is this ksp or flight simulator? More landing struts needed!

[hobbez]

Only 3 landing struts to 5 landing gears. I was really hoping for at least another size up in the leg department...sure there's work-arounds using girders as extensions, but it be nice to have a dedicated big landing strut, at least for aesthetics.

That's all.

[Hobbes Novakoff]

I suppose the cause may be that Squad is currently working with Porkjet, who specializes in plane parts.

[regex]

Pro-tip: Use wheeled landing gear as landing struts. Problem solved, plus free rover.

[lucusloc]

Wheels have more jobs to do than struts. Just look at all the rover wheels. Landing legs are simple, and while there is room for a larger set, that could be said of most of the stock parts. The plans get shorted with engine size more than the rockets do, for example (I really want a 2.5m turbojet). I you want bigger parts look to mods.

[Hobbes Novakoff]

Wheels have more jobs to do than struts. Just look at all the rover wheels. Landing legs are simple, and while there is room for a larger set, that could be said of most of the stock parts. The plans get shorted with engine size more than the rockets do, for example (I really want a 2.5m turbojet). I you want bigger parts look to mods.

I agree. With a lander, you generally have a cylindrical base either 0.625, 1.25, or 2.5 meters in diameter. Not much differentiation needed. However, with a plane, you can have several different types of fuselage, different engine arrangements (e. g. under-wing, like an airliner, or flush in the back, like a fighter jet), often several different fuselage bodies, plus you might be going for different aesthetics (like old-style biplanes, or something like a Cessna). You can see why you need to have different wheels. Same with rover wheels, and that's exacerbated by the fact that rovers are usually irregularly shaped.

[hobbez]

You guys realize you're talking about a space game and not a plane flying simulator, right? I too find the plane building and flying aspects fun, but they're more like sidequests to what this game should be really about: rocketry and space exploration. I've been playing this game since 0.13 (yes, 0.13), and the fact that there's starting to be more plane parts than ship parts is worry-some. Between that and the "realistic but unrealistic" aerodynamics, this game is turning more and more into kerbal flight simulator. Did Squad forget what this game is about?

[Volix]

I too find the plane building and flying aspects fun, but they're more like sidequests to what this game should be really about: rocketry and space exploration.

I agree this game has its focus on space exploration, but why does it have to solely rely on rocketry? My campaign currently has a tier 2 R&D, and not even all those nodes unlocked, and I already have a plane that can go to the Mun and back. Personally I find building (space)planes to be more fun than building rockets. There was a time when I couldn't do without B9 because plane parts were fairly lacking, and I'm happy to see that I can now play this game the way I want to with stock parts.

That's not to say rocketry should be abandoned by any means. I still build plenty of rockets and enjoy flying them. Going forward, I hope to see additions to both aspects of the game (including longer landing struts for VTOL). I see the recent focus on planes simply being a result of the game starting with rocketry, making it necessary for planes to play catch up. After all, in 0.90 we had 3 landing struts, but just 1 landing gear.

[problemecium]

I have a hunch that the next patch or two will include a few more parts to fill in the new gaps introduced in 1.0, e.g. bigger landing legs.

[Red Iron Crown]

Spaceplanes have taken over KSP. Not kidding.

I remember reading that Squad's internal data indicates that only a small percentage of players ever go interplanetary. IMO, this was an indication that the tools for planning interplanetary missions in stock are inadequate; going interplanetary is hard in stock with no external tools for the average non-physicist player. It seems instead that this was interpreted as "players aren't interested in interplanetary" so we get update after update full of plane parts, biomes around KSC, Kerbin exploration contracts, and a new aero model (the last isn't so bad, though). KSP is more Kerbin SoI Program now.

[Frybert]

Spaceplanes have taken over KSP. Not kidding.

I remember reading that Squad's internal data indicates that only a small percentage of players ever go interplanetary. IMO, this was an indication that the tools for planning interplanetary missions in stock are inadequate; going interplanetary is hard in stock with no external tools for the average non-physicist player. It seems instead that this was interpreted as "players aren't interested in interplanetary" so we get update after update full of plane parts, biomes around KSC, Kerbin exploration contracts, and a new aero model (the last isn't so bad, though). KSP is more Kerbin SoI Program now.

I too feel like the game has drifted more towards Kerbal Plane Program.

[Levelord]

I too feel like the game has drifted more towards Kerbal Plane Program.

I don't see a problem with this because I use planes as another avenue of transport to get stuff into space.... aka SSTOs...

[falloutaddict]

Pro-tip: Use wheeled landing gear as landing struts. Problem solved, plus free rover.

I just started doing this when I realized landing gear has an impact tolerance of like 80 m/s and the landing legs only like 12 or something. Like what the heck?? Pardon me if my numbers are way off, you get the gist.

[joekidd1992]

Spaceplanes have taken over KSP. Not kidding.

