pincushionman

The hardest thing about learning to EVA is the rotation controls. There's some kind of weird click+drag scheme that's the default on PC, but it's always baffled me. You may not have a similar option on console, unless it's a hold-button-plus-stick kind of thing. What I have found to work, though, is if I re-orient the camera pointing the way I want the Kerbal to face, pressing the "jump" key (space on PC) prompts him/her to rotate to that orientation. You may want to see if that works for you, too. (I'l have to check on this tonight, though; there may have been some kind of auto-rotate-to-default-on-thrust option I disabled in the settings as well. Will report back)

Did everybody miss the part of the discussion where @Rocket In My Pocket said they already do this in fine control mode?

While this is true, it doesn't mean that a user should rule out quirks in his own design being a problem, or that tweaks to it couldn't minimize the effects of the bug. Buggy or not, the behavior wheels has explicitly changed, so it is reasonsble to assume that some designs will not work over the transition, while others port just fine. The posters above, who make plane with no issues, have offered to inspect the design of a buggy plane. Their findings could be "It works fine for me," which means it's all bug and an interaction between Unity and the particular system (worst case), "It breaks a little, but if you do this it goes away," or "this design is terrible, do this instead." Until we see, we don't know which. EDIT: And for all of you insisting you can fly drive whith no real problems, can you link to one of yours for him to try? That could be helpful too.

In-game settings menu has a GUI scale option.

*sniff sniff* I smell an opportunity to be a KILLER APP

Agree with the others here, and thanks for the picture. As @Snark said, if that center engine is a Reliant, you're pretty screwed for turning. I'd expect that to launch you high enough where the air is thin and fins are no longer effective, so a Swivel is called for. If it is a Swivel…you're still kinda screwed for turning, since as @kBob noted, you have four un-steerable Hammers going right off the pad. Your Swivel won't help until you stage it. You need steerable fins for the stage right off the pad. As he also said, it's harder to turn the faster you're going, especially if your ship is flexible (read: more smaller tanks). Four Hammers will get you going very fast, very quickly, and it may be too late for a good turn by the time you stage them off. I've never needed more than two Hammers on a ship of (roughly) that size, even when I'm flying badly (and I do, often). Three, tops.

Is this a limitation of KSP, or a limitation of Unity? I noticed that I have to leave the fight if I want to re-map controls in Sky Rogue, which is also a Unity game. I'll have to look tonight to see if Cities:Skylines suffers from this, too.

Is it because you have no controllable fins and no gimbal on your engines? And your ship is so large your wimpy reaction wheel can't do anything? I've said it before (and others already have), and I'll say it again: Pictures man, pictures! We can't diagnose a problem we can't see.

As noted in many other posts, this was absolutely necessary. The wheel implementations used under Unity 4 are no longer suppoerted under U5, and everything had to be re-written to accomodate them. They can not be reverted. 1.2 is slated to include another Unity minor update which should help with new wheel middleware. You can argue some about some of the strength and stiffness choices, though. The fishtailing/turn-on-takeoff-roll is actually the result of a symmetry stiffness bug.

Don't use the LY01 gear. At least until the wheel middleware gets updated.

Just like how pushing the crosswalk light again will initiate the walk cycle faster! …this is quickly becoming a general discussion topic isn't it?

The "close" button is "Keep Experiment." Yes, very confusing. The science management system needs a better interface.

I would not have a problem with KW-style fairings… EXCEPT. We do not have the tools to properly collapse probes so they can fit into said fairings. Sure, solar panels, radiators, and antennas deploy, but nothing else. Wheels are a particular problem in this regard.

Should be a keypress for it, you're right. Do they still stay up when you mouseclick them in 1.1?

Someone mentioned rovers. Bad idea, very bad. You think wheels have problems now? Wait until you regularly get them into a large-displacement condition.

He should not be having energy problems unless he's [trying to] turning excessively while he's not under thrust, because the alternators on the engines will keep up. But you have to be thrusting through most of the atmosphere, so lower TWR and a loger burn helps immensely.

There is a fine line between "exploit" and "bug." Infinite EVA reserves and warp-to-stop-rotation are fine to keep in my opinion. Untraceable phantom thrust that continuously affects your trajectory and prevents you from timewarping does nobody any good unless you go so far out of your way to exploit it that you can't claim to be playing the same game. Physics-bug fixes = good.

