Luckfish

That's the same exact model I use. From the first screen in KSP, open the 'Settings' menu, then the 'input' section. Click the button that says 'Staging UI' and the right side of the menu (under 'Axis Bindings') should now have some options. Click on the long grey bar labelled 'Pitch Axis', and then (very carefully) move your joystick forward or back. Now it should be bound to that axis. Do the same for other axis, including setting the little paddle to control the throttle (You're going to love how precise your throttle control is with that, by the way). You may have to come back to invert an axis or adjust the sensitivity or dead band (I find my self lowering the sensitivity and raising the dead zone a little). As for other buttons, you can set them however you wish, using the same method (click a grey bar, then mash the joystick button you want to assign to it). I find value in setting joystick buttons 3 & 4 to RCS and SAS toggle, respectively, and the trigger for temporarily toggling SAS on/off. Some handy functions for buttons down on the base are map-view, stage, abort, brakes, or whatever you find yourself using most frequently.

Yes, that's what I did. In the 'Control' section, click on the parameter you want to assign, and carefully move the hat button in the direction you want it to go. I've also set up one of the buttons near the top hat to toggle RCS on and off, and another button to toggle SAS on/off (SAS isn't too helpful during launches with FAR).

Many have been looking for a guide or tutorial for rocket design when using FAR. The best I found was here: Another good method is to build a craft, save it, and do about 20+ test launches, adjusting one variable at a time and noting your dV to a stable orbit of your choosing, keeping track of what works and what doesn't on a legal pad or something.

A while back I did a few dozen test ascents with FAR trying to learn what works best, and what affects my stability. In addition to everything that's been mentioned, I found that having NO wings or tailfins at all gave me better stability and control. Smaller = better, but the best I found (with the particular rocket I was using) was no control surfaces, only gimballing.

I think it depends heavily on the rocket. I've been running repeated tests, learning what works better in FAR, and was curious when I read that you limit acceleration to 11-13. I tried it with the craft I've been testing, and by limiting ascent acceleration to 12 m/s I used ~600 more dV to get to a 90x90km orbit. I tried several other launches (limited to terminal velocity, which I never came close to) and played with the ascent turn shape. The most efficient for this test rocket was about 25%, which surprised me too.

That was it exactly, thanks NathanKell & Ferram. Since finding and getting rid of the extra copy of MM, I have full control of my control surfaces again. With MechJeb ascent autopilot on, it seems that having no control surfaces (and a reaction wheel in the lower stage) was actually a little more controllable and stable, and produced a lower dV ascent. One other thing I ran across in my testing: If I put the MechJeb part on the cone of the capsule, it raises the Center of Lift quite a bit...slightly higher than the CoM of the ship. If I move it down to the vertical side of the fuel tank just below the command pod, it barely changes the CoL from what the craft would have without the MJ part. It makes intuitive sense that altering the aerodynamic shape of the front surface of the craft would have a greater effect than altering the side, but I was just surprised at how much of a difference it made.

There are four sliders (per winglet, it doesn't matter if I have one or four winglets on the ship) per tweak menu. You're meaning that the second from the top is for flaps/spoilers, or that the bottom two are? Also, when adjusting any of the sliders or toggling on/off the axis, when I go to another winglet and then come back, the settings I had left will randomly change. I've tried right-clicking the other winglet, right-clicking somewhere in the VAB (to close the tweak menu), etc. I've tried with symmetry both on and off. There seems to be no rhyme or reason as to when it reverts.

So I'm trying to assign & tweak control surfaces in the VAB, and either something isn't working right or I don't know what I'm doing. I'm trying to assign the two lateral AV-R8 tail fins to both deflect 10 degrees max for pitch control (upper half of the tweak window) as well as 3 degrees max for roll control (lower half of the tweak window). After I close the tweak window and go back into it it has the pitch max deflection set to 3 degrees. Sometimes it just resets back to 15 degrees. I've tried closing the tweak window by right-clicking somewhere else in the VAB, as well as right-clicking on the opposite tailfin. I've tried tweaking with symmetry both on and off. Am I not understanding the tweak window or how to manipulate it? Are the tweaks (or their effect) different when using FAR? If there's some tutorial on tweaking control surfaces out there I would appreciate a link.

Thanks, I'll re-post over there...

So I'm trying to assign & tweak control surfaces in the VAB, and either something isn't working right or I don't know what I'm doing. I'm trying to assign the two lateral AV-R8 tail fins to both deflect 10 degrees max for pitch control (upper half of the tweak window) as well as 3 degrees max for roll control (lower half of the tweak window). After I close the tweak window and go back into it it has the pitch max deflection set to 3 degrees. Sometimes it just resets back to 15 degrees. I've tried closing the tweak window by right-clicking somewhere else in the VAB, as well as right-clicking on the opposite tailfin. I've tried tweaking with symmetry both on and off. Am I not understanding the tweak window or how to manipulate it? I understand that KSP is still in alpha, but if there's some tutorial on tweaking control surfaces out there I would appreciate a link.

