AlamoVampire

@steve_v Preach it!

An unplanned, but safe landing at Duna, From Right to Left: Jeb, Bill and Bob. How I am getting these folks home, no clue:

i might check out SpaceY but, like I said, hehe, only 1 engine is giving me issues atm and thats just the mod being out of date. with the new vector engine, i can work around a buggy motor XD but, i appreciate the suggestion @Norcalplanner

I use asparagus every now and again, and really dont see a real reason why not to. can it be expensive in a career game? ya, but, sometimes its the only way to punt the heaviest of things skyward. BUT since i avoid career mode as it has no real draw for me, cost isnt a concern. Once Tiberion is feeling better and has more time, he will update Novapunch, which has some rather large parts up to 5m in size, which is a good side path past asparagus if so inclined. Right now, its updated <far as i know at least> for 1.0.2 and one of its engines the m40 i think it is, is a bit glitchy right now causing some lag, but most of the parts work with 1.0.5.

In response: 1. Still would not be "perfectly fine" as the potential to cause more harm than good <which it already does I might add, hence all of us complaining and wanting it gone> 2. That would soundly and resoundingly defeat the purpose of a fairing, which is to keep the payload safe from atmospheric effects until needed. 3. To me, having parts inoperable while stowed is anti-kerbal in every single way and more importantly ROBS players, new players in particular of valuable lessons. Having a few teachers in my family and knowing a few outside my family, the idea of stealing any chance to learn from someone no matter how small that chance to learn is, is despicable, extremely so. Especially since I can only imagine that this whole mechanic has most likely bled into the Kerbal EDU version sickens me, as its robbing students of a valuable lesson. 4. Someone already commented on RCS being drained vessel wide, so I wont repeat but will agree with them, its pointless to shut RCS down while stowed. 5. Please see 4 as 5 is a roundabout way of saying number 4. 6. Again, stop stealing lessons from people. New players need to make the mistakes in order to learn. Dont shield them from messing up. LET THEM!!! I want to quote my own signature now, as it seems it is applicable now more than ever: "A closed book cannot teach, closed eyes cannot see, closed ears cannot listen, a closed mind cannot learn." To whit: removing the chances for players to make mistakes that can teach is wrong. We cannot learn if we do not error. Also: this whole cannot activate engine while stowed does NOT account for situations where something goes way wrong and the vessel is breaking up. Especially if that breakup smashes the fairing and knocks the payload free, at that point you furiously try to ignite the engines or deploy chutes only to be chided by the game saying: NOPE, not gonna happen player, your stuffs still in its packaging. One parting thought: dump the mechanic already

Which i think is a universe or multiverse sized mistake. Further i think personally that it is a deliberately bad idea to not make it stock. Mechjeb provides a wealth of data for starters, data i might add we absolutely NEED. Further still who honestly likes to babysit long burns or repeat the same actions like an automaton? Edit: I want to make a comparison here. Not having what mechjeb offers in full, is like asking a pilot of say a 777 to fly from say KDFW to Beijing using only indicated airspeed, fuel indicators and his throttle and landing gear levers. THEN tell him he cannot leave his seat because HE must manually handle his bird from engine star to engine stop. Can it be done? Yup. Is it safe OR practical? Nope. Which is why I say we need mechjeb as stock.

that worries me even more then. i myself have yet to lose a mission to this well, lets face it, anti-kerbal feature. But, as has been pointed out time and time and time again, clear examples of how it limits building <realistic soyuz missions, apollo style shroud still there but the engines clearly ignite then dump the shroud> to how it has COST people missions, as is in the link in the quote here and the link to the thread a few above that or so. Look, lets face facts here, it is abundantly clear most if not all of us want this mechanic gone. it has no benefit only costs.

