RoboRay

Then how do programmers exist in places that use QWERTZ keyboards?

They are. It would be useful if you would specify what issues you're having. It's only possible to make vague responses to vague comments.

Ah, right. I was thinking that the RCS rings were on the nose section forward of the main parachute, that does get discarded. Good catch!

I get major wobbles on the 5m parts unless the engine gimbal is disabled. With that off, it's nice and smooth for the same craft. http://youtu.be/-gWTjTKyHzA Quantum Struts instead of regular struts (even the "heavy" NP ones) can also solve a lot of wobble problems.

Set the parking brake with the button at the top of the screen, don't just hit the "B" key... the key releases the brake as soon as you release the key.

Or just stick any of the various little stock surface-attach adapter pieces on there where you want the engines, if you don't want to add more mods.

I actually found some added value in having the "nose" section with the RCS rings a separate part, especially when using the capsule as a general control pod rather than a historically-accurate piece. But, isn't that piece supposed to jettison as part of the parachute deployment?

The Lazor plugin used to explode your launch clamps instead of activate them normally. If it doesn't now, it's because he's changed it. Certainly true. He's got some great mods, but I really wish the supporting code for them wasn't all lumped into one big "all or nothing" plugin. I used some of the stuff for a while, but eventually decided that the things I did like weren't worth the baggage that came along with them.

Union class dropship?

Very nice! There's the Lazor Cam with both azimuth and elevation control, but it only gives you a small viewing window rather than going full-screen (at least, it was like that the last time I used it, which has been a while).

Does the pod itself have innate RCS now, rather than adding the nose section with RCS as a separate part? I haven't had a chance to play with your new versions yet, sorry.

I appreciate that, at least. There are really nice mods I avoid because I don't want the effects of all the plug-in code that comes from their other mods that I'm not using.

Same... there's a variety of camera models out there, but they all seem to be based on handhelds.

For you first SSTO plane, build smaller. A smaller, lighter craft is exponentially easier to design and build. Once you've worked out the design compromises that make for an effective SSTO, then start scaling it up to bigger craft.

Well, it's "standalone" in that it doesn't require you to install all the various Lazor parts, but it's pretty much just an appearance of being standlone since you're still loading and running the plugin code for all that stuff, and you're stuck with the baggage that comes with that code. I eventually quit using the "standalone" Lazor Docking Cam due to the "dump all the code for every various mod function into one plugin" approach when I got tried of dealing with the arbitrary (and non-beneficial) changes and bugs that came with it. I was thrilled when the new docking indicator mod came along, because it's light, lean, and actually is standalone so it doesn't mess with unrelated things for no reason. Try both, of course, but do try both before deciding on what to use.

You can achieve a similar nose-up ground attitude with tricycle gear, if you attach the rear wheels higher up on the airframe than the nose wheel. Here, the nose wheel is attached to the bottom of the fuselage, while the rear wheels are on the bottom of the wing. This also contributes to ground stability by providing a wider wheel-base. This results in significantly more lift production while rolling down the runway, allowing shorter take-off rolls at lower speeds. The SSTO craft shown can be airborne before even reaching the taxiway intersection.

Yeah, a right-click resource transfer option on occupied command pods to add/remove EVA suit monoprop would be a nice touch.

Yeah, it would need some kind of support, like a rod down the center and a bottom plate. I have no idea if anyone ever tried to build one like that, or if it's just theoretical musing like you suggested.

Did you select Control From Here on the docking port?

This, by the way, is why you should be very gentle with SRBs... cracks in the fuel will expose more surface area, leading to higher than expected burn rates. Or explosions. I lost a model rocket when I was a kid after using a second-stage motor that had been dropped (and presumably cracked). First stage went well, but the thing just blew up when the second stage ignited.

Yeah, I was looking for some good example pictures to add...

In the real world, length generally influences power and width duration, because they don't burn from the nozzle end up to the nose... there is a hollow shaft through the center of the SRB which all ignites, and it burns from the core outward to the sides. The exact performance can be adjusted or even varied through the burn by the complexity of the shaft's shape. In KSP, it's just numbers in a config file so it's arbitrary.

I haven't tested it, but does the KAS connector not attach to the kerbonaut's back at the kerbonaut's center of mass? If so, thrusting forwards would impart no rotation on the kerbonaut and be stable.

If you can't get off the runway before it ends, it's the craft's design not the runway's design that's the problem. The usual issue is that the center of mass is too far forward of the rear landing gear, leaving the flight controls with insufficient leverage to raise the nose.

No, it's for finding minimum-energy Hohmann transfers. The maneuver planning system can calculate any more energetic transfers.