Kayser

It feels like a case of corporate greed, where a once talented, passionate team are fed “industry standard best practice policies and processes” from above. The people who quit are replaced with less talented people, group dynamics suffer, as does throughput. Poor quality is met with more processes, control, and PowerPoint presentations. Every bugfix introduces new faults that have to be fixed. Management pushes for new features to feed a hungry marketing department, whilst the backlog of bugs continues to grow.

I noticed this bug when trying to make efficient and nice designs of SSTO with all science equipment. It effectively made me lose interest in the challenge, since it effectively makes it impossible to build a low drag craft with all the science equipment on it, because wherever you place it, it causes a lot of drag and makes the plane very fuel inefficient.

It works for heading but it's not possible to activate without the attitude part, which I honestly don't know what use case it's meant for.

If I may put a feature request I would very much like to have an autopilot that would keep my craft on a set altitude and/or heading. Would be great for flying. A basic one with compass heading would suffice, but even cooler would be if it could also do great circle navigation towards given coordinates or named waypoint. The most advanced version would feature control over what the autopilot could and could not do, for example use or don't use yaw/roll/pitch/SAS/RCS/throttle/trim. Altitude could be chosen above sea or land, and possibly with a minimum altitude above ground a set distance or time ahead.

It’s going to be difficult for him to land on the runway again.

I noticed the same when doing the Rock Collection challenge. Towards the end each science experiment basically hung the game for a long time. I didn't report it at the time, because I had quite a lot of mods installed and I didn't want to reproduce it without mods, but if this is a stock issue, it should definitely be addressed. Completing science experiments should not be taxing on the game.

Fairings need a proper UX review. For the reason above, as well as the annoying behavior of disappearing when it clips something. I would go as far as implementing an auto-mode, which just wraps the top of the rocket in the minimal fairing required, not considering aerodynamics or aesthetics. It would suffice for most people in most situations, without sacrificing any of the fun.

3 hours from bug report to released fix. Impressive turn-around time! I wish everyone was up to your standards @Falki.

Whilst doing some drag tests, I noticed the unit for Total drag changes from 'mN' to 'N' when it passes 1,000. This can't be right.

Me too. In terms of gameplay, I can see the region names when flying over them, so “someone” already named them provisionally, even though the entire planet isn’t mapped. That I can’t elect to show it in the OS UI just comes across as annoying UX, as I can always keep my own legend on the side. There are good reasons to complete the scan without this reward.

Reported Version: v0.2.1 (latest) | Mods: too many to fit in this box | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Win 11 | CPU: i7-9700K | GPU: GTX 1050 Ti | RAM: 16 GB In VAB, when changing wing properties, masses (and dependent properties) don't get updated immediately. This is clearly visible in the Engineer's Report but can also be seen on the non-changing position of the CoM, non-changing values of delta-V, TWR, etc. If the wing is detached and re-attached, masses and dependent properties are updated. In fact, this seems to be the only way to trigger an update of the mass for the part. (Turning on and off the CoM does NOT trigger a re-calculation (like it does when changing fuel tank contents). Neither does detaching and re-attaching other parts of the build.) Issue seems to be shared by all dynamic aerodynamic components, like wings, . Fairings are NOT affected. Included Attachments: Wingthicknessdelayedupdate.mp4

Reported Version: v0.2.1 (latest) | Mods: multiple | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Win 11 | CPU: i7-9700K | GPU: GTX 1050 Ti | RAM: 16 GB In VAB, when first enabling CoM and then changing fuel levels in one or more tanks, the CoM doesn't update to reflect the changed fuel levels. (It updates properly if CoM is disabled and then re-enabled) Included Attachments: CoMdosntupdate.mp4 .ipsImage { width: 900px !important; }

Great suggestion and an insurance against future issues with delta-v calculations (which could also be affected by mods). Losing the ability to plan maneuvers is far more devastating than losing just your remaining delta-v remaining calculation (which in itself has some issues and might not have been correct, anyway).

I propose to make an option in mod settings to turn science from this mod off. There was someone in the discord who wanted the maps but wanted to rely on the stock science alone.

Just a suggestion here, make an option in mod settings to turn science from this mod off. There was someone in the discord who wanted the maps but wanted to rely on the stock science alone.

Each antenna can only scan one type. You need a different antenna.

Is there any advantage yet of having multiple antennae on a craft?

Thank you for the waypoint fix! Any plans to help discover discoverables? It could be e.g. a third mode which is more complicated than the others, e.g. requiring a Starlab or Mini-lab, very close orbit and small FOV. Honestly any mechanic is more fun than looking up the coordinates on a webpage.

For communications network, you can try the CommNext mod.

Lost again today. Is there some issue with the saving/loading of waypoints?

All my waypoints seem to have disappeared. Could the update have caused that?

Feature Request: Can you make the chosen colors of the waypoints show also on the flight and map views?

Bug 3: When in Alarm Clock interface, other keybinds are still active, which can cause all kinds of issues.

And last: is there a way to remove a waypoint??

I thought of calculating some number, like the ratio of number of orbits, but this is much cooler and more elegant. Although I think it has to consider more than the previous, current, and next orbits to ensure we don't end up in a higher order resonance (like 3:5). In fact, you want the simulation to stretch as far into the future so that you can see the adjacency/overlap and fine tune it. I wouldn't mind if it took vastly more time to scan Jool than Gilly. It would make it even more of an accomplishment to scan that big boy. Obviously if there is a performance impact which renders the concept void, I bow to the semiconductor gods.