Ziff

Well, I can't tell you how to fix it but I can tell you what happened. Decouplers essentially decouple whatever is below them. The red triangle should point towards whatever part is becoming active. The flat part shows what part it stays attached to. That's why when you decouple it detaches the docking port. You can flip it over or in the future you can use a separator, which detaches on both sides.

1: In the Mk2 cabin if you divide the mass by the number of Kerbals you get 0.625 per Kerbal. In the Mk3 it's 0.33 , a weight savings nearly of 50% per Kerbal. 2: I thought there should be more fuel tank sizes as well. Tanks the size of the monopropellant ones would be good. Actually, I wish stock tanks were like the ones from B9 with the subtypes. That would make things a lot easier. 3: This drives me crazy as well but there really isn't a way around it. If they put the windows any higher they would be practically on the roof. Perhaps the windows could be smaller. I usually either make sure the wings are on the fuel tanks and not the crew cabin, or I put them below the windows or at the bottom of the fuselage so they're out of the way. Not implemented yet. It's in the patch notes. Realistic looking airliners in the stock aerodynamics usually doesn't work very well because of the drag model.

If New players want easymode, they can get the next probe. The stayputnik is awesome, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's broken.

I think that's because it needs to be a manned flight to break those records.

Disable it meaning.. what exactly? Disabling aerodynamics would mean planes can't fly at all. There would be no lift generated by wings. I think if by disabling aerodynamics you mean revert aerodynamics to the system we have now you just don't understand how terrible the current system is.

The name of this thread is "What would you like to see?" and all you've said is you don't want realism. You've made that quite clear that for some reason the idea of realistic aerodynamics is a bad thing but you have made no case as to why that is. You've made no attempt to add to the thread discussion itself of "What would you like to see?" you've only said what you don't want. Your argument "I don't want realism for the sake of realism" is of no importance in this thread. Tell us what changes you would make to the aerodynamics system that improves gameplay. If you can make a case for an unrealistic system that betters the current one than maybe some people here might agree with you. What really gets me going is people who think the word "realistic" is somehow inherently bad and detrimental to gameplay. Stock aerodynamics is terrible and it disgusts me to even think that adding aerodynamically shaped nosecones INCREASES drag rather than reduces it. It goes against every intuitive instinct. I've been playing since version .12 or something like that (right before the demo was released) and I never built planes until sometime around .24.2. I like rockets, so I built rockets. I don't remember exactly when they were introduced, but at some point I started adding nosecones to everything. You know it wasn't until I posted some pictures on the forum that someone had to tell me that all the nosecones I was adding were just useless dead weight and that they did nothing for the aerodynamics of my craft. I am making a case for realism on the basis that we all have some basic knowledge of aerodynamics and it is intuitive to use what we know and understand when playing KSP. The current system is broken in those regards. So, that being said, I would like to see an aerodynamic system based upon the shape of the parts and not based on the mass of the parts. One in which things like nosecones lessens the drag on a craft. That longer thin shapes are better than short ones. Edit: I would also like to see an aerodynamic model in which airflow doesn't hit every part. Because that's basically what happens right now. Anything inside a cargo bay or a fairing increases drag because it increases mass. This is just silly and ridiculous. No one here wants for realism because realism. We want realistic aerodynamics because it's better and more easily understood than the terrible substitute that is stock aerodynamics. I mean nothing else about this conversation needs to be said except Mass has more effect on drag than Shape. So if you have a better idea, feel free to join the discussion, if you don't then go make a thread called "Why we don't need realistic aerodynamics in 0.91."

It worked for me but I was only adding additional space for Kerbals so I wonder what the factor is.

First, don't confuse the words realism and simulator. They do not mean the same thing. The very quote you linked has Harvester saying "It is not a full blown simulator" which means it IS part simulator. Regardless of what you believe about that, it is in fact about realism. The orbital mechanics in this game are based on solid real principles and that is what makes it based on realism. KSP doesn't try to simulate launching an actual rocket into space or piloting a space shuttle to a landing. It does use real physics principles in it's orbital mechanics. There is a big difference there. Here is proof that it IS based on realism. Also, from the orbiter forums. I am not sure how you've come to the belief that one little quote you linked somehow says that KSP isn't part simulator and isn't based on solid orbital mechanics. It is part both of those things. I don't think anyone here is saying that aerodynamics has to be exactly as real life is. I also can't imagine anyone who plays KSP would think an aerodynamic system in which a full fuel tank with an aerodynamic nosecone has MORE drag than a fuel tank without it doesn't have room for some kind of improvement.

