softweir

Are you using Active Texture Management? If so, you need to reduce the setting from Aggressive to something lower.

I think you misunderstood Camacha. He wasn't saying the basic function of the altimeter was magic, he was implying that its ability to know where the lowest part of a craft is in relation to the ground regardless of orientation is implausibly sophisticated. And it is - the idea that a radar altimeter would be programmed with the full dimensions of a craft attached to it is implausible and could be seen as silly, and a lot of people would denigrate the idea by attaching the slightly pejorative adjective "magic" to it.

Pro Tip: Sub-assemblies created in the VAB can be used in the SPH and vice-versa! You can make your fairing section in the VAB, save it as a sub-assembly and then use it in the SPH. It's a fiddle, but it can be done! (I really wish Squad would allow reflection symmetry in the VAB and radial symmetry in the SPH. Or better still, have a single "Design Building" with a toggle for horizontal/vertical assumptions - big enough you can design large space stations in it!)

How about an extra entry below the "Force Roll" line for controlling Solar Roll? I don't think that would mess with the layout too much. You could even give it a text box so players can enter an angular offset in case they haven't placed the solar panels where you might assume they have.

A while back, HarvesteR was discussing the ragdoll animation of Kerbals, and mentioned that at the scale being used at the time (they a=were about 0.5m so far as PhysX was aware) they moved too much like insects, but that at about 1m they moved more like humans. Hence the need to scale them up and scale up all the other parts to match. I can't remember where he posted this, the post was probably lost in last year's Great Forum Crash.

Not sure what you mean. It would help if you saved a piccy to imagr or photobucket and linked to it here.

Oh! So that's why I can't launch a KSO with tug in the cargo bay and transfer a crewman to the tug before deployment! Fair enough, I just need to undock it then redock it again - but a fix will be nice some time along the line. Thanks for this, it's a neat mod and very useful!

I have some logs, download them from: HERE. Minimum mods for the test, just CLS, SM and buttonbar.

Check that all four fins have the same FAR settings. If you moved them after placing them then the symmetry can be slightly broken, and updating the settings for one won't necessarily carry over to the others.

If it's any use, I've got KSP.txt and output_log.txt in the zip files linked below. Minimum install, just toolbar, CLS and Ship Manifest. https://www.dropbox.com/s/043ss2ejowyqu2x/Logs.zip There are quite a few error messages related to SM.

The short answer is "it depends". There are very many forces acting on artificial satellites: Tidal forces, the moon's gravity, the sun's gravity, solar radiation pressure, atmospheric drag, and even irregular impulses caused by continents and even mountains as satellites pass nearly overhead. These do not add up in any way that is easily predictable. However, as a general rule Rathlon's answer holds good: satellites above geostationary/geosynchronous orbit tend to move away from Earth, those below tend to move towards it. Those in very low Earth orbit are so very affected by atmospheric drag that tidal drag is almost irrelevant and they fall fast!

"In Dev". We look forward to it's appearance! BTW, might it be a good time to drop the "WIP" in this title? ALCOR seems to be pretty mature! Also, would it be easier to support ALCOR and Konquest (once Konquest comes out) if Konquest has its own thread, perhaps?

IIRC, Firespitter uses its own lift/drag model which completely overrides FAR for Firespitter parts.

KSP chooses the wrong error message for some reason. Apparently, that means "physics went really mad and KSP couldn't work out what went wrong". KJR tends to increase the probability of that happening when extra-stiff joints cause momentary accelerations of numerical-overflow proportions.

Maybe they look, but fail to spot where to look. With some people, choosing to put it in just one place is asking for them to miss it - you have to put it everywhere - even if all it does is tell them to go to the Space Center scene. I know whereof I speak - I used to inhabit the Hell that is Database Development.

Is FAR actually working? That sounds almost like stock performance!

This is supposed to happen: MJ is packaged as an add-on computer, it isn't automatically added to other probe cores and command pods. Having said that, quite a few players use config files to add MJ to cores and pods, and some mod parts automatically use MJ if you have it installed.

It would help if there was a facility to display rotation axes as you move/rotate parts. Might make a good mod project. Hint-hint.

He meant stuff to go in the payload bay - motors, tanks and probe parts that will fit that rather odd space.

Because the idea of packing a dozen different devices into the phone would have seemed quite bizarre to them. remember: this was long before the age of extreme miniaturisation of today. We lived in a world of almost exclusively single-use devices: phone, camera, TV, tape-recorder, gramophone etc, etc. All these devices were bulky and heavy and couldn't be combined without ending up as heavy as the two original devices - so a camera built into a phone would weigh as much as much as a phone and a camera, and it would be a poor phone because of the weight of the camera and a poor camera because of the weight of the phone. (Building cameras into phones only became sensible when the cameras became digital and able to send images electronically.) There were combination devices such as the Swiss Army Knife, but the age of combination sound systems (radio/record-player/tape-deck) had only just begun, and all examples were non-portable, living-room equipment. Actually naming a device as a tricorder and suggesting it used three whole different sensing systems was truly sci-fi-whackjob stuff by the standards of the day, and about as much as they could get away with before sounding silly.

It has plenty of fuel tank - about 400m/s dV iirc, which is about plenty for LKO. My gripe is the shuttle fuel is fuel/oxy instead of mono for the OMS, but that's a matter of taste and I can work with it just fine!

Do you mean payload? Probes? The KSO is a shuttle, shuttles don't have upper stages so far as I understand them...?

What I do is place just one fairing (ie with symmetry off), add manual struts as need be with the start of each strut on the fairing and the end on the payload, then when that is done I take the fairing off, turn symmetry back on and pop it back in place.

Might you be able to simply add an overload module to the stock docking ports? Allow the stock module to handle docking and undocking, use yours to control hatches?

I think he said a wrong thing there. The danger with O2 is that it can react with almost any metal that might be used in spaceship construction: this is what happened to Apollo 13 - a short circuit in a motor used to stir the liquid in a LOX tank heated the motor enough to cause it and the O2 to burn together with an almost instantaneous explosion. But on its own, O2 can't burn with itself, despite that quote. Incidentally, even his hyperbole that O2 is the oxidiser of oxidisers is wrong - that honour goes to fluorine which is reactive enough it can oxidise helium!