Captain Vlad

Completely agree; I feel my eye twitch anyone starts to talk about nerfing, or even more foolishly, removing them. There are limits to how 'realistic' this game needs to be before certain designs start to be an exercise in frustration and tedium to make, and I feel taking out the high-power turbos is one of them. If the aero revisions make a lesser-powered version have less of a negative impact, cool. If they don't, then reducing their effectiveness is an idea that needs discarded.

Ahhh, gotcha. Didn't think of that. On most other flight games I play I'm more worried about my speed relative to the guy trying to kill me.

Building a bird for this. Got a question, though; if, say, your navball indicates 2,304 surface mps, but the overview screen says 2,299...what causes that discrepancy?

The pirate chick on EVE that can-flipped me the last time I subscribed didn't seem too big on hiding. I miss her. - - - Updated - - - I gotta disagree with part of this point; If there were like, giant whales in Laythe's ocean you could follow around and study, or something in that vein, I don't see that as going against the whole 'spirit of discovery' thing KSP has as part of it's appeal. I do see what you mean, but I think there's often ways to fit such things into games that might seem at odds with the concept in such a way that it adds to the overall experience.

I discovered this when I checked a long-since launched (I don't do multi-day time skips much...) Duna probe like, two days ago and initially thought it was a bug. Thus ended my first-ever interplanetary mission. Buuuuuutttt...I did get a 400,000 meter fly by and some cool screenies as my probe shot by at many km per second, so it's all good.

I'd go for all this, actually. Especially option #1. Cuz I'm a white male who's more creative than scientific.

I was out of time warp, but thanks. I do that a lot too, along with not realizing I'd left a rover's brakes on. I knew the Stayputnik had lost its torque. Didn't know about the Okto2. The probe had been on its way to Duna before .90 dropped, and I was just now nearing the encounter when I went to check on it. So false alarm as far as a game technical problem is concerned. Sorry about that. Periapsis was 412 K. So it was at least close enough for some cool screenshots.

Oh God. You're not going to start ranting about fixed-wing prejudice are you? Jet fighters have rights too!

There should be an option for 'I'm not, but I know some who do'. I personally know two females who indulge, and I'm not exactly Mr. Social Media.

The Okto that doesn't have any torque, apparently. Did that change in the most recent patch? I never had any trouble steering the thing before; it was sluggish, but it'd turn.

Switched to a long dormant probe tonight as it's nearing it's destination and found I couldn't induce it to, well, move. At first I thought it was battery drain and I could just wait for the gigantors to fill the battery back up, but the battery was full. Could do everything else on the probe...retract the panels, use the science instruments, fire up the ion drive, etc, but not even a twitch when I tried to steer it, though the indicators on the lower left did react to inputs. Any thoughts on how to fix this?

It's a game for anyone who enjoys it. And a damn good one, I might add.

I play KSP because it combines a space semi-simulator with building options so impressive that very few people's craft really end up looking alike with an utterly freeform sandbox-game experience that relies on the player to decide what his or her big goals are and what to do/where to go next. It is, wrinkles aside, one of the best games I've ever played for PC, and my first game was 'Police Quest' somewhere in the early 1990s.

Yep. If my case is typical, it's a 5:1 ratio, too. Most people know better than to get on webforums where they can start arguing about crap.

Big landing gear and wings to go with it? Excellent. I can use a giant wing on a small spaceplane to sate my tailless delta impulses. Kerbelles? Also excellent. Pleased with pretty much everything announced for 1.0.

Decided to see how a turbojet version of the Super Sparrow would fare. The answer is 'drastic improvement': Best time, 4:05 for Stock Open, race 1. Probably my most dead-center landing yet. Didn't quite manage it as fast as the other one, though. Went to a much higher altitude to take advantage of the turbojet there and back. Never hit Mach 2, but got about 1.5-1.7. This shot was right before I did my full power dive. One thing I figured out this time was that it's best to shed as much speed as possible in the air to compensate for the plane's fairly light weight. Full stop at 4:05.

On the other hand, F1 has years where the cars have to be fueled to the finish, etc. My first thought when you posted about the fuel was actually 'an arbitrary fuel requirement actually sounds very FIA!'. My thoughts are that, for the F1 Stock version, everyone should be flying the same plane in the same condition -- whether that's fully fueled or at some percentage set before the challenge. It's the spec series, like A1 Grand Prix was, while the 'Open' is more like Ferrari building their own car within certain parameters.

