Hotel26

(Everything always dies.) Not my doing. And not my choice. I'd prefer there be no kidnapping, murder, corruption and deception, but I don't go around killing indiscriminately to prevent it... (I leave that to the authorities.) Philosophy is great only to make people think, I suppose. In the scenario, there are three choices, but one wasn't listed in the poll.

"Sandbox Aerospace was the only mode available until career mode was introduced in version 0.22." "functions more as a pure exploration" "The Science game mode is one of the three modes available in Kerbal Space Program. It is an intermediate choice between "freestyle" Sandbox Aerospace mode, and the heavily resource dependent Career mode." I've stopped using the S-word. Try assuming for the moment the term was just a misnomer and that the original game was "Aerospace" (spirit and intention). "In exchange for total freedom, sandbox Aerospace will not deliver rewards, register progress, or acknowledge certain things the player does in general, such as collecting science from research modules." Even then, since the term aerospace encompasses a lot of ground (on planet Earth), one should reach a common comprehension on that original "spirit and intention" in KSP of the creators. Note that the Kerbolar system resembles a cleverly-graded series of puzzles in Orbital Mechanics (and Aerodynamics) and the original implementation seemed fairly clearly directed at that focus, and succeeded largely because that focus kept things simple, elegant (and provided a modular base for later expansion for a wider audience): allowing the most degrees of freedom (flexibility).

Quite true. But in the face of giant evil, very often the only reasonable action is to state the evil and refuse to play. It's also necessary in my view to target the perpetrators, not innocent bystanders. In this scenario, no personal nuclear suicide vest (with a palm-held orange button) is mentioned, or else I'd happily press it.

Neither. (Why? "Do no evil". Besides, I don't trust these guys.)

I, as someone with an apparently significantly "different" view to most expressed in this and its companion thread, have to say that SunlitZelkova's response (cited above) is the one I have found notable for its cogency, informativeness and comprehension. Kudos, therefore, to SunlitZelkova. "Dux."

That is very impressive, Sir Aziz!! Sincerely, congratulations.

I revisited Reykjavik Is (70S 170E) recently and thought: "I should deploy a Vitesse here". One thing lead to another and Samsted Kerman attempted a max speed run in the single-engine Wheesley machine...

FWIW, I just responded to one of your posts elsewhere and almost added a "Welcome to the Forum" until I saw your number of posts... It's also true that some truly new members -- have actually been playing KSP for years and have as much experience/expertise as many, many others here... So: please feel certain, "it is respected"! I will just say then, "hello",

Hover over the bottom right "personnel view" and then move to the radio button at the left end and see "Interior Overlay" and then check that button...

I have to say, Bravo, sir. Semantics can be insidious.

We do strongly disagree. What about? My Aerospace bicycle metaphor. I believe that is what you responded to. Am I mistaken? Where do I claim that you advocate dumping Sandbox mode or that I read you to say that? I can see how you inferred that conclusion because I was, in a latter draft, striving for brevity and ran on to a larger point. A new paragraph (after "we strongly disagree") or a ruler (like below) might have helped perhaps. (Nevertheless, friend, extend me the courtesy of refraining from inserting words in my mouth, please.) But if you and I, Master39, who value Sandbox mode, cannot agree on what the core of KSP 1 is, then my claim made, that PD (owner of the franchise?) should exercise extreme caution in diverging unnecessarily makes sense. Does it not? That very much applies to the whole sense & gist of this topic, which is the way I made the comment, too (re-iterating with the LEGO analogy). Pthigivri said, and I quote: "Very few complete, good games Ive ever played include a sandbox mode. Instead they make the game good and just dump you in, rules and all." This was a hypothesis with very clear caveats (fun, controversial, opinion), but his initial premise was, frankly, ridiculous given that KSP 1, which he plays full well, is an immediate exception to his rule. He baked in the contentious conclusion. He has since (laudably) retracted it. I likened this to a gear-up landing. (The saying in the flying community is, "there are two kinds of pilots (regarding gear-up landings): those who have and those who will"). And you said: "KSP is just one in a long list of fantastic Sims that are terrible at being games." Who says? Subjective. Disagree. "People have been playing Go for centuries. Is it a worthy game?"

Backgrounder: Today, the first launch by the independent Terkestan Space Agency (TSA) -- a Titan 2 fuel tanker, now secured in a 60-degree inclined orbit at an altitude of 80 km: We, at Mission Control in Olympia, are looking forward to seeing some new scenery from space!! Still to be decided but the next series of launches is likely to be to place a KISS Space Station into a 90-km altitude orbit.

I've read everything that has been posted in this topic quite carefully. (I did say "removed or denigrated" and I was addressing my remarks to everyone. [snip] I did understand the spirit in which you posted this (from the get-go), so have no concern there. (How you thought it was going to be fun, is simply the case of the experienced pilot who lands gear-up one fine day: simple mistake and everybody does it sooner or later, so no bad. ("Three greens, Pthigrivi!")) (And making the Lego cartoon was a lot of fun, as bad as my drawing hand is. I was laughing the whole time.)

The initial premise is flawed. If people want hard-core, fetch-quest modes (off topic, I would say), debate it but leave Sandbox off the table. In particular, do not suggest Sandbox players wear a placard, "I play Sandbox. I am a cheater" and don't use that word ("cheat") unless you really intend to denigrate the core players of the game. By the way, "Orbital mechanics is a core discipline within space-mission design and control.", i.e. it is a set of rules.

Not if you make a Career out of buying the parts...

"KSP is just one in a long list of fantastic Sims that are terrible at being games."