I homebrew too, although it's been altogether too long. I've got the ingredients to brew a five gallon batch of pumpkin spice porter, and am thinking of doing so on my next few days off. I mostly enjoy black lagers, stouts, and the occasional IPA.

I've been watching this thread with interest, and so far I'm liking yours the best. Great contrast, not a lot of clutter, easily readable numbers, and most importantly the directional pips (I have them all with Enhanced NavBall) will stand out well against both colors. Now if only someone whipped up a clearer analog logrithmic altimeter or vertical rate of change gauge...

I'm not too big on the 'extra parts' type of mods, but I like the few that add a new dimension and throw in a couple of parts that are needed for the mod. SCANsat and Kethane are two I like. CactEye will let you build a Hubble type of telescope. If you're looking to make things a bit more challenging, mods like Ferram Aerospace Research and Deadly Re-entry will almost force you to re-learn how to fly in a more realistic atmosphere. There are some neat mods that will allow you to do all-IVA missions too, like RasterPropMonitor. Some people are purists, and some want to tweak any and everything in the game. I figure the only way to really evaluate a mod is to try it. I don't consider any mod to be totally essential, but it's usually fairly easy to try them out, and ditch the ones you're not a fan of.

You can also attach monopropellant tanks in both lower and upper stages, and right-click to disable the upper stage tanks, effectively saving that fuel for later in the mission.

Well, "cheating" as in nerfing down the difficulty so much as to remove the challenge I enjoy. I don't fault anyone for playing however they wish, but I wouldn't enjoy it near as much without FAR & DRE. The modability of KSP is truly awesome, it allows people to tweak it to just the game they want.

Thanks for replying, Claw and Rhomphaia. After thinking a bit and reading your posts, I think I'll be setting the lateral fins to only control pitch, and the ventral/dorsal ones to only control yaw. If my rocket is fairly large, I might give each one a minor amount of deflection control in the roll category also, to assist SAS and any off-axis engine gimballing. It makes sense that the roll axis would be touchy when flying a rocket through an atmosphere, because there isn't much in the way of atmospheric negative feedback to dampen the inputs like what pitch and yaw would feel. The only thing really counteracting roll would be inertia. With FAR I would tend to get some pilot-induced oscillations (especially in the roll axis) during ascent, whether I flew manual or used MJ. Since FAR thins out the atmosphere to something reasonable (as well as fixes the silly simulation of drag) I can understand how the control surface response would need to be adjusted. My first few flights with FAR didn't go so well until I figured this out. I actually uninstalled FAR for a short bit, but it made everything seem way too easy, and the drag equation and fake gravity turn kept bothering me. I've decided to put my space exploration on hold until I get pretty sharp at designing and flying in the FAR atmospheric model. I had been pretty intimidated by both FAR and Deadly Re-entry at first, mainly due to hearing about other people's frustrations and problems and seeing a few YouTube videos, but going without them now would feel a bit like cheating. I think one of the biggest draws KSP had for me was both the realism (compared to other space games) and the steep learning curve. I know it's not for everyone, but I love it.

I've recently begun running several test flights in order to determine how to improve the controllability of my rockets. I'm running with FAR, DR, KIDS, and a few other mods. I'm using the same craft over and over, aiming for the same circular orbit, and and seeing how stable the ascent is and how much dV I have left over when I hit said orbit. With each flight I'm adjusting a different parameter. I'm using the ascent guidance autopilot in MechJeb only to try and improve the repeatability of subsequent tests by taking out pilot error (since I bought a joystick I enjoy flying my rockets a lot more than letting MJ do it, but I like the info that many MJ modules give me). Some of the parameters I've been adjusting have been launching with and without FAR's Dynamic Control Adjust, having MJ limit ascent acceleration to various numbers, adjusting the ascent profile, having precise controls turned on, etc. One of my variables has been tweaking is the maximum deflection range of my tailfin control surfaces. In the VAB, right-clicking on one of the AV-8R's brings up the window to adjust a couple of parameters on the winglet, but I'm a little unsure about what the difference is on some of the tweakables. It appears I can toggle on/off the ability of the winglet to respond to pitch/yaw/roll commands, and adjust the amount of maximum deflection each gives. 1) The fact that there's two sections for each surface means that I can assign it to have a certain range of motion for pitch as well as yaw (for example)? 2) Also, I would imagine that pitch and yaw are more important to rocket ascent, so should I disable roll control altogether for all four winglets? Would engine gimballing and SAS be the only roll control I (or MJ) would have, and would that be enough? 3) One variable I haven't tried messing with yet is the variables (k and d, if I remember correctly) FAR has for the control limiters (accessable after you leave the VAB). I'm thinking that these are more akin to a type of 'gain' that gets factored into control inputs (whether made by me or MJ). Are these only active when the their corresponding FAR limiter is toggled? Should I be messing with these at all? 4) I'm sure I'm not the first person who has been down this path, so any advice on which variables I would be better adjusting, and which I should leave alone would be appreciated. Again, I'm only letting MJ get me to orbit for the repeatability of these tests. I've read that MJ doesn't do well with FAR installed, but I've gotten some pretty stable (albeit sluggishly controlled) ascents during some of my trials.

