AlamoVampire

@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!

so, if i am reading this right, you WANT the game to hold your hand and tell you that you cannot fire a rocket motor whilst stowed? So, if my reading is correct, that means, you: have never, do not now, or ever WILL do missions that replicate Apollo <engine fairing on a certain stage was cut loose AFTER the stage was ignited> or that replicate Soyuz rockets? OR that you are fine with the game making it so that should some emergency come up either via a glitch in game or a miss placed staging sequence that keeps you from being able to engage a rocket motor to salvage the situation? as to number 2, I will now, as I have always done and always shall provide examples or continue to uphold those examples which came before me. Somethings DO require repeating constantly.

this pointless mechanic makes things like ACCURATE soyuz replicas 100% impossible. Why? Well, its a thing called hot staging. The 3rd stage engine is lit shortly after the boosters are dropped away, but while stage 2 is STILL burning. Now, this is impossible in this game because the game wants to hold your hand and say that it is too dangerous to do. Its worked for russia for oh, i dunno, the majority if not ALL of its career launching stuff. Good enough for them and for the american souls who hitch rides on it? good enough for us. Look, we do not want or need this mechanic, someone please take it away.

ive once heard someone say about rendezvous and docking in space: it is like trying to hit a bullet with a bullet. its not easy at all. it takes practice and patience. also everything above my post is very true.

Cantab provides yet another reason to not have this "feature" as all it does is impose a crushing restriction that we do not need.

Tourist, I really did ask why one mid becomes stock and another doesnt. What happened is it got derailed by a single example of something that works wonderfully well vs something that does not. Please do not assume you have any idea of my intent on my OP as you do not. Mechjeb should be stock. Soo useful

@Pthigrivi it may not just be an aesthetic issue. im not a programmer but, i have this sneaking suspicion that each individual bit that will eventually come off when staged may count as a part. beyond that, the squad version of procedural fairings is: 1. not intuitive 2. not reproducible each and every time you need to remove the fairing to adjust payload 3. ugly as sin. 4. not remotely realistic. 4a. yes, i know this is a game about shooting little green dudes and green dudets into space, but, given the fact we have parts based on real current tech, or up coming tech, there is something to be said for real looking fairings. 4b. i know, its my own opinion on 4, 4a and 4b, so theres that. but, why the need to turn to confetti?

Career mode isn't doing it for me either. Just not engaging enough.

Letting Dres be mentioned?!?!? CHEATER!!

@5thHorseman ya, hard to hear the words being spoken when they are text lol. but, i know what you mean. i hate the "stock" fairings as to me, they are clunky. @stibbons that is mods becoming stock. the stuff made by porkjet that are now stock, were once mods. im sure the same with roverdude.

@5thHorseman the worst implementation of a squad version of a wonderful mod has got to be the fairings. the mod is beautiful, works well, is very intuitive, yet, what was made by squad isnt. but, thats my 2cents

Ok, first, let me say, I have 0 clue if this has even been brought up, so, if it HAS, any wandering moderator who spots this, feel free to merge this. With that said, I have been wondering, and finally decided to ask. Why does one mod become stock and another not? Take for example, the work of Porkjet. Some of his stuff is now stock, which is nice, fewer mods for me to worry about, but some other mods, say, Procedural Fairings by edog <or so it says on kerbalstuff.com> is not, and we have a "procedural fairing" that, lets be fair here, isnt all that intuitive and creates some nasty confetti when used. Now, this is just my 2 cents here, I think Proc Fairings by edog should have been made stock instead of what happened, but, again, thats me. But, still, it begs the asking, why are some mods being made stock, yet others seem to get ignored? I know, it is what it is, but, its still a valid question I think. Just my random wonderings at nearly 1am lol.

you are not the only one who fails to see how this would work. I fail to see how they would cope with mods, timewarp, part counts, high end vs low end rigs, loading, quick loading, various settings of like crew death being permanent or any other number of issues. I think its a mistake to push into multiplayer, i think its going to do nothing but harm, but, thats me. @razark