Anquietas314

Good to know it's not a nasty physics bug (or, let's hope...). The navball and camera probably use similar coordinate systems. If you want to get into the maths of it, both probably use the Euler angles system. It's nice for cameras because it makes using the mouse to control it much easier, but it suffers from "gimbal lock" (nothing to do with the ingame one) directly above and directly below the target coordinates ("where the camera is looking at"), which in the case of a planet in KSP is the north and south poles. The camera's a little more complicated mind since you're tracking the plane, but the camera has a "position" in world coordinates, which in the case of surface/orbital camera is relative to the surface of the nearest planet, meaning you need a coordinate system based on angles.

I don't think so, but I suppose anything's possible. I don't know for sure which coordinate system SAS uses, but I would imagine it'd be relative to the ship/plane itself, which means it shouldn't matter where the plane is, what the camera's doing, etc.

There is an issue where the camera and navball freak out over the north (and south) pole, but that usually doesn't affect anything except perhaps making you a little nauseous. I've certainly never experienced an issue where the plane/rocket I was flying suddenly didn't work properly. Maybe post a screenshot of the craft in question (with CoM/CoL/CoT visible)? It's possible the timing was just a coincidence. The camera issue's caused by using a coordinate system that doesn't handle spheres very well; physics uses a different coordinate system.

Does your satellite have solar panels? Batteries do not count.

Trolling is actually against the forum rules, so no . Just to add to Norpo's explanation: if you decline a contract to test, say, an LV-909 landed on Kerbin, quite often you'll get another one to test the same engine in a different situation (such as in orbit over Kerbin). Usually the best paying ones are on a suborbital trajectory over Kerbin and in orbit over Kerbin. The suborbital ones are obviously easier to do though.

It's a little hard to see just how big that station is from the screenshot, but generally speaking high part count = lag. If you can get the same functionality with fewer parts, you should.

Then yeah, probably a backwards compatibility issue On the bright side, you get to use the new gizmos to make your plane even better than it was before!

Old KSC: nope. That should just be removed altogether . Or at least spruce the place up a bit. VAB roof: helicopters/VTOLs? Eh, sure why not; people make those already. island runway: why? it's pretty much right next to KSC, which has a better runway.

LD: That plane is the most stable design I have ever made... and that's with CoM behind CoL for almost the entire duration of the ascent to orbit; the only exception being after it switches to rocket mode for the last phase. Granted in most cases you do want CoM behind CoL; that plane's an exception. It actually becomes much harder to fly during the descent when CoM creeps in front of CoL. Doable, but much harder.

Can you post a screenshot of the contract as it appears in mission control? It might help.

This is a good idea However, forcing you to taxi from the SPH as an alternative is a terrible idea. Some designs simply would not survive the process...

Amahula: the part test contracts are randomly generated. You can very easily get contracts to test the same part in a wide variety of situations, ranging from splashed down at Kerbin to on an escape trajectory out of Minmus and a few others.

Presumably the issues mentioned here.

I realise it's one launch. My point is, you can strap one tank/engine combo to the entire cluster of satellites, with each individual satellite having no engine at all and being decoupled in sequence. You can then use the engine to move the rest into the next position, release, repeat. That'll significantly decrease the launch costs.

Please try the instructions in the last part of this post. It covers part testing contracts and common issues.

You should post a screenshot of the plane. Have you tried creating a new plane from scratch in 0.90? It's possible that it's a backwards compatibility issue, although it should be fine. IntakeAir is behaving normally for me and seemingly most people. No it doesn't.

Just for the record, StageRecovery seems to be a bit generous with the parachute requirements; you typically need fewer parachutes for StageRecovery to reward 100% than you would to land the stage manually.

Ahem, this is proof to the contrary It's only an issue if CoL moves far in front of CoM.

I'm not certain this will work, but you could try deleting the Jool section of your persistence file in the "ProgressTracking" scenario. That is, all of it. In my file, it only lists the bodies I've been to.

The problem is your center of mass is way too far away from your center of lift. It should be in front, but only just.

Then perhaps Dres is not a factor I did make it clear it was an educated guess.

You should post screenshots of what you have so far; it'll make it easier to diagnose your problem. I haven't used Karbonite myself (though I intend to at some point) but check you have power to run the drill and somewhere to put what you mine.

So I accidentally made a plane where you want CoL in front of CoM, at least at launch: That little beauty flies better than anything else I've built, ever (stock aero). Not sure about the RAPIERs though; I might swap them for turbos and use some radial engines. I should probably add that it's designed mainly for launching a bunch of satellites in one launch Also, the way fuel drains, CoM moves forward for the middle tank, and then back to roughly its current position as the rear tank drains. EDIT: The same plane in orbit, after adding a few intakes (turns out it needed 10 structurals per engine):

Couldn't they test the suits in a vacuum chamber or something? Then again... Kerbals...

1) Yep! I did this for my first kerbal rescue mission of 0.90. Works fine, however you can't go back on EVA after you get in the capsule (lol). 2) I'm not sure. I would expect him to be just automatically fired when you land, or you just don't get the contracts. It might work though.