pincushionman

Do you mean it's doing ______________________ _____ / \__/ / ____ __ 00 ___ __ [COLOR="#FF0000"]000ooOO0ooo000[/COLOR] \ 00 __ \______________________/ \_____ ______________________ _____ / \__/ / ____ 00 ___ / [COLOR="#FF0000"]000ooOO0ooo000[/COLOR] \ \ 00 __ \______________________/ \_____Because that's what it should be doing. If not, are you sure they're in front of your CoM? Screenies would be very helpful here.

You neglect the dedication and resilience of KSPers on a mission. "Rediculous" is, in fact, Whackjob's middle name.

I'm actually looking into the moddability of this right now - I'll post in the mod development forum when I've made some progress and put a link in this thread as well. And yeah, I was doing some real-world comparisons and the KSP engines are some ungodly powerful sonabi-…guys.

This. These "thingies" are called flanges, and they make the beam stiff and strong in bending in the "tall" (for lack of a better word) direction. The center part of the cross section (the web) carries shear loads and keeps the flanges separated. They're extremely important, and without them your beam would, at best, crumple like a piece of cardboard under load. And, as stated, they'd cease to be "I"-beams. Okay, now that that structural endineering primer is over, the game doesn't go into that kind of detail in the loads simulation. We're better off with a better choice of panels.

Could be too speedy in the atmosphere too, and switching the LV-T30's for the weaker, heavier LV-T45's may have helped that as well.

Try them on/after a Jool or Eve aerocapture. Then tell us how much ablator you have left.

The good thing about KSP multiplayer development will be that, as there are no "competetive" aspects in the game, they can afford to put zero effort into game balance issues and focus entirely on the technical problems. Of which there are many.

Don't know the history of the problem, but the flag values for physicsignificance are 0=massful, 1=massless

Because the Lego system works well for these things, except for edge and corner cases? Wings are already an edge case, as they often need building in two different dimensions simultaneously, and the connection system draws a blank on that. Plus, we already have a large number of wing parts, in a mish-mash of styles - yet there are still some notable gaps. The number of required Lego pieces to be effective could easily exceed the rest of the parts combined, which would be a damn shame, given that planes are only a small part of the whole Kerbal experience. Wing parts should not dominate the player's (and devs', and testers') attention so.

I could go either way on this one, probably leaning toward procedural. Lego-style fits in with the rest of the build system better, but there needs to be more consistency. Porkjet made some great MK3 models, but they're all complete "well, here's your wing" type stuff. Proc wings are obviously a paradigm shift, but wings are such a specialized part I don't see that as a real problem. We'd need many more pieces to Lego up the shapes some people need to make - and a better way to connect them together. I for one feel rather limited with the current Legos, particularly in the tails department.

Slooooow down, partner. "engine cores" as a solution are still going to add bulky, heavy components. If your problem is your planes aren't big enough to hold the engines, the fix isn't necessarily the engine concept, it's that we don't have good small engine parts. Which I agree with, by the way.

Well, it appears they moved the center of mass of the jets forwards, which makes much of the need for this go away, at least in terms of the initial reason I suggested it. I think I'm going to look into making a proof-of-concept mod along these lines starting next week or so anyway; this may add more flexibility at the cost of complexity. If anyone is interested in being involved in that with me, PM me.

Threads got merged, so there's going to be a little confusion. Check my results on page 5 of this merged thread - I found that while the fairing base is massful, the supposed weight of the panels is never added, but confirmation/refutation by independent tests is a good part of science. In your "no fairing" test, did you have "fairing base but no panels" or "no fairing parts at all"?

In Windows we typically have three buttons (left button, right button, and "middle button" which is usually the scroll wheel click. Does Mac still use single-button mice?

I think "B" is "apply brakes," which get released when you let go. The button on top is toggle. If you try to set action groups, you'll notice there's three different actions available - activate, release, and toggle.

The "not shedding mass" is not the problem (well, not the real problem, anyway). The problem is the mass is never there. Yet you are penalized for it in your launchpad weight. It should either never count, or it should be there.

I am about to demonstrate, by test, that the fairing panels are entirely massless, and their supposed masses are never added to the craft in the first place, except for "launch mass" restrictions. I first created three (nearly) identical probes. The first two, Fairing Test With Fairing and Fairing Test Ejected, mass in the editor at 4.9 tonnes. They look like this: I apologize in advance if you can't read the text in the images. The images are linked to Photobucket, and you can click to load them there and zoom in to the hi-res version. Their counterpart is Fairing Test No Fairing, and is identical except that the fairing panels are not present. the base is still there. Editor mass is 2.5 tonnes. These three craft were HyperEdited into identical 100 km orbits. First, Fairing Test With Fairings (supposed 5t) was pointed prograde and run full-throttle until empty: New apoapsis 3575 km. Next, Fairing Test Ejected...well, ejected the fairings (which should have shed about half its mass) and did the same: New apoapsis 3576 km. This shows that ejecting the fairings does not change the mass of the vessel, but nothing else. Next, Fairing Test No Fairing, which never had the fairing panels added, did the exact same thing: New apoapsis 3534 km. No appreciable difference. The panel weights were never added. Now, as a sanity check, I built a probe that legitimately weighed as much as the editor claims the fairing-ed probes weighs: New apoapsis...um, forgot to check the value. but clearly a whole lot different. Not only are the fairing masses not ejected, they are never added to the mass of the craft except in determining whether you are too heavy to launch. Q.E.D. I suppose we should be posting this as a bug?

Test. Put small ship with fairings attached into 100x100 orbit, fire engines prograde until empty. Measure apoapsis. Quickload to the same initial state. Eject fairings. Repeat test. Apoapsis the same? Mass stays with ship. Otherwise not. But do fairings ever add mass? Same test. Use results to back out delta-V, and from that, back out mass of ship. Equals which value? Base only or base + supposed fairings?

Do the interstage engine shrouds (the ones we've always had) have mass? The engine could be treating them the same way, and it may have been overlooked for that reason. It just makes a real difference now.

The "physicsless parts add mass to ship CoM/parent part CoM" was one of the suggestions in the S&D forum for this update. Which is a good idea; it just shows more attention needed to be given to deciding which parts deserve to be physicsless.

Can you not re-map thise controls BACK to the way they used to be?

Check your key bindings for docking mode. According to the devnotes, it's now an alternate complete set of key bindings.

It doesn't. According to one of the devnotes, "docking mode" is now simply an alternate set of key bindings. I haven't looked at the controls config, but you should be able to map keys to do one thing in normal mode, and a whole 'nother thing in docking mode, but you'll have to go to the trouble of setting the docking mode controls up.

According to the changelog, tourists can't do jack. So you'll need another Kerbal or a probe.

Solar panels can now act as radiators. Not sure how useful that is, but the big ones may be way better at it. I think it will come into play heavily during mining.