Just gonna leave this here as yet ANOTHER example of why this bs has got to go. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/128825-whats-the-best-method-to-achieve-a-successful-landing-unlike-this-one-gif/

i gotta say it, up until the 21st of december 2015 this thread lay dormant since september 2014. not saying there isnt useful replies since 2014 but, kinda necroed... just sayin,,,

@monstah you are mistaken. the original orientation in the VAB as I remember it from .21 until it changed some versions later, had you by DEFAULT looking out towards the launch pad. and the orientation was continued out to the pad. now, you are looking at the wall with your flag by default. the orientation has changed. @Red Iron Crown not sure why the shuttle was used, but, i recall <not who said it, but that it WAS said> that the orientation of the shuttle was what it was for clearances, and the pics i gave pretty much shot that claim down, as it came out belly first so to speak, or more accurately ET first lol.

With the gimbal dialed WAY back its a great motor. Needs tweaking on the gimbal but its a good motor

Ive listed before the issues that must be solved to make mp work. Ive also i fail to see a way for them to solve them. I hope mp goes away the same as the original scrapped resources idea. I think squad should first make it so we have a stock version of mechjeb. I know of no mod that is as useful. Engineer redux cant fly for you so no there. We need flight data and various automations. Look the long/short is this really is a game that isnt suited to a multiplayer environment. Put enough ppl into a server and the trolls will come out to play to wreak havoc, that is just the nature of multiplayer

@Kenobi McCormick Could not agree any more with you!!

@cantab sounds suspiciously like a fast track to disasterville having it at 100%. too high a chance for a space plane to run away and torch a mission before the player is ready for it. even higher if its a new player trying to make a plane first before a rocket.

@Kerbart hey um, not sure what you are talking about. look at the shuttle mere moments before it rolls clear of the VAB as its being rolled to the pad: and a few minutes later: and sitting at the pad as you see, its basically maintaining the same orientation as it had in the VAB. if you look at any of the 3 pics in this here post, THEN compare to our OP's pic, the orientation looks to be the same, so, ya, what IS with KSP and the odd orientation?

@Hawks Of Hazard hyperedit seems to me at least to be kraken bait, so, wouldnt surprise me if you break ksp with it.

sad thing is, that is how it USED to be. for what ever reason they chose to rotate it 90 degrees to where we have it now. I am all for putting it back the way it WAS.

@073198681 yes it would.

I just want to focus on your final sentence. Every single moon mission that landed with a SINGLE exception was automated. Armstrong is the only person to land via manual control, only did so because the computers became overloaded and he saw it was trying to land in boulders. So, using it for manned or um kerbaled landings is realistic.

cheating? nope. and um how many times has this come up since mechjeb became a thing? Look, the short and long of it is this: use what makes you happy and brings more depth for YOU. and, as ive said before, real world rockets use automation, so using it in game makes it more "real" and also, automation shall set you free. that being said, there are those, who for what ever reason enjoy flying the SAME LAUNCH, SAME RENDEZVOUS and SAME DOCKING over and over and over again, AND those same people seemingly love to babysit long burns so who knows.

@Starwaster i want you to look at this picture and tell this is not stowed. This set up irl is considered stowed. https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiwrtT9m_vJAhXGMyYKHb-lDnYQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fspaceflight101.com%2Fspacerockets%2Fproton-m-briz-m%2F&psig=AFQjCNFnpLiL33fJswAPDF1aNpPbKBGYYQ&ust=1451277433323760 edit: um the picture in question is a bit down the way, its just above the bold: THIRD STAGE, shows the engine inside its fairing cage. i seriously thought copying the pictures link would have worked... note to mods: since the departure from the old forums, i no longer know how to insert pretty pictures, so, please alter that link as needed.

the service bays are too glitchy for my taste. only had 1 successful mission with them, and even that was only by good luck i think.

i myself hate and abhor the fact that the throttle sets itself to 50%. i see absolutely zero need for such functionality. defaulting to 0% on the pad AND runway would be perfect imho. but as someone once said: different strokes for different folks.

Idk if they are ugly but i know the smoke effects dont hang out long enough. My family and i have been proponents of having longer trails including plasma from reentry

not really, because people STILL insist that it is cheating, or that they would rather babysit their rockets during long tedious burns or perform the same launch, same rendezvous and same docking a thousand plus times. I will never understand it. I use mechjeb because automation shall set me free!