rodion_herrera

Based on what I've read on this thread, most of the negativity about the new aero/atmo system comes from people who have had existing spaceplanes and spaceplane designs before v1.0 (and using said craft in their own "missions" that they have grown to enjoy) and now are unable to replicate methods they did with older versions of KSP. As you can plainly see from the successful examples given so far, most of these are from people who simply made something new in 1.0, tried it and with a little trial and error, made it to orbit (and even back down again).

People forget that Squad INTENDED the Mun to be gravitationally stronger than most airless worlds in the Kerbol system, simply to let people realize the value of Munar Orbit Rendezvous (MOR) and how the real-life counterpart, LOR, was the reason why the Apollo program worked. If you go to the Mun using a CSM+LM type of configuration, your lander would be so light, that the issue of the Mun being gravitationally strong would be almost nil.

I don't know what you guys are saying, but I have used the airbrakes as rudder by attaching two them oriented horizontally, and slaving them to my stick's rudder axis. Thus, they work independently with brakes and each brake can move individually. I'll show photos here in a bit. EDIT: I think I know why they don't work as toggles. Squad automatically binds them as a control surface too, as I've mentioned.

Doing a lot of tests with speed, altitude and thermal checking parts, using my KB-70 hypersonic testbed. Familiar shape? Note that red = cool, orange = warm, yellow-orange = hot, yellow-white = really hot Cool down phase. The 30k meter apoapsis, which I now refer to as "the platform" Still cooling down.. Have cooled down enough, now headed back to KSC Forgot to pack chutes/drogues but still a good landing. First testing phase a success....slowly building up my matrix/table for spaceplane ascent guide. I love these debug test color markers...it's almost like doing real flight testing and evaluation--it's a career thing in itself!

I added the dihedral and yeah, it flies even sweeter now, which means the new aero really has some realistic aspects to it.

The technical term for that angle is called the dihedral. But yes, I forgot to add the dihedral to my Korton, so thanks for the reminder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihedral_(aeronautics)

Currently developing my Korton Ko-229H "Flying Wing" inspired by the Horten Ho-226 Tends to slideslip a lot due to the fact that there is very little rudder input (hidden/clipped vert stab). Most of the yaw command comes from horizontally installed airbrakes that act as the rudder. Parachute test, used when landing in uneven terrain. After four hours of designing and tweaking it, takes off well, flies well, climbs well, pretty stable, and above all, lands well. I might make a spaceplane or rocket-assisted space version of it.

What Rune described is basically how spaceplanes work in Orbiter Space Flight Simulator. Considering that Harvester and some of the Devs are orbiter users, I'm not surprised.. ...The XR Fleet in this add on package behave almost exactly as Rune describes... http://www.alteaaerospace.com/ ...also DanSteph's DeltaGlider... http://orbiter.dansteph.com/forum/index.php?page=download Again I believe that Harv and the devs patterned the new aerodynamics and ceilings for air-breathing or RAMjet characteristics on these Orbiter craft. Like it served as a template. Granted, Kerbin's atmosphere is different or "scaled down" compared to Earth's but the "feel" of the ascent is mimicked quite well. Anyone else here have experience with these Orbiter craft? I wish to know your opinion if the new KSP aerodynamics let the aircraft/spaceplanes behave similarly to the Orbiter spaceplanes, specifically the XR series and the DeltaGlider Mark IV.

To those struggling with making new ascent profiles for their spaceplanes, I realized why I found it easy to reach LKO with any decent spaceplane I create--it's because I used to fly these spaceplanes in Orbiter Space Flight Simulator... The XR Fleet http://www.alteaaerospace.com/ DanSteph's DeltaGlider http://orbiter.dansteph.com/forum/index.php?page=download The reason I mention this is, well, Harvester and some of the devs are in fact, Orbiter users, and I believe that perhaps he and the devs patterned the new aerodynamics and ceilings for air-breathing or RAMjet characteristics on these Orbiter craft. Like it served as a template. Granted, Kerbin's atmosphere is different or "scaled down" compared to Earth's but the "feel" of the ascent is mimicked quite well. But I need a second opinion. Anyone else here have experience with these Orbiter craft? I wish to know your opinion if the new KSP aerodynamics let the aircraft/spaceplanes behave similarly to the Orbiter spaceplanes, specifically the XR series and the DeltaGlider Mark IV.

