Derb

The F key does nothing aside from changing the orientation of the rotate/translate gizmo. It doesn't snap the part being moved or rotated to a global grid aligned to the VAB/anchor part. To best see what I am talking about, try placing a couple of the long beams on the differently sloped sides of the Mk3-5 Cockatoo command module. Now, using the snapping mode and the F key, can you get these beams to point exactly parallel to each other and the centerline of the command module? Can you get 2 identical parts to clip into each other completely perfectly when placed at differing initial angles, using only a snapping mode? I cannot, because as far as I can tell, object snapping is only relative to the initial position of the part being moved - they never realign to a global grid no matter how I use the F key. The only way to get parts closer to being in exactly the same position or exactly centered is by disabling snapping and moving them freehand, which of course will never actually be 100% aligned. And then the problem gets magnified the larger and more complex the vehicle you create. Unless I am missing something regarding how this F key functions, in which case I would love to be enlightened.

For me this is the priority 1 issue keeping me from enjoying the game anywhere near the level of KSP1. We're designing spacecraft here, so the precise alignment of parts is critical for aerodynamic and center of mass considerations. Absolute grid alignment wouldn't fix everything wrong with VAB building on its own, but I have absolutely no hesitations that it is a necessary feature. I am not so concerned that such a feature would present a downside at all - ctrl-z to undo already works, vessels can be saved. As a quick and dirty starting point, snap the part origin coordinates and angles to a global grid (aligned to VAB building) would at least enable us to align things in a replicable way. I completely agree with all your other suggestions to make the orthographic designer a vastly more powerful and useful tool. I would even go further to add (in 3D and orthographic): -ability to display xyz coordinates and rotation of a part relative to the anchor part (local grid), the VAB building (global grid), or any arbitrary part selected by the player. -ability to modify these xyz coordinates and rotations by directly overwriting them using a text box entry In line with your suggestions, in the orthographic mode these abilities could be limited to the unlocked axes for the current viewpoint. The orthographic mode would also lend itself well to displaying and changing measurements between parts as is typical on technical drawings/blueprints. Combined with the suggestion regarding planes to define the extent of a part, and selectable nodes - in a measuring mode one could measure between selectable part edges, nodes, or origin points, and then define the distance numerically if desired. The same numeric placement and measurement ability could apply to the move/rotate gizmo as in suggestion #4, allowing rotation and movement around any arbitrary point or at any arbitrary angle. The usage of numeric measuring/placement should of course be optionally displayed at the discretion of the player, as with any particular building mode or tool. But the addition of such a feature would give a maximum of precise control over the craft building process.

Seriously, this is still not a working feature in 0.2.1.0 ?

Same. It is just supposed to be click it to toggle, correct?

Still not fixed as of v0.1.2.0. Has anyone else figured out how to align parts to the "absolute"/assembly/root part grid and angle? Are we doing it wrong, or is it indeed bugged?

What is the intended ratio of LF/Ox/LH2 for the Lynx and Cougar? The patch config file gives 1.8 LF : 2.2 Ox : 15 LH2, but the data displayed in VAB and in flight testing gives a ratio of 0.9 LF : 1.1 Ox : 15 LH2. It's like the patch's changes to to the LF and Ox ratios are not being properly applied - if I change the ratios in the config files for the engines in NFLV to 1.8 LF : 2.2 Ox, the ratio aligns with the ratio given in the patch file. Edit: It appears the patch file is missing the @ character to change the propellant ratios for fuel and oxidizer. Changing to @PROPELLANT seems to fix it.

Restock+ has a 3.75m docking port, Near Future Launch Vehicles has a 5m docking port. Otherwise, I use adapter parts to scale the stack down to 2.5m and use a Clamp-o-tron Sr.. This is often necessary regardless, because the 2.5m hub is the largest available without making one out of the 3.75m radial attachment points. Something I'd like to see is metal textures for the 5m station parts here.

I'd suggest anyone having the same issue report it as a bug/post a response on the existing thread about it in the bug reports section. Surely this cannot be the intended functionality - this is the most basic of craft construction tools, and makes it impossible to create symmetries manually that require more than one placement action with the symmetry tool.

