Knaapie

Is this going to be one of those "find Waldo" topics ? Where the answers have been given a long time ago, yet ppl cant find it and keep discussing? (am I going for formulate everything as a question today?)

Because we need more product placement and commercials in our western lives ? I do like funny game orientated meme's though.. they (and smileys) are usually created by community artists, not by Squad. And I doubt Facebook would want to litter their smiley group by every game known to men.

Do you think this is the case for new players or just for you ?

Hmm I somewhat see how a wind tunnel can be used for a future science overhaul, just like engine testing was suggested some time ago. A wind tunnel could potentially unlock aerodynamic surfaces. An added option in the late game would be to see drag forces on entire crafts... How is drag even calculated in this game? does anyone know ?

@The_Rocketeer I mean the latter and have to agree with the drag part.. We don't seem to have information on how drag influences the momentum around the center of mass. tnx men

The thing I forgot and don't understand anymore is how aerodynamics are changing at different air densities and speeds. My seemingly "stable craft" do still tend to only be stable below 10km when the margins are small (CoL close to CoM). I've also seen slight differences at Eve / Duna some time ago.. Or was that a design flaw? Hmm.. I do potentially see how "tests" could give ppl more info of their plane is stable on Eve or on Duna.. This might also be explained by giving more info somewhere.. Or my margins were just too small ^^

easy, elegant, perfect

If they can do it in the hangar, they can do it in flight ! Basically, one would need to think about if it would fit in the game: Finding the center of mass for simple planes irl is done by weighing the aircraft on the ground (in the SPH). One would need a computer to then estimate the CoM in flight. Which doesnt sound very Kerbally to me. Yet it would be ok for the debug menu.. It would make the game more user friendly. Ppl would be able to see why their craft isnt stable, removing the main frustration of not knowing why you crash. Yet it can be worked around: A possible solution what I apply, is to empty all the tanks in the SPH and see if the craft is still flyable with engines running on fumes.

And there we agree again ^^.. Wind tunnels are used to gather data and visualize them.. I don't see the need for a data finding process in KSP when you can just visualize them in the hangars and in flight with software tweaks or mods (FAR). I would like some more info in the stock game without over complicating it for new players. As for really being able to make clear statements on how to do it, I'd like to install FAR again and see how they do it.

this can go to mach 4.5.. More importantly: this a reentry vehicle being tested in a wind tunnel. ESA's IXV.. The thing you tried to explain as being impossible.

Cheers bro thank Reynold

how fast is too fast depends on atmospheric density. you need a wind tunnel where you can change this as well. Or do a test flight. edit: aerodynamic stability will become more apparent when drag forces are included in the VAB and SPH, to solve your top draggy rockets.. @The_Rocketeer and yeah, you're right I should have written this in my first post here ^ sorry m8

Hmm.. I'll start thinking about this a bit more thoroughly later. My first impression about this topic is: "cool but a bit complicated solution for our wishes". for instance: This can be done by only having a drag force option in the SPH (like the lift). (flight direction is towards the hangar door so you can change the angle of attack with respect to the flying direction to see how the drag behaves) This kinda depends on the shifting center of mass while your fuel is being used. The wind tunnel wont save you Imo the main problem is: All the lift forces in the SPH are gathered in a center of lift. Which usually is fine, but it's not the best to perfect your craft.. An option to switch this, to lift forces for all individual lifting surfaces, would allow you to "align" them, reducing drag. We tend to miss a total lift coefficient (mentiond ingame as a lifting surface area) or a total drag coefficient for all parts. For perfection as mentioned above in this post, drag should change when changing the angle of attack compared to the direction of flight (the direction where the SPH doors are) These changes would effectively make your SPH a near complete wind tunnel. With the exception of the aircraft's dynamic stability, and control ability. Both will change during flight with shifting weights and height. I'd still test those with the engines on in flight and not over complicate things. pce

This is my suggestion.. because: aesthetics

Hehe, build in punishment for save scummers

Lol.. And for this topic is was thinking: "Is this person already helped by any random forum user who knows their quick keys" YAY

I only see 3 main reasons here: the possible rewards don't seem to be sufficient to go there. (there is nothing to do on other bodies, kinda like irl ) players restrict themselves with preferred play styles or the time they like to spend on a game. It seems to be the first learning curve small jump, which cannot be overcome by trial and error. For the first time in the game, you need to know what you are doing. Ow and perhaps the docking, yet this isn't mandatory to go to other planets. I personally don't understand most of the motivations behind most posts, because I was totally fascinated and hooked after being lost in space. How do we overcome this challenge and save my Kerbalnauts. I quickly did my research and found out you can go interplanetary without http://ksp.olex.biz . Just first leave Kerbin SOI and go from there. It just uses a bit more dV and time, but is not too hard, since you can drag maneuver nodes to get your intercept, Just like finding your Minmus transfer. The psychological barrier to take this risk seems to be pretty high. Imo the only thing the game can do is to motivate ppl to explore. Make the bodies more rewarding to visit. And have Gene or Wernher pop up a few days before any transfer window (ofc with the option to shut him up ) I should give credits to the one who had already proposed this, but I can't seem to find the post, sorry.