There was one "flying wing" featured in the v1.0 teaser trailer, but I only managed to make one a few hours ago, using the new large wings. But for my build, I wanted to be sure it was visually similar to the Horten Ho-226. I call my creation the Korton Ko-229H Tends to slideslip a lot due to the fact that there is very little rudder input (hidden/clipped vert stab). Most of the yaw command comes from horizontally installed airbrakes that act as the rudder. Parachute test, used when landing in uneven terrain. After four hours of designing and tweaking it, takes off well, flies well, climbs well, pretty stable, and above all, lands well. I might make a spaceplane or rocket-assisted space version of it. It's able to reach speeds of over 300 m/s but didn't try speeds above that yet. Max alt is of course the usual current flameout altitudes for jets, and the recovery is easy due to the large airbrakes acting as rudder.

You only do S-turns when there IS significant air in the Kerbin atmosphere. Any surface having lift properties (wings of course, and even capsules because lifting bodies are now supported) have to "bite" into air or whatever gas is in an atmosphere, to cause them to affect vector. When there's nothing to bite into, you won't be turning.

To perform an S-turn, you don't only need to bank--you have to pull on the stick while in that bank--it is this pitching (albeit sideways) that should cause the change in the vector.

Ehem...

As if they are permanent, when there are sliders all over the place (or one could tweak/edit the CFG files) for a more forgiving aero and heating. Pulling everything down will give them the old behavior of KSP, so it wouldn't be hard for them...it will properly be a "noob" mode.

Last time I checked, SpaceX was providing service for NASA and other US government services (i.e. Air Force etc.). I wonder how'd they fare financially if they "worked for themselves" instead of silly agencies like NASA?

Because you're assuming that the engine is a heat shield, when it is not--KSP 1.0 will treat it as if that engine is NOT there, and since you elected NOT to put shields on, then the obvious will occur. This attitude is very similar compared to those complaining about "clipped" or "slipped-in" components not being shielded by the part they slipped/clipped into, when the obvious fact is that they are still radially attached outside of the fuselage, so technically they are exposed to the airstream, which means they will heat up.

Two words. Drogue chutes...probably the most-ignored utility part in KSP.

Just like the Shuttle does. Unfortunately, with the current heating system, nothing will protect some parts of your craft from blowing up, even if your craft re-enters in this realistic orientation, unless you activate air brakes. I still lobby for that tile system...a tile system and 40-degree pitch up (and without having to rely on the current air brakes) is gonna looks sweet AND realistic.

What I'd propose is a simple "tile" ablative system for cockpits and payload bays, and also for spaceplane-specific fuel tanks. These will just appear as "texture swaps" (i.e. showing tile textures on the lower surface of spaceplanes and or wing sections) if you select them as your part in a spaceplane you're constructing. By choosing this variant of that part, your spaceplane will have more overall weight, yet the part will be more robust on re-entry, provided that you correctly orient your craft. If this gets implemented, I'll be a happy man, and won't rely much on "airbrake cheating" anymore.

The SR-71 attained a max altitude of about 25,000 meters, at a speed of about 950 m/s. I STILL wouldn't expect that an SR-71 would go orbital if a pair of SRB's or rockets were strapped onto it, if only for the external temperature build up, considering there's still around 80,000 meters to go til "space". I always wished that KSP's aero would conform to this, and it has, and so I'm quite happy about that. So I don't really know what you're complaining about.

It's clear to see, based on current poll results, that most people bought it when it first came out on Steam (which is also the time period I got it).

Then why post a thread with such a general over-arching statement? Your thread then, should be entitled "No more SSTO's for guys like me who don't like rockets" or something like that, not a general statement containing remarks that almost claim that using RAPIERs are lame.

I beg to differ. So far I've built four winged-SSTOs and they all reached LKO and I was also able to land all back in KSC. Here is what I noticed about my builds--ironically it gets easier with larger and larger spaceplanes. Which basically means, for a larger design, I can squeeze in a payload bay, and thus making it useful for station building. I will post a video soon, but one of my SSTO successes are already posted in another thread that talks about SSTOs. Here is one successful design: http://imgur.com/a/Koq3a

Since 1.0 got released, I've tried... 1) Spaceplane SSTO (three different designs, all worked, got back to KSC with fuel to spare). 2) To the Mun and back, Apollo-style stack So now I'm trying a realistic Space Shuttle, with a ET, four SRBs and a three-engine, 2-OMS Shuttle (pictured below)...just finished the aerodynamic tests... so the next tests will involve fuel balancing during ascent (asymmetric thrusting and fuel redistribution for maintaining CoG).

I always thought that visibly clipping a radially attached item was more of an aesthetics thing anyways, rather than trying to make something look streamlined (and thus misleading you to think it's being occluded), so I never assumed that clipping would reduce drag. It does look streamlined when "tucked in", but the root phantom part is still radially attached and thus will be marked as "an item that will produce drag".