sojourner

No, the square arrangement of 1.0 is a heritage carry over of when SpaceX was going to build Falcon 5 (only 5 engines on the first stage). Remember, Falcon 5 and Falcon 9 were going to be the same rocket with only the number of first stage engines being different. When they decided that Falcon 5 wouldn't have the performance to make it worth building they were at a point where the thrust structure had already been designed. Only later when Falcon 5 was completely off the table and upgrading to 1.1 was being considered did they decide to change the thrust structure for the benefits previously listed. Manned rating a rocket mostly deals with redundant systems and abort modes. Falcon 9 is built with those in place. Man rating the payload (crew dragon) is a separate process. There's even been talk of Boeing sending CST-100 up on Falcon 9.

You've got a misplaced fuel line some where.

Yep, that change reduced the variations of engines they had to build and also simplified assembly of the rocket since they no longer have to worry about which engine goes where (barring the center engine again). I am betting the guy that thought of it probably got a good raise for saving the company so much time and money.

The new octagon engine arrangement also allows each engine to be identical (excepting the center engine) whereas F9 1.0 had to have corner engines and side engines with different mountings, gimbals, and plumbing layouts.

Yes, Falcon 9 1.1 has enough payload capacity for crew dragon.

Point of note. The Falcon 9 was designed to be man rated from the beginning. Atlas V/Delta IV was not. It will be very easy for Falcon to complete it's man rating as opposed to the other two.

The original programmer (R4m0n) isn't around much to update the mod to "official" releases. Sarbian has been doing a superb job of fixing things and adding features, but you will have to access the dev builds to see them.

Not an addon programmer here, but once two ships dock the game considers them one ship, I believe. You might try looking for changes in part count or to narrow that down, changes in number of fuel tanks. The addon would probably have to some how designate existing tankage as "out going" and any new tankage detected as "in coming" for the fuel values.

Smart A.S.S. module does that.

Same thing.

That's due to the way KSP handles water now. The marker is under the water being drawn on the surface of the planet.

Do any of the emission settings in the cfg affect color? I'd really like some hot blue exhaust similar to the one in the last image in this post: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/65754-HotRockets%21-Particle-FX-Replacement?p=903301&viewfull=1#post903301

I really must reccomend Kommitz' FTmN engines for use with this. Much better looking than stock. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/26286-FTmN-Atomic-Rockets-More-v2-2

^Which build are you using?

It really should align docking axis before approaching within a certain distance. Someone made the suggestion a while back that it would be nice if this distance was assignable similar to the distance on the rendezvous autopilot. It would be useful for those tight docking situations.

On occasion when doing the above MJ will get into a loop of missing the launch and going to timewarp to the next window. I've had it happen. Sometimes turning off the autopilot and the launch to rendezvous and reactivating them will correct the behavior.

It's good for sketchup. But you haven't seen exceptional yet. I play in Sketchup all the time: http://s479.photobucket.com/user/seattle221/slideshow/gravwave http://s479.photobucket.com/user/seattle221/slideshow/Boundless

Modelling is easy in Sketchup. The hard part is getting it into Unity from there.

The docking camera was a separate addon. Not sure if it's still being updated these days. As for keeping the craft aligned, are you referring using TGT+ in the Smart A.S.S. module?

Yeah, "cosine loss" IS "considers engine angle".

Is your antivirus on the desktop machine blocking the MJ .dll from running?

Get the latest dev release. There's a link to them in the first post of the mechjeb thread.

The D/v window already lists both atmospheric and vacuum d/v for each stage.

He probably used the Docking Struts mod.

Would that be a problem for you specifically? I just don't see the objection to adding something to mechjeb that you are not required to use but would be welcomed by others. It's like objecting that mechjeb has an optional theme for the gui interface. Sarbian, Even if MJ doesn't ask you at the start of each career, having the option there would cut down on having to explain how to edit the part.cfg file everytime someone asks how to get full functionality from the start. We can just reply with "go to setup, click disable tech requirements" or some such.