SofusRud

They be my primary mode of propulsion, baby

This is based off of what i've seen from the tweakables in KerbalKon. Basically I am suggesting a button on the context menu when tweaking the fuel load in the VAB. Everything in KSP is based off of a very precise Fuel-to-Oxidizer ratio, get it wrong and you end up with an excess of either. Now, lets say I wanted to launch a half-full Jumbo tank. I would slide back the amount on the context-menu, but would be hard pressed to get it exactly right, which means that I'll be carrying dead weight. The "hold Ratio button" would lock the fuel and oxidizer, so that i could just dial back on one slider and the other adjusts accordingly. This also has the advantage of letting me lock it at other manually set ratios, should i want that.

I totally favor this. The lack of a small-sized reaction wheel has practically killed my space-bike program. probe cores are too weak, and the whole point of a space-bike is that it is not just a probe with a seat dammit! I had tried to suggest this back before 0.21, but it just got shrugged off by people who assumed that just because it was in KSPX then it would probably be added very soon. Well it hasn't, and its just one of those small part additions that are needed to close a few gaps, radial drogue chutes being another example of the same thing. So...+1 for this suggestion

No, no indication of tweakables allowing you to change how engines work.

Voted, although how The Stanley Parable got into that category is beyond me.

You take that back! You take that back right now!!!!

call it a Buran shuttle and you can keep the Mainsail

I believe the changes he's referring to are either floating point errors or center of mass moving. also remember that loading distance is 2.5 km, and when travelling in opposite directions that literally gives the game less than a second to make the calculations, which can result in the craft glitching through each other. To compensate, I recommend that you do the collision at a much higher altitude, giving you lower orbital speed, perhaps between the Mun and Minmus

you could save some weight by switching the ASAS unit for a normal in-line reaction wheel

I have had good results with a design consisting of 4 turbojets and a singel skipper. The skipper has 3/4 of a red tank and the jets are in pairs with a mk2 fuselage and the mk2 adapter fuselage. I can get it up to 1450 m/s on the jets before i switch over, got into orbit with half of the skippers fuel left. the craft transports 6 kerbals and manages to be under 100 parts. definetly recommend going big and going with the skipper engine

Winged Brick

just keep undocking and redocking until you get it. there is no other way Also, for a Laythe trip that thing is waaayy overkill. just sayin

I suggest building a craft that can get into orbit at half-throttle (or less) with an almost immediate gravity turn on Kerbin. If you also have wheels to drive to a higher elevation then you should be all set. It's what I did

Still having this problem, no struts connecting on any subassemblies, and its really killing my efforts to standardize my launchers.

Planet with a system of moons, one going retrograde. Or a planet going retrograde around Kerbol, with an atmosphere so you can aerobrake there

Jool's atmo isn't oxygen, you can't fly jets there

Its a 150ish part lifter.

I have noticed that the new subassembly system doesn't seem to place the struts that should otherwise be in the subassembly. As you can imagine, this has dire repercussions for giant lifters that need the structural integrity that struts provide. Has anyone else had this problem and if so, how can it be remedied?

My guess is SSTO fanatics

Struts detach when you decouple. In the beginning i assumed that they didn't and had all my struts mounted on radial decouplers

If you think about it it makes sense, if every point on the orbit is the same then the apoapsis and periapsis must be simultaneously everywhere on the orbit and opposite each other, so its no surprise it goes all squiggly

I agree with having a large science part, the size of a Hitchhiker. I also think that a apart from a huge load of electricity that it should require a minimum crew, say two, in order to operate. It should also be much heavier than a Hitchhiker, in the 10-18 ton range, for the sake of gameplay balance. I disagree with the timed reports thing though

I believe I saw an animation a while back of a Kerbal picking up a rock. i think that's what you're talking bout. I guess they just haven't gotten round to adding it, that's kinda what happened with the Hitchhiker IVA

i really like the girders that they added in 0.19. Those are nice Docking is a close second

i agree, but why limit it to after landing? we ought to have the ability to lock before landing, basically reproducing the rigid landing legs of before the update. I only say this because docking two landed vessels is the cornerstone of my reusable Laythe SSTO and exploration plane programs. without i can't refuel on the ground +1 to the suggestion