Download KER, use it NOW !

Imo all of this can be considered "art", especially when arguments are made using words like:" nostalgic" "personality" and "character". I find it art, since I completely fail at seeing its purpose other than form. I am simply able to turn my craft. without melting my computer, nor letting it feel like a tiring long circle. When this base is made stock, someone else would want to change it again, give one runway an inclination or have a vtol launchpad. I would normally oppose these no fun more realism ideas. I'd rather have devs working on a actual improvement. Yet, since the topic keeps popping up, I might do some sharing this time: In order to create more fun while allowing art and enabling realism fans, I might go for a change to enable everybody to create their own KSC, build it to your likings! Start with a nice slap of grassland and build the buildings wherever you want them to be, spending currency to build them. You want an extra or longer runway? Sure, slap on some concrete, paint, elevation and inclinations. Why not make this a fun, creative feature for everyone? Build Kennedy or your next door airport. Let a strip decent into water for your Ekranoplan, or do something else

Your list is like the universe. ^^ It makes ones opinion feel so small in the grand picture devs are dealing with. I'd expect them to explore their new engine, partially due to @basic.syntax And partially because that seems like the most logical next step after insanely hard work to incorporate unity 5. Tbh, I'm quite happy how the game is progressing (apart from some sad stories from players who are bugged by crashes and performance drops). Mine on the other hand have increased drastically (yay for 64bit). I guess I'd prioritize general sensory quality together with surface features at this stage, making way for a career update later on: science / missions / building tier / biome mapping. Can I select 2? ^

I think he's referring to his previous post about complicated builds where you have multiple engine types on action groups to turn on and off at specific maneuvers, which use the same fuel tanks. This mainly happens with ssto's and multiple landers that reconnect to the main craft. I've had problems with LV-N engines paired with ION engines when activated at the same time (some time ago though). KER still does work though. You sometimes need to change stages in the VAB or SPH in order to see the effects. And then it depends on how empty a liquid fuel tank is in space, for how much dV you're actually getting from your ION engines in interplanetary transfers. This where you need to guesstimate, KER can't predict when your less efficient engine is being used and when your high efficient engine is activated..

I can understand the frustration of not understanding different playing styles. The career mode is one big laugh. Anyone could complete it without a dV readout at 20% science bonus. I also stand by my point that the dV readout is a must after 50h of playing.. Did you even read my post ? Or just freaked out after I had mentioned NASA ? I returned from Eve without ever using a mod (no dV reading) by using Kerbin as reference (half it's grav. pull). If your craft can take off from Kerbin, straight up, prograde towards the Sun's orbit at 50% thrust and leave the solar system, you can lift off from Eve. (obviously useing high ISP engines at high atmo pressure). The same type of tests can be done for other bodies while building your craft and testing near Kerbin. This has been fun for me and insanely rewarding when it works out. I can understand why ppl would need a tool or calculations in order to achieve the same results (I have enjoyed slapping on rockets and achieving the impossible, because I am your "I don't need no dV readout elitist"). If that angers you, it is your problem. Tools do help to reduce the number of tedious refuel missions and failed guesstimations, which I applaud after playing a lot. It is also more fun than using spreadsheets. Imo TWR is even more important for new players, so add both, to supplement all playing styles. I believe I've already agreed to adding this to the game.... Which makes me say: I'm tired of NASA and realism fanboys who have one egocentric perspective. I'm "pretending" to play the game ? I'm out :/

Hahaha.. is it in the contracts ??? made me fall of my chair ^^ Another problem solved, lol, tnx guys

@StahnAileron Slight offence is alright, to not let ppl feel too much offended when they actually are. (I should make that my signature) I would absolutely completely contradict that the current information revolution is making people less smart, without even feeling the need elaborate it. Just the fact that people around the world are enriching me with multiple ideas based on their culture and experiences is nothing less than amazing! I can see US / Canada rivalry first hand ^ Can see where ppl tend think power resides to make something official. The thing I find interesting from your comment is the feeling that ppl try to shove opinions down our and devs throahts. This comment seems to be more general than specific for this topic alone, yet the only way to adres it, is to comment about it!!! nice! tbh (adding slight offence): I like the topics in this section to improve the game substantially. i.e. Mechanically, playability, conceptually, balance improvements.. Not this crap... Yet, we dont care too much. If this makes ppl happy alright.. Lets agree, call it Kerbol, have some fun here and think about the bigger picture. pce

Democracy is biased, deal with it ^^..