Did another run. Assuming the grass next to the dirt at the island airfield counts, reduced time to 4:34 via the 'don't actually slow for the wheel contact' method, while also climbing more on the run in. The touch and go at 251 mps. Hit 350 or so in the return dive before the low altitude air started to really slow me down. And landed, 4:34. Not bad for one engine, I don't think.

Crazy Awesome.

There's a couple more. Though some pilots seem to have runs with both a chute and non-chute version of the same plane. Vincent and CaptainSierra both had some chute birds.

Stock open class. I feel the time will only be decent if the parachute/no parachute thing is split (and maybe not then), but either way it was a hell of a lot of fun. Craft is the JA-2 Super Sparrow, it's my 'randomly fly around for fun' jet. Overall time 4:48; no parachutes, one standard jet engine. Spawned in and (almost) ready to roll. This plane takes off almost as soon as the jet's making full power...like 60-80 mps, so I didn't have to roll down the runway for long. Started turning as soon as the wheels were off the ground and barely missed the top of the VAB as I accelerated out, which I sadly did not get a screenshot of. Instead, here's the plane climbing up to about...erm...I'm not sure. I got her up to 2-3,000 meters during the outgoing leg, not sure about the exact altitude. Did the outward leg as fast as I could, but I feel I could've got a better time if I'd let her climb a bit more. The 311 mps you're seeing her was right before I basically just dove for the ocean and pulled up a few meters of around the same level as the island runway...which I'm always uncertain of because I always forget to put markers flags out there. I'm not 100 percent sure this shows the actual wheel contact because I bounced slightly, then came back down to the ground and kept rolling at 161 mps. You can see this was Annie's absolute favorite part of the trip. On the way back I'm convinced I made better time because in the haste to turn around, I climbed a bit higher and hit a speed sufficient to start to see the visual Mach effects. Even descending to 2,000 meters or so was enough to slow me by 20-30 mps, which I wasn't really complaining about at the time because the runway landing was the part I was having trouble with in my practice runs. I cut the engine to shed speed as I had my final suicide dive toward the runway. Landed fine, but braking from landing at 100 mps or so took forever...consider me a proponent of a parachute and non-parachute class. That was a terrible amount of fun, Wanderfound. Great challenge idea.

Welcome to the forums!

Please leave it in place. I'll probably link both badges to my sig, too.

All right. Rules misunderstandings and lack of docking ports resolved, and it's time for another flight in the Torpedo. First up, in the hangar, I eliminated the second portion of girder and replaced it, per suggestion, with struts. I actually never have issues with clipping cargo on ascent, but better safe than sorry. Also added a docking port so the cargo can be released once I reach orbit and turned the fuel feed off. If you're wondering why I use the girders, you can see the batteries and monoprop tanks in the forward part of the bay...wide objects have been known to get stuck on release. I can move them around, of course, but actually prefer weighty cargoes to be right in the center of the bay, if possible. And we're off! In the last attempt you saw how steep she can climb right off the runway. So in this flight, I decided to show Kelcott's reaction to that climb angle instead. He's...one of my more panic-prone pilots. Orbit was reached and actually did it a little better this time...noticeably more fuel left compared to the first attempt, probably do to some slight changes in flight profile. In the end, 4.5 tons to 150,000 meter orbit. So I've now shown she can not only accomplish the feat, but repeat it. Yeah, yeah, I know; other people do that with big orange tanks. Away goes the cargo. I had a frowning moment when I decoupled the fuel tank and it didn't move, since I used to have rage-inducing issues with accidentally-clipped docking ports. This time I just had to...shake the plane around a little. On another plane I made for a friend's daughter, the landing lights are teal, so the RO-1 is a little boring in this respect. And she's down, minus her payload and with considerably more fuel left than on the other flight. The reentry burn took a lot less, thanks to the drop in mass. So, she took off, flew to and 150K orbit, offloaded her payload and returned to the KSC runway.

This kept happening to me and it nearly drove me insane. I've now developed the habit of decoupling my payloads on the runway just to make sure it works, then reverting to launch, even though visually I've learned to tell the different between clipped and non-clipped docking ports.