Yep, that worked. Thanks everyone!

Hey, Ven, did you see this photo I posted about the weird RCS thruster directions on the command pod?

1: We have no idea what the plans for the Tech Tree are. Perhaps they want to add more nodes and breakdown parts even more then just rearranging them. 2: That's not how they work. They work on the things that need the most improvements, rather than things that need minor improvements. Otherwise they would have a few key polished features and a bunch of completely broken features and mechanics.

I have it. My cat jumped on the keyboard and timewarped and I didn't realize it while AFK. Stupid to leave the game on. Ugh. Sweet! I looked through there but didn't know it was called flightstate. I'll report back with what I figure out.

Short story: I had an accident while AFK that caused me to time warp ridiculously farther into time then I was. Didn't notice. Overwrote persistence and quicksave. It's basically screwed up my planetary alignment and I don't feel like timewarping forever to get it back where it was. So the question is, is there any way to set the UT time back and it would revert the planetary alignment to where it should be or are those two things not connected in any way?

How much are these satellites costing you guys? I put em up for about 10-12k at most, with maybe only 3-4k recoverable. It's not even worth remotely considering getting them back. I don't even deorbit, I click end flight in the tracking station. I would prefer to just hide- ooooh and there it is folks. Sudden realization. I should just change the icon to debris and turn off debris in the tracking station. When RemoteTech2 gets updated for 0.90 I would consider throwing some extra dishes and power on them but right now I just throw em up there as cheap as I can make em.

Wait, is near future not working? I use that and I thought nothing broke this update? Although, I haven't tested it extensively yet. I think a button at the bottom like FAR or KER or RCS build aid would be fine, really.

His thrusters ARE symmetrical, that's what he is showing in the photo. Actually, I noticed an issue with another part. Let me see if I can find it. Here, I found it. Look at the RCS build aid window. I am thrusting DOWN. Look at the Command Pod, only the RCS thrusters on the right side are firing, and two are firing totally horizontal (they shouldn't be firing at all) , the two that are firing are an angle would be fine and balanced IF the other two thrusters on the opposite side of the Command Pod were also thrusting down. But they don't, so they just end up imparting rotational torque to the pod.

This is exactly what I was going to say. We have players who can't even figure out which way their contract orbit is going even though it has flashing lights moving around it and you can read the exact inclination in the [+]Notes section of the contract. And you want them to balance fuel in their craft? It would make for some pretty awesome slow liftoffs though.

Well that certainly wasn't clear in the documentation, but Huzzah! I'm fine with that anyway.

The tech tree is working for now, so I don't think they are too concerned yet. Refining it will be easy and won't take a lot of time once everything else is sorted out. They're going to add deep space refueling resources in the next update as well, so I imagine there is going to be some kind of addition or changes to the tech tree anyway.

Here's a handy chart for you. The answer is you need to get to orbit since you already accomplished a flight. http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Experience

Yes, but everyone is apparently missing those little dots of light which is how the end up here wondering why they can't complete the contract. Figured I would throw another way to tell other than the dots flashing around. Besides, that works great for low inclination orbits but it can be hard to tell with Molniya orbits which way is which.

I mean, the guys title is "Lord of Kerbal Realm", kinda has a pompous ring to it, ya know?

Do you have any facts to back that statement up or are you just all troll?

B9 hasn't been updated for 0.90 yet, but some people have had success in updating the Firespitter.dll. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/24551-Firespitter-propeller-plane-and-helicopter-parts-v6-3-5-%28Sep-1st%29-for-KSP-0-24-2?p=1603900&viewfull=1#post1603900

Sounds like the pilot got out, the craft had no ability to stabilize itself anymore and shouldn't have moved, but then the physics glitched and imparted rotation to both the kerbal and the craft, hence why the kerbal was flung off into space.