Corona688

I just had to change the angle of the wing to work around the bug.

For future struggling googlers, the "swept elevons" don't appear to suffer this problem. Hooray. I take that back. They move only slightly.

So, bug. OK.

So, bug?

Roll input is allowed for them, it just doesn't work. If I add another pair, they also do not function. As you say, the game is clearly wrong in this decision. How can it be overridden?

Why do the two back elevons not respond to roll control input, and how do I get them to do so? They will do so if I rotate them 'straight' but there's no reason they shouldn't work as is.

They didn't nerf any engines I actually care about, nerfed several I considered OP, boosted my favorite, and boosted some which otherwise had little reason to exist, so if that's the sum total of the changes I'm happy. I might have to redo the Dreen, since that uses a twin boar, but I can probably make do. I still want them to un-nerf the Spark at least slightly. We were robbed! It's going to be nice to have a 100kN axial engine! [edit] Argh! They changed ISP's! They nerfed the 909! By a percent, but still. They nerfed the Swivel, too, in performance and thrust. All the starter engines are now terrible. Unless we got a tech tree revamp too, that's really going to suck in career mode. On first look the tiny useless fuel tanks built into all sorts of engines now are useless and tiny. But on second thought, I use useless tiny tanks all the time and wish I'd had them earlier in career mode, so, okay, I guess. These are some pretty big changes. Probably save-incompatible changes, they invoke characteristics in the same parts which just didn't exist before.

The very first asteroid I ever tracked was dead on-course for Kerbin. I tracked 3 more to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding something -- nope, just that one. It is no longer on course for Kerbin. Asteroids are incredibly fuel-rich. They can be 80% ore or more. Like any other rocket vehicle, though, changing its orbit any significant amount will mean pushing away a large percentage of that weight in reaction, either mined or brought from elsewhere. So I'm not sold on the economics of asteroid capturing. Either you've blown away a lot of its fuel to capture it, or you lifted up a ton of fuel to it. (Unfortunately you can't really aerobrake them, it's like trying to aerobrake a snowcone.) You might not need to change its orbit significantly, of course, not if you don't need it in LKO, emphasis on L. As a midpoint between two places, sure -- you could send a combo-pack of probes to solar orbit, grab an asteroid, and send them off all over the system on fuel you didn't have to lift from Kerbin. Also, they can make handy bases. Anything which latches onto an asteroid can share resources and power with anything else that's grabbed it.

word of squad on this is that option is there for modders, not in-game yet.

I started caring about this more when making spaceplanes. Suddenly I'm not happy with ugly any more. Arrrgh!

I've found low-grav worlds the best for this. Mun is a bit too high and mineral-deficient anyway, Minmus is great and has a nice high-concentration patch almost at the equator. On Minmus, an entire full orange can of lf/ox can reach orbit on a pair of "spark" engines with minimal losses, and can make a near-empty one hover almost forever. So, I've put a refueling station there along with a small fleet of probe-driven tankers which land on and dock with the refueling unit, SpaceX-style. This is actually doable on Minmus. The gravity's so low you can put the engines on a few percent to hover, ignore gravity and handle the translation with RCS like a space docking. Once full the tankers can take off by themselves and reach Minmus orbit or even Mun nearly full. Kerbin is a little tricker, I might need heat shields and aerobraking to avoid severe losses.

It's a term that programmers use a lot. Experimentals are test pre-releases usually only seen in-house and not released to the public at large. Our intense interest in KSP's updates, and the way we've been deeply involved with their test updates from the beginning, is how it ended up being used here. I remember a huge uproar when they stopped releasing most of the experimental releases except to a select few testers.

1. Arbitrarily and cynically dividing complete products into DLC's at release is what EA's infamous for. It's a disguised price hike, forcing you to buy more bits just to get a functional game. 2. KSP is not subscription. We pay once. We're not entitled to free content expansions forever (but can make them ourselves thanks to modding). 3. Squad is not a charity. We continue to enjoy updates and new content only because people still buy KSP. Selling an add-on like "asteroid day", that'd be legitimate. It's something that cost them time and money to make, was actually an add-on and not a cynical re-selling of split content, was produced after the main game settled into its current form, and the game is fully usable without it. They used to call things like that "expansion packs", which is closer to how DLC ought to be used. If Squad split the spaceplane hangar off into a paid DLC, that'd be pulling an EA.

I've been trying various angles from KSC, hadn't thought of various heights! That's helpful.

I simplified and refined the Lammergeier a bunch more. Shortened it, added more fuel in the wing pods, adjusted the landing gear, setup engine toggles, calibrated amounts of fuel and in general fine-tuned like mad. The Lammergeier B1 has become a joy to fly. Its center of gravity is practically stationary, and lift is so close to balanced it can be flown without SAS or reaction wheel all the way to 30,000m. It reaches orbit with 200 fuel remaining and the proper amount of oxidizer to match. The one remaining trouble spot, I still don't know how to land this thing within 500 km of the KSC

Again that's why I suggest the lumiance channel or KSP equivalent, it bypasses lighting entirely and just shows under all conditions. It's cheap and fast and doesn't care about distance, who cares if it's cheating?

That SAS can hold a craft stable doesn't mean it's a stable craft That is something I am really looking forward to.

What's "efficient" depends on what you're building. For really small things, an ant is almost as good as an ion drive, if your probe weighs almost nothing when out of fuel it can get a huge amount of acceleration.

The rotate tool in the SPH. I think alt or shift or something while rotating a part with qweasdf also makes minute changes.

They didn't decide "oh hey, let's break this nice feature people are using and twiddle our evil mustaches, mua hah hah hah hah". They ripped out the old aero model. They redid aerodynamics from the ground-up. Intakes and air-breathing engines and the atmosphere itself changed fundamentally. In some ways the old intake model was more complete, but it had nasty unintended side-effects -- like 2-engine flameouts sending you into a hyper speed death spin. Now dual engines flameout simultaneously, without you having to manually choke them. This is a good thing in a game where you might not be able to afford action groups yet. I'm not sure intake closing will return or not. It was almost necessary in the old model, but isn't as useful anymore.

I've gotten some surprising phantom forces by combining a heatshield with a docking clamp.

I think the standard "life support" mod is way too complicated given how simple everything else in the game is. As someone else said, this is KSP, not "Apollo 13 Investigation Committee". Everything in KSP is a simplification of a real thing, from fuel to power to science to heat. Which isn't the same as simple as in easy as these things still require careful design and consideration to use. A lot of complexity can rise from simple rules. I've suggested this idea before and submit it for your consideration now: "Kerbals eat and breathe RCS fuel". It fits the existing game, where capsules and suits already bring meager supplies of this vital resource. It's easy to plan, keep your kerbals supplied with RCS and they're happy. Which doesn't mean "easy" as in cheap -- consideration, planning, and work is needed to make things happen, and mistakes will have consequences. In the end, that's what any in-game resource management is about, isn't it?

There's plenty of incentive for space stations. They earn science.

Why not just use a luminance channel which ignores lighting, like the green light on the tiny battery does?

@Galacticvoyager Nice to see some instructions for modern KSP spaceplanes, that would have been helpful when I started using the RAPIER. I follow nearly the same procedure for the Lammergeier but I ditched the 45 degree burn, because drag is absolutely hellacious at 45 degrees below 40,000m -- that's a good posture to re-enter in! I just go 20-25 degrees until it stops heating, burn prograde, and it gets there. A prograde burn also means you'll travel much faster at apogee, and only need a short burn to circularize.