lammatt

O... didnt realize the limitation comes from the 32bit data entries. but rethinking after reading your answer,...of cos it works that way, what was i thinkimg,...>.< thanks bro.

since 0.23.5 they made a kerbal day = 6hour (as it supposes to be, i had no idea they made it 24hr before.) is the max number of years still 58? or is it 58x4= 233?

enough lifting surface wheels not too far from center of gravity have enough fuel in the rocket stage (~1.5km/s at least)

what do you mean 0.24 is out? i dont see any download in my steam

Mun Flyby or Minmus land-and-return or High Above Sun and return these three are the next thing you may want to do, they are a little bit harder than going into low orbit, but not by far. Landing on Mun is considerably harder than Minmus if you havent master rocket powered landing yet.

i dont think my question is about which is more realistic (either people these dont read the question before answering, or i am terrible at asking question; eitherway, it's pretty sad indeed...) they are both GAMES imo, i dont care THAT MUCH about how realistic they are i was saying KSP is pretty bad when it comes to braking the wheels

conversely i think the landing gears are OP...(if you strut them so that they dont bend) the brakes are the bad guys tho. they dont care about the horizontal speed as long as you dont touchdown with a sink rate higher than ~6m/s) but yes, if you dont strut them to the wings/hull, they tend to bend and crash the plane when the speed is high

if you realize you planes are VERY SMALL indeed. (and in your pics, you dont even play with FAR... you can have whatever AoA and still wont stall anyways, i dont think those are good showoff material honestly.) one sweep wing is like 3m long only. come back with a 300t empty (570t liftoff) plane and tell me if it's easy. (as compare to an A380) C130 is 300t empty 700t liftoff max, 40m wingspan, ====================== people, you cant compare flying a 1m hull diameter, ~10m long, ~10m wingspan, <5t plane-let to a C130...even if they look alike. in junior high school, we teach kids a concept called "fair test" in science class which basically means when you want to compare two things, you basically have only 1 degree of freedom every time.. (i'm a science teacher irl)

now you can try to build a 80m wingspan 300t plane in KSP and tell me if it's easy to land in KSP? 80m 300t is about the same as an A380 with zero fuel and zero cargo/passenger. you'll probably have very good gliding ability in KSP with that long wingspan, but i am fairly sure even if you touchdown very gently, you are still prone to flipping/rolling over when you apply the brakes in KSP. ================================= people... flying is never hard in KSP, because the thrust of your engines and the B9 control surfaces are very very strong. (even the stock ones... cos you can add as many of them as you please...anyways) it's the landing and braking on the runway. you can flip so easily when you brake, and the island runway is just too short for landing anything >70-100m/s airspeed.

is there anyone going to agree with me that landing a plane on a runway in KSP is indeed a lot harder than doing so in FSX when it's good weather? (i'm playing with an x52 and i cant comment on X-Plane 10 or Prepar3d cos i dont have those) [edit]: it's pretty funny how people talk about how "realistic" which is and which isnt... but... i dont think my question is about that, they are both GAMES. how realistic they are isnt the biggest concern here. and the fact is, they both arent remotely realistic anyways. how "realistic " can it be anyway? on a 24" monitor (or a crappy oculus)? with your R9 quadruple crossfire or Titan quadruple sli? lol... what i am trying to say is... landing plane in KSP is harder; agree?

your thrust doesnt line up with your center of mass.

i am currently setting twist = yaw x-axis = roll. and one of the hats as the x/y-axis for RCS translation; the big dial on the throttle as RCS foreward/backward but this setting feels a little bit odd when it's a rocket, twisting to turn doesnt feel right... any insight how to set the stick?

i am using an X52 - is there a way to set my stick so that when i change from mode 1 to 2, my rudder axis and my x-axis swap? - why cant button30 (button I) be assigned?

because many of the people are here since 2+ years ago... i mean... if someone's still hasnt visited every planet playing the game for so long, he is pretty bad at playing video games.

Go to any geostationary transfer orbit. let it run for a few periods until your ship is at your apogee which now lines up with KSC, burn prograde until T=6 hr 00 min 00s

FAR wont break your rockets. (and stock aerodynamic is kind of lame when it comes to plane, you can basically do maneuvers as if you are playing HAWX or HAWX2... you'll just have to put a tail fin or two to make sure your rocket wont flip during the ascend. and i think your way of crew compartment with wings is actually pretty much like what space shuttles do... they dont fire their RS-25 during the descend anyways, they glide themselves back the kennedy space center runway.

you gonna burn yourself up regardless it's a plane or a capsule if your descend is too steep anyways. and you dont open your chute anywhere higher than ~10km anyways (in which altitude your speed wont be any higher than mach 2, chutes dont get torn at that speed) (please... dont say deadly reentry and FAR make the game harder, i have no clue why people keep saying that, it's just... NOT TRUE. all it does is making the game different. and being different is not the same as being harder)

i thought default value is 0,2 instead.

both are unpowered landing, (RCS doesnt count) but 1. one is ~3min of intensive gameplay while the other is open-the-chute-and-come-back-a-couple-mins-later; 2. you can basically land on the KSC runway with a shuttle easily (if you dont mess up your initial deorbit burn too much and your plane glides well enough) with the plane while you have not much say on the exact landing spot for you capsule (of cos you can practice-makes-perfect and land reasonably precisely) which do you prefer as your vehicle for manned missions if it's not going too far away which you can afford the relatively massive hull of a plane? (i like shuttles... because it's easier to fail with it; you know, failing is fun in this game.)

no pic....

i am just curious... why?.. ?.? (i want to make space shuttles with it)

phenom2 955 4G DDR3 1333 600G X2 7200rpm on RAID0 HD7850

because a day is a rotation, a year is a revolution. i thought this was common sense, perhaps i am wrong though.

biomes on Mun are easy to distinguish... every big crater is a unique biome, plus there are canyons/poles/midland/lowland/highland/polar highland Minmus is a little bit tricky tho...

1. find some mods you havent tried. 2. install 3. play