Columbia

Made a V-1 with the rail. A test flight got it to 12,000m. Pff, it's a Silbervogel.

Yes, through Insurance.

A380's up! Now for the baggage carrier.

I wish they'd put some side-by-side comparisons with Orbiter 2010 to give an impression of how much it's changed. It looks like a massive improvement though. I used Orbiter 2010 myself, then after getting addicted with KSP, I booted it up again years later then found myself having forgotten how to space.

Sorry for being late with the response. The B777, MD-11, B737, B707 and B757 are downloadable right now. Be wary of the B777 and MD-11 though -- They have wing structural weaknesses. The A380's on its way, I constructed a new wing for it, concentrating on proper dimensions (Woo!) I just need to fix it up, it's a little wobbly. Should be up in a few hours. The baggage loader? I never intended that to be used for actual purposes because of its part count, but I'll get to it today.

On the contrary, the Fw 190 is nowhere near a low-altitude fighter. The 109, on the other hand, well, it can Boom and Zoom but that's not exaclty what it's for -- It's for energy fighting. (Still don't know how it works, but..) Also, the Friedrich variants are a godsend when it comes to climb rate in the 109. I'm also terrible at BnZ, and the tutorials in Youtube don't help at all. The P-40 in my experience is rather underperforming right now, and I haven't flown the Corsiars. The American planes are, really, really, really horrid at turnfighting. The Brits are good for all-around fighting (Spitfire) but not all of them are -- The Hurricanes have a different playstyle, I heard. If you really want to pursue dogfighting, the Japanese planes are superior, but prepare to be hit by paper armor, marginal armament and high repair costs.

Try placing your landing gears farther out. What speed are you landing at?

That depends on your playstyle. Do you go interplanetary frequently? I often invest like 1-2% of my time in flying things, and 99% is building. There are instances where flying something takes way longer than building it though.

That buzzsaw sounds absolutely gorgeous. That anhedral looks insanely low though. Also, I would sincerely love this mod to be put in stock-- The jet engines sound like whistles right now.

Good point. They are under no obligation to follow their fanbase's desires. And assuming you've read the suggestions for so long as to be able to see what players want, you might have also seen that Squad's thinking about it, while presenting the argument that Delta-V calculators could ruin the "Trial and Error" feel of the game. I don't agree with that, but that's their stand, is it not? Listening to their fanbase doesn't mean implementing every single suggestion they want. And your reasoning is that "no proper interplanetary tools in stock" = "not listening to fanbase". A great argument, that would be!

My title says all.

There's been 1.0.1 until 1.0.5, 1.1.1 until 1.1.3. If Squad doesn't suceed fixing the most prominent bugs, at least they try.

It's in the hope that some others who feel the same way as him read it. Hence, "for many others."

The reason forum rules are here and why moderators lock threads and delete posts is to avoid any further flamewars or anything that might cause mass violation of forum rules. Which, in turn, are there to prevent users from attacking others and causing heat. Also, I'll stress my point again for many others: You have a full right to be disappointed and request a refund, but take your pitchfork-tossing and rioting somewhere else.

Corporate greed? It's called being a business. Also, Squad's working on it. Can you not wait a little bit? Or give them a chance to redeem their game's current reputation?

The scenario you mentioned sure as hell resonates with this thread. If anything, it makes the problem clearer than how the main post words it. And I don't know with you, but I don't see anything civil or legitimate about ranting in a forum without any clear explanation of the problems of the console version.

Because the OP and numerous others use it to justify going beyond the boundaries of the forum rules (apparently to "get their money's worth").

Not here. If you post in this forum, you are entitled to abide the rules set by administrators and moderators. Being infractioned for not doing so is perfectly reasonable.

These are the types of posts that make General Discussion look like such a toxic place. 1. This is their forum, not a YouTube comment section. Free speech does not equal to being able to throw insults and pitchforks at a company. 2. If you want Squad's developers to look at your complaints seriously, post a damn bug report instead of accusing Squad of rushing the game. ("Unfinished" and "rushed"? What do you think they'll get from that? Hmm?)

You do know stock fairings do have more customizability over Procedural fairings. You can make shapes using stock fairings that you can't in other mods. I can argue that that aspect makes stock superior in terms of how "limited" you are. Also, about 1. Stock fairings can or can not explode. 2. Care to elaborate about that? 3. I'll give you that. 4. Care to elaborate? Stock is pretty lenient on fairing limits, if you're talking about creative potential. 5. I agree 100% with that. 6. It can be argued that it is easier for a player to figure out that, for a fairing to be built, he has to click multiple times, rather than knowing how to install eggshell/conical fairings.. Or it can be the other way around. 9 and 10 are practically the same, might have wanted that to be put in one point instead? I do have a passionate hatred for some aspects of the stock fairings, but I'd pick it over Procedural any day.

I think he meant via symmetry. It's so, so irritating when the fairing problems are just rubbed into my face during those times. Who thought of adding a yellow band to the texture? It looks like trash. I like the fairings for their customizability, but come on. Also, I really think they could use a "Smoothing" option for the fairings. They look like they were shaped from MSPaint's Line Tool. Preach, brother. They had, just HAD to make it larger than it's supposed diameter, which goes in the way when you want to hide it. And even then, it looks like it was straight out of a construction site! I do not want that base visible in my rockets, yet there's little I can do to make it disappear from view.

This. this, this, this. I could have a proper dedicated space station by now if I didn't get too lazy to continue.

..I've never seen so many likes on a single photo.

Yep! I'm not exactly sure how I'd do the "ring" part of the ring antenna though. In my experience, when an aircraft simply doesn't take off despite an appropriately placed CoL, chances are it doesn't have enough lift/wing area. (Think of it like trying to lift an airliner with a pair of canards only.) If you're willing to get cheaty unconventional, clip a few wing boards in the fuselage, placed and angled appropriately.

That's too hard. At least make it something like "get a bag of snacks". Water is.. bland.