.1 did without mods and all the graphics turned way down to minimal. If that's no testament to performance improvements, consult a computer nerd that'll give you exact performance specs

Anybody else want the chutes to be deployable while in a command seat? Don't ask me why I think this is a good idea.

@katateochi I've also experienced the cpu spike when adding tags to uploads, as with my latest. It may or may not be relevant to try uploading a craft without an image, gif or video to see if it still spikes. I always paste image links from imgur for each craft now at the minimum of one image. It's been a while since my last upload too though, and this recent upload is the first time I've experienced it. Good luck! An update is upon us, though! How are things looking for craft sharing in 1.4?

My heart soared as I saw the update, so I got right to it. Salty forum users won't stop my glorious mood. Then I played 1.4. In short, I'm sore as Jeb back from Jool. Talk about over-sellin' it. Thanks for the paint jobs and parachutes? Why rush out the update like that? So half-throttle...

I've been lucky enough to have my HOTAS X actually work once... but then never again. Works fine with any other game and the controls are fully customizable. Every time I've tried since, the controls I've set have no effect because they reset themselves to default regardless of how I've just applied TWENTY TWO changes. Definitely not alone

Yes an engineer is required if you are in career mode, and said kerbal aboard must be rank 3 or higher. Alternatively, you can just fully upgrade your Tracking Station to gain unbridled access to all the lovely customizable pop-outs from Kerbal Engineer Redux, but without any need for kerbals involved. Launch any compatible craft to the pad and look over the KER interface very thoroughly, as you may want to use some of the miscellaneous options as well. There's even a scaler for the text, if your screen is getting too "busied." I recommend customizing your own stat windows per situation as is relevant to your playstyle. I have one for rovers and jets and Kerbin-bound spaceplanes, another for testing craft. I have one purely for orbital telemetry and another for craft telemetry... I might be getting redundant, but I don't even play without KER if I can help it. Also: I know you didn't ask me, but if you used a 3-seed/triangle network with the same deltaV, you could seed and sync them to about where your average altitudes are. The more powerful your relays, the further out I'd encourage you to park them from one another... just mind the seed resonance and deployment timing, and your network will mind you. Totally black-out free.

I'm sure it's not called that exactly, but I'm fairly confident most KSP-ers have run into the problem while editing as well, especially those of us which build large or aesthetically. I'm also not 100% sure about how to reproduce the bug in question, as it seems to be rather random to me still. I digress. The "radial-only" kraken I refer to is the dreadful moment in which you realize the editor will no longer allow you the use of mirror symmetry on your vessel, regardless of the pre-existing usages. Even an attempt to hover over those already mirrored parts shows oddly radial pattern of placement in which one of the twin parts might even float above the desired attachment point or otherwise throw off your CoM due to the game recognizing the wrong mirror axis for the craft. If you're still completely lost, the OP's pic shows an example of the latter instance I describe [wrong mirror axis.] In my experience, copying part groups to mirror across the vessel *which have already use mirrored parts within the group you've copied* seems to be the catalyst to sorta "locking" the editor into a radial-only use of symmetry.

That's been my solution too, but I've had that little trick invoke the radial-only kraken on the craft I was building...

I'm pretty sure F toggles part/vessel symmetry while in part placement mode, but I've never understood it's function exactly, because I've never seen it actually change anything. Thus, I don't really use it.

Hey, I know what that is by a glance! The '87 Testarossa was probably one of all-time favorite Italian Stallions. Nice work @LABenterprises I see the SUV though, and it's got my wheels spinning in the "super offroad" direction... I wonder what other engineers might consider that to be as well.

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question...

I hoist the glass hill on a classy foundation and freeze it. My cracked snow globe!

Try landing Essar Bean from orbit. Or leaping off a mountain safely. Let's see those other cars try it and still look so beautiful! They really are beautiful though. Like "Lemme park that for ya"

TBH I'm just as interested in grabbing the patch But keep it up! Sounds like you're on the right track.