Okay, after some earlier posts I thought you were having issues that weren't the standard "why does this flip out" ones. But after seeing the pictures, I would say you are very much having the same rocket-flipping-out problems that everybody, including all of us other posters here, have had. Your rocket is very short, and as others have said, your control wings are located at best very near the center of mass, so they have very little lever arm to work with and won't provide much moment even when they're working right. Your second stage needs to be longer and the fins need to be about as far back as you can put them. Also, are those Reliants? If so, you have no real control authority. As noted above, the fins are too close to the center of mass to do anything, and the reaction wheels are not nearly strong enough to correct even the slightest aerodynamically-induced flipout. The only other effective source of control is a gimballed engine, like a Swivel. Once you get high enough the fins won't be effective, so you need the gimbal for that regime anyway. In addition...you have brought way too much boom to this party. The fifth picture shows you going 415 m/s at roughly 5 km, the densest part of the atmosphere. Keep in mind Mach 1 is at around 340 m/s; those white effects you see indicate Mach effects and shock drag. Once you get Mach effects, drag becomes much more pronounced and that whole draggy-bits-in-front stuff becomes way more important. In the old drag model, high TWR was the name of the game to get out of the souposphere quickly, but in the new one anything above TWR of 1.5 is asking for trouble. If I'm not mistaken, this kind of TWR will get you into Mach territory in the 12-15 km range where the atmosphere is much thinner. Once you get above about 33 km you're pretty much in space and you can turn with impunity, but by that point you should be going very fast already with a large horizontal component to your velocity. What I would suggest is 1) remove two of those side boosters 2) lengthen the second stage by adding fuel to make up for the dV you take out by removing those boosters 3) move those fins way way back, possibly onto the boosters instead of the second stage 4) switch the second stage motor (if not all of them) to a Swivel. If it makes you feel any better, going way back to your original post: this was not a problem with not understanding how the controls work - you understood perfectly well. It's just that aerodynamics is grabbing your rocket and shaking it like a dog with a slobbery rope toy, and your rocket currently has no ability to overcome those forces. But like I said, we've all been through that, and you will too. I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

Pictures, man, pictures! You say it's not your rocket, but I don't think that's definitely the case. Craft control behavior can be pretty sensitive to some of the most minor things. For instance, you might think these two rockets are identical: ...but they're not. The left one behaves very nicely, yawing over smoothly during my commanded gravity turn. The right one? Not so much. As I apply yaw for my turn, at a certain speed it causes a distinct roll that throws off my mojo and makes it hard to hit my target orbital plane (usually equatorial). This doesn't happen with any of the other tail fins I've tried, but I'm not sure if it's a bug in that particular part or a quirk of having much area but little control surface. But it's a bear to deal with when my actual rocket needs exactly two Hammer boosters on the side to get to orbit (and can't go above the fins). Soooo...don't rule out a quirk of your rocket design. Pictures! Do you have more control than just the reaction wheel you mentioned? Do you have steerable fins? Do you have engine gimbal? Is there anything hanging off the side? Which way are you trying to turn? What speed are you going when you have that problem? Is your rocket big or small? Any of these details are important to diagnosing your issue.

Remember: one-third full of water is the magic ratio.

I don't see it working so well. The article mentions the success of intermodal freight containers (IFCs), which they hope to emulate. With a system that is not apparently compatible with existing IFC infrastructure. You don't just need airplane that can handle it - you also need trains and trucks that can be part of the same system. But most of all, you need to have a situation where an entire airplane's contents need to go from the same point A to the same point B, all at the same time. Which is not gonna happen. Certainly not for passengers. And any cargo that is both time-sensitive and bulky enough that it must fly as an entire airplane's only cargo is worth the handling costs of getting it off a normal airplane. Honestly, you're better of trying to design a plane that accepts existing IFC units down its length, and the fact that nobody's yet done that is pretty telling.

76. Posting a bug in the FAR thread without giving @ferram4 explicit reproduction steps. 76a. …or confirming on a FAR-only install. 76b. …or having installed via CKAN. 76c. …or without having read the last ten pages of the thread. 76d. …or without I should stop nowGIVE THE MAN WHAT HE ASKED FOR HE'S NOT PSYCHIC

Well, we're still getting an art pass soon, right? …@Porkjet?

16. Talking about other forum users without having the good manners to notify thim with the "@" tag.

It shouldn't be so much an "option" as its own tab in the "open" dialog box. | VAB | SPH | Stock VAB | Stock SPH | or somesuch.