I'm not sure if this has been asked in the thread yet, but it's up to 24 pages, and the search function is less than stellar on the Forums. I'm a huge fan of FF, and am currently running v1.3.6. I saw that there was several updates, but I don't want to reset all of my current Kerbal's ribbons by updating. Does updating reset them, or is there some file in there I can save and re-insert into the updated FF which will keep the current ribbon assignments?

I'm using the Generic Mode Enabler (v2.6.0.157) to install/uninstall mods, it seems pretty good about merging the the Mod's GameData folder with the KSP GameData. Should I have put the parts in another (not KSP GameData) folder, as well as the ships? When I ran KSP after installing CactEye (and KAS, Hull Camera, Action Group Manager) KSP told me that the few flights in progress couldn't be rendered because all the required parts were not found. Both (un-Kerbed probes) ships just disappeared, and the VAB had no parts whatsoever in it. I shut down KSP, uninstalled CactEye, and then had to go re-research every single (previously unlocked) part in the tech tree. I knew CactEye was a WIP (heck, so is KSP for that matter) so I didn't get all aggro, but after reading on this thread it seems that other people have been having luck with this mod, so I figured that it was most likely something I had done wrong.

I'm thinking that I'm being an idiot in how I'm installing the mod, but when I tried to it made all parts (stock too) disappear...

I have the same concern. I had tried out the Mission Controller Extended mod, liking the sound of it at first. I soon found myself constantly sweating the budget, and after a couple of reverts back to the VAB while ironing out the bugs on a new ship design and an aborted mission (Jeb's pod parachuted safely), I was quickly out of money. I know it brings more realism to the game, and I should probably switch to Sandbox mode if I want to play around un-fettered by budgets, but I definitely like having certain constraints (i.e, tech tree) that Career poses. Perhaps having an option to turn on/off budgets in Career, or possibly having a steadily funded public budget over time (perhaps rising and falling over time like NASA's), augmented by missions by private companies wanting Telecom satellites and mineral (Kethane, perhaps) outposts on other bodies.

I'm having trouble downloading it....I click the link, it opens your Google Drive account, but when I right-click anything and try to save it can only save it as a webpage...

Thank you so much for the video Traches... Since installing FAR I had been having serious troubles in design/launch, and had been hoping there was a primer on the internet somewhere. I think it would probably help quite a few people if a link to your video was in the original FAR post, and in the Spaceport.

a) I'd have to hear more details. If it was a pre-fab colony with a bit of creature comforts, and other humans (either there or travelling with me) I'd probably go for it. If it instead meant signing up to be a camping hermit with nothing more than algae stew to look forward to, probably not. Probably, if the cryo technology were fairly reliable, and I could take diversions the keep me occupied even if the destination turned out to be a dud. c) Most likely not, unless it were the literal End of the Road for the rest of us on Earth. Barring that situation, I don't think I could/should make that decision for them. It brings up an another interesting point however... If I were a colonist aboard a one-way ship out to the stars, I wouldn't have any moral compunctions about procreating. My offspring wouldn't have had a choice in the matter, but somehow it would be different.

I developed a bit of personal code for my naming convention. An example: Erasmus 3aO.II "Erasmus" because it starts with "E", and it was the fifth mission I've launched. I increment them up alphabetically like they name hurricanes. "3a" meaning it's intended target is the first moon around the third body from Kerbol, i.e. the Mun. "O" meaning it's intended mission is just to orbit. "L" means lander, "B" means base, "X" means space station. "II" means it's the second craft I've sent for this particular mission to this body. I keep a log of all of my missions on a Google Spreadsheet, that way I can refer back to see how much deltaV I budgeted for (and spent), how many Science! points I earned, the launch date, vehicle mass, etc. I also save copies of all of my ships, and this way I can tell from the name what it was used for, as well as how early in my KSP career I launched it.