I_Killed_Jeb

Not cut, but postponed to the next major update

It, and other features like it, is fun. I'm sorry you disagree. Re: other stuff, I'd like those too.

The cutaways kind of reinforce my notion that the kerbals on EVA are probably bigger than they are on IVA... hopefully with the visual overhaul in 1.2 we can get the scaling rectified?

My first mun landing was before I knew quicksave/revert were a thing, so I had to make it in a single go. I want to say it was 0.18? Maybe 0.2x? Landing felt surprisingly easy, though, and I nailed my first attempt. Honestly felt a lot like a 3-D version of the old "moon lander" games I used to play on Mac 2e's

I agree with all of your points. However, it took KER a LONG time to get updated to 1.0.5 and I think most advanced players consider dV information to be pretty critical. Yes we can calculate it manually (it's just arithmetic folks, it's really not any more complicated than putting two numbers into a single equation) but it takes up valuable time. A stock version is important so that it updates in a timely manner since you can't fairly expect modders, who are volunteering their time freely, to be 100% on the ball.

It's an inherently not serious topic. Calm down please.

I use it for drills in my self-refueling spaceplanes

If you think you have enough docking ports, add one more.

no need to be so touchy

Install Kerbal Engineer Redux and never worry about it again!

And the craft above has a perfectly fine CoM/CoL distance for all but the most acrobatic usage.

This is completely unnecessary and depending on the fuel tank arrangement can cause irrecoverable instability as the CoM shifts backwards.

Not to be too pedantic but what you mean here is heading/attitude, not angle of attack. Angle of attack is the difference between the angle your noise is pointed at and the angle you are actually traveling. Seems at least a few posters are making that error here so thought I'd chime in.

way too much wing... but that's whatever i'd bet that it's your gears being mounted on your wings causing the wing flex at takeoff to veer you off

Just to chime in here to say we all love the game folks

I hang my head in shame =(

And in a lot of ways I agree. But I hope along with the 1.2 rocketry improvements we get a few more wing connector parts, particularly the BigS varieties. While the "regular" wing parts are well fleshed out and you can make whatever you want with them, the BigS wings only look right with each other (i.e. the strakes and delta) which really limits how you can use them. Further, they have a 3-D contour to them (which makes them look awesome, but...) which makes larger wings built of these parts look not right. @Porkjet, pls help =)

Indeed it depends on the desired performance envelope of the craft. For agile atmo planes I like to do as you suggest, but for hypersonic spaceplanes I prefer to have the CoL above the CoM as I find it adds a good deal of stability, particularly for high altitude, high G maneuvers

Another thing I like to do is angle the wings upwards so that a little rolling won't result in a ground strike

New engine and the appropriate income for such an endeavor?

I agree with your general points but this sticks out at me. If you haven't had performance issues in KSP either you're never in atmo or you're launching tiny rockets with no debris.

That's a nifty idea but only works on symmetrically placed items. I think a better solution in the current paradigm is for the options menu to work through pause

I for one was hoping for some other way to integrate the granular controls/options of the craft... for example if you forget to put mode switch of multiple engines in an action group you have to click every engine separately, causing thrust mismatches.

so.. 1.2 is thargoids confirmed. wait a minute..

How original ;-)