Well, speaking from the point of view of KSP 1, it could be viewed literally as a "total inversion of mission" imposed by interlopers. Strong disagree, KSP is just one in a long list of fantastic Sims that are terrible at being games. Well said! Dealing in opinions, we strongly disagree. And all that that means -- to the owners of the franchise -- is that both views should be catered for: remove or denigrate one (particularly the original!) with caution. Recall that the venerable Creators of the game have stated publicly that KSP was intended to be a game, not a sim. That was only their fun opinion, of course... Just a reminder, then, about our heritage: [click + arrows => slideshow]

Taking my cue from the OP (whom I much admire): my fun opinion, and no doubt controversial, is that KSP is the brilliant, imaginative, quirky, innovative game it is because it is an Aerospace bicycle. (The conventional gaming industry term is "Sandbox" game but I prefer the description "Imagination" game.) There's a reason why the two trainer wheels ("Geology" a.k.a. Science and "Economics" a.k.a. Career) were bolted onto the rear axle later, seemingly as an afterthought -- and are naturally deemed underdeveloped (being miniature and not touching the ground; which would, after all, defeat the sense & intent of being a bicycle). They're there as guides to those learning to ride the bicycle who need the additional assistance. I just hope that Science or Career (or something like them) are retained in KSP2 so that it continues to cater for the widest audience.

I have no opinion about KSP2. I play KSP exclusively in Sandbox mode. If KSP2 doesn't have Sandbox mode, it won't matter because I'll just keep playing KSP. The only 3 games I have ever heavily invested time and expertise in are MS Flight Simulator, Minecraft and KSP.

[first] SPACE NEWS GAZETTE [prev] As you will recall from a week ago, KSC High Command had decided to dispatch a satellite photo shoot over a remote location. Due to technical difficulties in making a high inclination launch as well, as overcast weather in the target area, the photos had only just been made available. The Top Brass had once again assembled in the Mission Control board room. Here's what they saw:

tl;dr I think the AoA at max altitude and speed, whatever it is, is the "best" you can do for that machine, for that altitude & speed. So if you change the wing incidence, you will still need the same AoA to fly at the same latitude and speed. But what you will have done is adjusted the nose (at the other end of the wing incidence angle!) such that you make it match prograde. This could have a big effect on parasitic body drag (rather than wing efficiency) and put you into a new ball game: less drag at that altitude/speed means -- more speed; more altitude. One will also note that fuel flow of certain engines changes remarkably at certain high altitudes with only slight differences in altitude. So climbing 200 meters higher can make a whopping difference to ultimate range.

We can understand that some people are allergic to mods (the way I am allergic to, oh, Real Life, ), I guess. Precise Editor really beats the mouse for intricate work, though, doesn't it? I found @Lt_Duckweed's view expressed above both surprising and interesting! Thank you. In my next post here, I'll make some elementary comments about determining max range, certainly nothing new for the experts, but hopefully of value to those like me, who have been toiling now for some years, learning things the hard way (only to find out "everybody" already knows that!). I really do invite anyone with anything to share on the whole, fascinating topic, loosely "aerodynamic optimizations", to speak forth!

Well, this has to be acknowledged. There are a lot of simpler ways to get high! (Just about anything is simpler.) So let's state the baseline: "take-off and climb, and keep climbing until she won't climb any more, and when you get to there, that's your maximum altitude." That's the simplest way I know of. So I'll spill the beans on another technique I've heard of. "Fly East on SAS Orbital." This may not work initially for some planes (I'm not an expert on why not), so you may have to do the initial climb yourself and then switch to this. (I kinda think @TheFlyingKermanmight have been onto something like this...?) It works, I think, because of the following: If the airplane at the circle (Origin) on the left is flying one of the blue lines (easterly) in the atmosphere, this corresponds to the SAS Sfc direction. The difference between Sfc (atmospheric reference) and Orbital, is that Orbital adds the easterly spin of Kerbin (175 m/s?) horizontally to your velocity vector. If you allow SAS to fly your airplane aiming for the SAS ORB prograde, you'll notice that: in the case that you are climbing, ORB will tend to aim lower, and in the case that you are descending, ORB will tend to pull you higher. As a result, SAS ORB in control has a moderating influence providing a neg feedback loop to permit the airplane to balance its surplus energy to its climb rate. This will asymptotically climb to the point where there is no longer any surplus energy, and therefore the aircraft will no longer (sustainably) climb higher. Once it takes over (properly), this method is automatic and hands-off. While it only works in a precisely easterly direction, it does yield your theoretical maximum, which is what you are trying to improve in the design/testing process. (It being automatic (over and over again) is a boon to getting though numerous cycles without tedium.) Once you finish designing your aircraft, you will now have to fly the climb manually when on any other course.

Yes!! I've heard of this method. Let me riddle you this in two parts: in which direction do you conduct the test? can you explain why it works? Bonus question: are there any special things you have to do in design to make your planes "obey" this trajectory? (As I know that many of mine do not...!) Thanks for chiming in! P.S. I read this a bit hastily but notice now you don't mention what mode you have SAS in. Are you using SAS or hand-flying this? If SAS, which mode?

It's not often (never) that I quote so-called "real life" in regard to KSP, but in case it soothes: heavy, long-distance wide-bodies very typically climb to an initial cruising altitude and then request higher once some of the fuel load has been expended. (Nothing at all like a two-stage rocket but that's my metaphor for today.) in the very early days (before the prevalence of ATC), cargo pilots cruised in a continuous but slight climb instead of using the modern "step-ladder". I imagine their primary control reference was to never decrease airspeed while maintaining some small, positive climb rate. re: your Hidden Contents: exquisite entomology!