Danger Will Kerbinson!

And this is really the nuts of the whole issue. Forgot the people who don't care about having to babysit for 3 minutes to orbit, or have to fiddle during a 2 second circularization burn. What are you supposed to do on a 5 minute burn to another planet? Fiddle and fight for 5 minutes to keep it sort of on the mark and then make a dozen more correction burns because it turns out that a few degrees off for a few seconds in space is ACTUALLY a big deal. Its the difference between an encounter and not, the difference between a PE of 50km and -50 or 500000. If you want to fly an elegant mission and use your delta V with caution this doesn't help, Id rather not bring up an extra tank of fuel for oopsies, thats not a good mission in my mind. Its playable, yeah but its not what is intended. The is not a tedium simulator, I have Train Simulator 2013 for that. And yes there is a work around, I am going to get the new MechJeb and let Smart A.S.S. drive for me, I do that a lot anyway on long burns as the mark would always drift over time since you can never be pinpoint on the mark manually over a long burn. But we should not have to mod to make it function the way it did 2 days ago for simple things.

Well the chances of the problem being fixed are pretty slim at this point. The big angry thread was closed with the magical pronouncement by a mod that the "problem that many people were having has been solved" Its not fixed, its been mitigated. Proclaiming its fixed won't get it fixed for real.

It is better. It is not resolved.

No, the problem is it has the torque, it has the control surfaces and gimballing engines to do what you want to do...the PROBLEM is that it is not using that power to hold the heading given.

The new patch has done a lot to cover up the issue. As is the case with most people it is NOT caused by a joystick for me. Now if I fly an intentionally unbalanced rocket it will hold a course-ish. What is still happening on my testing is that right at launch my thrust imbalance will give it a 5 degree tilt at lift off and it will hold that heading, previousty it just flipped it right into the ground. There is PLENTY of control authority to move the ball back to straight up, its not a big imbalance...what it wont do is hold that, it flops back to the prograde marker. To get it back to straight I have to over correct and then let it flop back. It should hold the heading I give if there is the control authority to do so. Im not asking for it to provide a magic boost to thrust, control surfaces or torque wheels...just to use the control authority it has to maintain the heading its given. All you have to do is watch the video of intended behavior to see its not what is happening.

How exactly is rehashing all the things that are NOT the problem dozens of times helping? Its not design, its not user error, its not electricity, its not mods, its not clean installs, its not joysticks, its not gypsy magic, its not a New Kids on the Block reunion. Yet page after page of "Its pods, electricity, joysticks, you suck" over and over and over. Don't have a problem? Yay, go play. You are not helping by saying "Works for me!"

And here we go with another 2 very helpful posts of the "Nothing is wrong with my build, therefore its not possible for there to be anything wrong with yours" variety. You forgot to add in some helpful hint we are forgetting like maybe to face up or stop steering on purpose into the ground to really round out the insight.

What rapidly spinning designs? The source of the complaint is rockets wandering off course. Yes the hotfix is great, its still not right though, better is not always fixed.

Who here thinks SAS is an autopilot? Nobody except those introducing a strawman to the mess. Attitude control does not equal auto pilot. C7 says its designed to hold attitude, HarvestR says the same and both say its not working as intended. Why should we believe someone not involved with the development who demands that this is not the case as you have?

Have you watched the C7 demo video? If you do you will see the intended behavior. Many of us are not getting anything close to that behavior. In fact c7 uses the words "lock onto that new heading" several times in the video, and thats what it does. His space station even swings back to the place he released manual control, very similar to how the old SAS behaved, it did not just sort of slow down and stop in a random place. So if the guy who built it says its designed to hold a heading I am going to go out on a limb and trust that that IS the intended behavior. What I had was nothing of the kind, not even in the neighborhood of holding a heading. It was akin to steering with your knee while drunk from the passenger side.

Explain to me where I am not understanding your meaning. We are just used to the old version, don't understand the new version and should deal with it. Sounds fairly dismissive of the issue to me. In your mind there is NO issue at all, the only problem is those of us who 'imagine' a problem. Posting a dozen times that you are being unjustly assailed by drooling cretins lacking decency and failing literacy as you faint onto your pity couch is not going to unwrite what you wrote. Come in and dismiss the issue, you yourself will have no credibility and shall be dismissed, guess you have to deal with it.

You came in and said nothing was wrong, it was in our heads, this is how it is supposed to be and we should just get used to it. Ignoring that there have been examples posted of things NOT working the way they should. Ignoring that the guy who made the thing has said its not what was intended. Ignoring that there has been a patch already that has helped fix the issue. So really, coming in to stir up the hornets nest and then clutching your pearls when someone, or several someones call you on it is ridiculous.

When you wander into a thread and drop a "Sorry if this is rude, but you are all a bunch of morons" type post don't expect a ticker tape parade.

Oh, Im sorry...wanting an issue looked into is a dick move now. But screaming AGAINST a bug being fixed is some noble deed? What was wrong with you people that did NOT want the minority of us to play? I'm waiting in anticipation of this stunning revelation.

My favorite part of this whole dust up has been the never ending stream of genius posters who come into threads 12, 20, 67 pages deep with mind blowing 'fixes' us poor dummies never though of before griefing it up on the forum. 1. Electricity...herp derp 2. You need a command pod...damn, I was all set to just blast off naked tanks with engines. 3. Moar control surface, more reaction wheels! Here is a clue, if i can manually move it back from a drift it HAD PLENTY OF CONTROL AUTHORITY at its disposal, it was NOT using more than a tiny fraction. 4. Post a creenshot or video of everything working fine on their install + condescending bs about how we must be spoiled by mechjeb/unable to grasp the concept of balance, center of mass and thrust/not understanding how the new system is SUPPOSED to work. Show them the C7 video of how its supposed to work and how your video is doing NOTHING shown in the demo video and they just dismiss it. After all, why would the guy who built the thing, made the demo video etc have any idea how it was supposed to work. The new patch is a HUGE step up. At least the "DONT YOU COMPLAIN, HATER!" brigage didn't manage to get their wish, as stupid as it was that roughly a third of players didn't have working control. Why exactly was that? Can one of you morons explain why it was you were SO against an issue being fixed?