AdmiralTigerclaw

Yeah, I know it's not a perfect 'just download and drop' that you can do with some games, but it should be no more than an 'unpack into the right place' as per instructions.

The rar file is a compression file like zip files. You need a universal unpacker like winrar or winzip.

As in, the whole rar file? You didn't extract it? You didn't open it up to look in it? You didn't read the file labeled so conveniently "ReadMeRightTheHeckNow" ? I want you to read that file. I want you to find, and read, that file - as it says - Right the Heck Now.

I still need to know what your installation looks like. Where did you extract KSR Airports to?

Because saying that an air plane sits on an inclined plane is just plain silly. Also, it's called a TARMAC because old airports were made with what is known as TARMAC, or Tar-Macadams mix/process. While technically erroneous since most places where you have heavy aircraft are going to be utilizing heavy steel-reinforced concrete, it is an acceptable term due to momentum in language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarmacadam We can also call the TARMAC/Ramp an Apron or Flight Line. I really hope you didn't register JUST to try and play term-pedant here. Shortest blitzkrieg ever, if you did. (EDIT: This site actually has a word replace for the shorthand name for the Third Reich? That's just asinine.)

You're going to have to give us a few more details than 'it doesn't work'. 1: In what way does it refuse to work? Like, nothing there at all? Or is it no airports? Do you have extra taxiways at KSC but no KSR Airports? Details are critical. 2: I want you to double check that you are using 'Kerbinside REMASTERED', not 'Kerbinside'. This is relevant. 3: Check version numbers of the relevant mods against KSP. There have been some updates to Kerbal Konstructs that I haven't fully checked against. I need to know the version number of KSP. I need to know the version number of Kerbal Konstructs. I need to know the version number of Kerbinside Remastered, and I need to know the version number of KSR Airports. Not that the last one matters because the only difference there is how many airports it has... But details anyway. 4: I want to know what your install locations look like. Where you placed the installs... HOW you placed the installs. Multiple screenshots would be very good. I note you have all of 8 posts here as of the time I'm responding, which suggests to me you may have completely botched the install from simple lack of experience. But again. Details. Details, details, DETAILS. Overall, KSR Airports should not at any time have any issues that are code related. So long as KK and KSR are working, it should work too. Thus, we need to walk through and go: - Is KK working? Yes/No ? Fix or move on. - Is Kerbinside Remastered Working? Yes/No Fox or move on. - Is KSR Airports Working? Yes/No.

Follow the github link on the first page of this thread and you should get a page like this:

If it's a navigation issue, I apologize because I cannot into GitHub correctly. If you look at the mod 'content list', you may see three version-numbered files sitting in place. Click on the highest numbered file, and it'll take you to a screen where the option to download that individual file is hiding in place. Download from that. If the problem is github not liking you... I don't know what to say. Try a different browser? I noticed IE is dying more and more on websites as it becomes more and more obsolete.

This thread is ancient, but I was searching through for information on angles for gravity turns, and a thought occurs that nobody here ever considered, being focused on efficiencies. Look at the space shuttle again. It's a rocket stack, but what is hanging off the side of that rocket stack? A GLIDER. Not a pod with an L.E.T. A giant, GLIDER. Consider from a crew safety perspective, if you have to abort early in boost phase, you want to be able to separate that glider from the stack without suffering collisions. Tests of the SR-71 blackbird launching the D-21 drone in the sixties showed that launching something from a piggy-back position on an aircraft tends to end in spectacular failure. If you want to escape from a very soon to be very much volatile rocket stack while stuck in a glorified glider, you want access to the best maneuver energy possible. In an unpowered 'aircraft' with only altitude and speed available to it, that would be in the form of some kind of dive. The only option for a dive would be from BELOW the stack. In this case, you roll program and pitch onto your back as soon as you can. That way, as soon as you blow the bolts on abort, not only does gravity pull you away from the stack, the pilot has immediate access to a Split-S maneuver, which will pull the glider down and away from the rocket, and if there's room in the maneuver, a full direction reversal from the stack itself. The stack, with the SRBs still blazing away, continues on to whatever fate awaits. Probably explosive. If you attempt this in a more near vertical state, you stand a higher chance of collision since you don't have gravity to help pull you out of the slipstream of the stack. Remember, as air passes quickly between two large, fast moving objects, its pressure lowers, pulling those objects together. You an see this happen just watching two semi-trucks on the highway fight not to be sucked together. The shuttle and it's booster stack are BIGGER. Thus, it can be surmised that part of the Pitch-over program happening so early is in part to put the shuttle orbiter into position for a quick abort from boost phase. I'm even willing to bet that if the flame from the SRB that killed Challenger had been spotted in time, that accident would been exactly that abort mode.

There's a reason the Bird needs a drag chute on touchdown. It does NOT like being slow.

@Eskandare I've put my work on KSR airports on hold until your next version release with the tower and hangars. I really want to apply those to airports when I can. Also, any word on helipad structures?

Have you tested it along side running FAR? I don't think that was ever clarified. I run 1.2.2, so I can't help you run that test if it's not at least backwards compatible.

That's Kerbal Konstructs working as it should. Keep in mind when you click the button in the SPH called 'Make Selected Runway DEFAULT', That's what Default means. To get KSC back as your default, go into the SPH and bring up the runway selection, find KSC, and select that. Then hit the 'make selection the default' once more. Also: Check over with Kerbal Konstructs, I don't recall the 1.4.X versions of kerbal being very happy with KK.

It's a placeholder for those using Kerbin City. The approach lights are where the KC airport runways sit. I asked about that myself. That's why Cape Hook Global is off to the south. So it doesn't sit on the Kerbin City site. EDIT: It would be responsible of me to mention that I'm sitting on hold here and not doing any more airports for the moment. Eskandare's latest show-offs of tower and hangar models has me wanting to add and modify to existing airports. That means, the more I do now, the more I have to redo later. Those playing the test versions, how are they working out for you?

Yes and No. The issue with the U-2 is that it's a gigantic glider with a jet engine hiding in it. It's designed so that it has a LOT of lift at a low indicated airspeed, so that it can soar really, really high up in thin air. When the Dragon Lady is trending towards an empty tank, and really light, it will descend very slowly unless you want to figure out how to get rid of excess speed. So it just takes a LONG time to come down, and likes to stay flying at really low speeds. Ground Effects on such a design make it REALLY hard to settle. It can fly at speeds as low as 70 knots. For comparison, a Cessna Skyhawk, your typical civil single engine prop you might see fly over your house on a given clear day, takes off around 55 knots, while air liners will take off more around 160 knots. The SR-71's problem is different in that its induced by its shape in ground effect specifically. Delta wings are known for getting extra lift in ground effect. But I think the chines on the Bird also play a part. When they interact with ground-effect, they get a little more lift themselves, torquing the nose up just a bit. Where most aircraft have to flare to smooth out the last few dozen feet of descent into a gentle touchdown, the SR-71 flattens out without the flare to the point that the plane won't settle on the ground. Combined with a small amount of upward push from the chines, the bird likely naturally flares and tries to climb. A little extra forward stick input corrects for the natural flaring, and cuts the lift the aircraft has, allowing it to settle. Usually, on landing, the flare is induced by aft stick movement from the pilot. To not only not need it, but need to reverse it, means a LOT. However, for all this difficulty, the SR-71's doing its landings at a teeth-clenching 200 knots, not 70 knots.