Still not working in v0.1.1.0. No response from devs on this topic?

I'm having a similar problem - no throttle or engine is active, no SAS or RCS, orbit is at 400Km over Kerbin and the Pe rapidly decayed below 360Km and falling within a minute. When I try to time warp game gives me the "cannot warp under acceleration" error, when there is no source of thrust, I am beyond atmosphere across the whole orbit. Orbital drift compensation is on. What could be the cause of this extreme phantom acceleration?

Changing one of the rotation values changes the other 2 by a seemingly random amount. Surely this isn't intentional. If I am trying to pitch a part up only, why does it yaw and roll a bit?

This is the most basic of basic things that needs to be fixed ASAP. Without absolute snapping, it is impossible to align any surface parts in a way other than the default symmetry settings. I should be able to use snapping to perfectly replicate the same vehicle across different build sessions using the absolute mode. Being able to align with the center of the root is important. This is a massive oversight. A functional VAB is the most fundamental feature to the game.

The assembly alignment also does not impact the snapping in any way. It is currently impossible to align 2 surface mounted parts exactly opposite one another without using symmetry settings to do so. If you want to align some things in a non-standard symmetry, or different parts - anything that takes more than one placement step - it is currently not possible to do so exactly. All snapping is local, alignment setting only affects the direction of the translate arrows.

Yes, not the fairing, but the shroud or "tank butt" that is sized to match a particular fuel tank size. KSP 1 had engines with 2.5m, 1.875m, 1.25m, and 'compact' shrouds for the same engine, as an example. This would also adjust the fairing size.

Currently, there is no absolute snapping option (meaning part is snapped on an xyz grid based on the root part in increments). In absolute snapping, I should be able to line up 2 identical parts connected to the root such that they clip into each other perfectly, no matter initial placement. Additionally, it is not possible to translate the root part/entire craft with the translate tool. You have to 'pick up' the part with the cursor to move it, which gives less fine control for the overall position in the VAB (I can't keep it centered if i want to build something tall enough that requires me to move the root part). Can we get these fixed? Absolute snapping is a pretty fundamental editor feature.

Right, true absolute snapping should allow you to clip 2 identical parts on the same root to be moved entirely clipping into each other - this is not possible, all snapping is local, which kinda sucks. This is what I would consider to be a basic feature that is lacking.

Like toggling engine shroud and size? Compact versions of engines, tank texture variations? The new default hydrogen tanks could do with some toggles for the trusses.

I was just going to come here to say this. Why no patch to let the cryo tanks hold fusion fuels? The visual styling is exactly the same - particularly the isohedral skin.

So Kerbal Atomics has an optional patch to integrate with Near Future electrical for reactor control. However, CKAN tells me this is incompatible with the System Heat patch for nuclear engines. What is the difference in the behavior of these two patches? Does the System Heat patch for nuclear engines still get you Near Future Electrical integration for those engines?

So the existing parts stay, and you will add enlarged upper stages + upper lower-stage fuel tanks? I think this is a very wise decision, and it fits the "Lego" design philosophy you've cultivated quite well. I've really been enjoying your latest releases, most of all the various adapter parts you introduced with Almaz - it really did fill so many of the gaps for mating all of the cross section sizes you use. Interchangeability and variations truly elevate your work to be among the best in the KSP community.

So what are these new parts exactly? I checked your website but didn't see anything new in the part catalog. Thank you for the monoprop central core! That is usually my go-to fuel for command modules. I might have to try a xenon CM for the fun of it too. A 21st century Apollo mission perhaps.

I like that you are taking the time to perfect your existing parts - those door bottoms were pushing my buttons. I'm fairly captious about such things though. Your great parts will only get greater.

Flyby of Deathstar by Kosmos 2i.

Nils277 is right, krrishtheamazing's problem is most often caused by putting mods into the incorrect folder.

I haven't tried this yet, will report back when I do. But still, you've just made my day, friend.