Black-Talon

Since burning prograde is the most efficient, isn’t adjusting heading to the changing prograde over the duration of the burn giving you the most bang for the buck? The OP’s issue isn’t necessary making burns “impossible,” as we can see from current game play. But consider moving the node to points prior to Pe, that the burn will begin prograde at the point of the maneuver, right? And prograde being tangent to the orbit means that once the craft has proceeded past Pe the original fixed direction of the burn is significantly far from prograde and inefficient. So, users can adjust the node to be prior to Pe. But the combination of these conditions can’t work for interstellar without detrimental efficiency implications? How would you burn prograde all the way to the halfway point, flip, and burn retrograde all the way to the destination without holding prograde and then retrograde during the duration of those burns all while under time warp with the current system? So two things would be needed? A better maneuver planner surely, one that potentially optimizes the start point of the burn to a location other than where the user clicks to create it. And the ability to hold to heading that moves relative to the continuously changing orbit. Probably some brutal math… Or am I just wrong about continuously adjusting heading to match prograde (such as with lock to prograde sas) throughout a burn being the most efficient? Or is it irrelevant on a hypothetical interstellar burn since we’re spending most of that burn outside spheres of influence and a long ways from the Pe? The implications of interstellar burns are quite daunting and thus OPs “bug” is perhaps reflecting that despite the improvements to the maneuver planning it isn’t the approach interstellar will require. …more work to do as part of the progress towards the interstellar milestone.

Thank you both - using those so I'll count those as the best options.

Thanks for maintaining this@linuxgurugamer, curious for your thoughts on the ease/complexity of adding the ability to snap to "the other" horizontal axis (Mod+H perhaps). This comes up most for me when I'm putting surface mount things on the end of a cylinder, surface mounting multiple parachutes on the top of a crew capsule (landing pod) for instance. In many cases I'd like to center the part I'm placing without using the attach node. Anyway, temped to take a peek at the code and see if I can locate this and see if the same "snap horizontal/vertical" functionality could be applied to the 3rd axis easily but I'm being lazy and asking first. Curious for your thoughts! And thanks again for keeping this working! -Talon