I remember reading that Squad's internal data indicates that only a small percentage of players ever go interplanetary. IMO, this was an indication that the tools for planning interplanetary missions in stock are inadequate; going interplanetary is hard in stock with no external tools for the average non-physicist player. It seems instead that this was interpreted as "players aren't interested in interplanetary" so we get update after update full of plane parts, biomes around KSC, Kerbin exploration contracts, and a new aero model (the last isn't so bad, though). KSP is more Kerbin SoI Program now.

I'm torn between trying to figure it out myself or getting a mod or watching a youtube video. I'm smart enough to figure out how to get to Minmus and Mun, but further than that, I run into issues.

[Lord Aurelius]

Yeah, the landing legs are pretty much useless compared to the landing gear. The small landing gear especially are completely OP, they're weightless, nearly indestructible, steerable, and come with the most powerful landing light in the game.

[Unfawkable]

I have played this game since 0.20, and haven't built a single plane yet. I just don't find them fun.

But to my joy, I decided to try out KW rocketry addon today, and boy am I glad.

[Levelord]

Yeah, the landing legs are pretty much useless compared to the landing gear. The small landing gear especially are completely OP, they're weightless, nearly indestructible, steerable, and come with the most powerful landing light in the game.

If I'm not mistaken, the landing gears now have mass. I mean come on, even struts have mass and even affect drag...

[Murph]

I just started doing this when I realized landing gear has an impact tolerance of like 80 m/s and the landing legs only like 12 or something. Like what the heck?? Pardon me if my numbers are way off, you get the gist.

That's a very necessary difference, to ensure that landing gear isn't too fragile to the point of making plane landing near impossible. I won't say the landing gear tolerance is perfect, but it's vastly better for it to be too large than too small.

Landing legs in normal usage should be dealing with 0 m/s horizontal speed and max of around 5–10 m/s vertical. Landing gear, on the other hand needs to be able to handle 100 m/s horizontal combined with 5–10 m/s vertical. (Yes, 10 m/s vertical should mostly involve some unplanned rapid disassembly, and it typically does.) I have no doubt that people may find ways to abuse the high tolerance of the landing gear, but that is almost entirely irrelevant; all that matters is that they work for the normal use cases on planes and that too violent a landing still results in some form of destruction. I don't see any real problems arising from those numbers, but I can see some likely problems from lowering them.

Bottom line: it is cheating to abuse the plane landing gear for unrealistic survival, but cheating is not wrong in this type of game. Cheat if you want to, just please don't deny obvious cases of cheating (which includes any time that you take significant advantage of some behaviour in a way that is quite clearly not the intended use cases).

[razark]

You guys realize you're talking about a space game and not a plane flying simulator, right? ... they're more like sidequests to what this game should be really about: rocketry and space exploration.

Spaceplanes have taken over KSP.

If you've ever seen (or better, read) The Right Stuff, high speed/altitude flight has it's place in rocketry and spaceflight. And of the six manned spacecraft types the US has used, two have been spaceplanes. (Only one of those six used landing legs.)

I'm not saying planes should be the main focus, I'm just saying there's a strong argument to be made for having them, and having them work properly.

[bonyetty]

I'm torn between trying to figure it out myself or getting a mod or watching a youtube video. I'm smart enough to figure out how to get to Minmus and Mun, but further than that, I run into issues.

My suggestion would be to try to tiger it out yourself. The satisfaction will be immense. I found it extremely frustrating and watched Scott Manley and now are a little bit regretfull I did. I recon I could have figured it out, but will never know now. You are almost there one more step. Possibly get a mining base on minimus set up between practicing with cheap probes interplanetary to break up the manover node madness.

[Murph]

Oh, and slightly more on the original topic. No, I do not think we have an urgent need for more landing struts. The number of types of landing gear is entirely irrelevant to that, there is no reason for the number of each to be in any way related. What matters is that we have the necessary choices available to build the types of craft which are "in scope" for the game. Right now, we've got struts for 0.625m, 1.25m, and 2.5m, which is really all we need. Struts for 3.75m don't really make a whole lot of sense when there is no suitable 3.75m lander engine.

Plane landing gear, on the other hand, we're actually a bit short of that even after the recent additions. The completely different requirements of planes mean that we really need both long and short versions of each of the main 3 weights; arguably even short, medium, and long. That's necessary to provide reasonable solutions for differing body+wing configurations and heights. The real problem is in the directly opposite direction of the original post.

[selfish_meme]

I think the problem with interplanetary can be solved with a mission planner that makes nodes for you. I have a feeling this is going to be called cheating but it is what happens in real life, a space agency is huge and some tasks are handed to different departments. Maybe the Tracking Station building needs a navigation section, where you can plan out a mission in advance (nodes and all) and then go fly it.

[Superfluous J]

I've never felt the need for different "landing struts." I have felt the need for different gears (up until now. Now I haven't. Yet). And I almost never fly planes and have sent all kinds of things to every world in the game.

Maybe one more set of landing legs, to put down some massive SLS-type ship on Eve.

[One Wheeled Panda]

Right now, we've got struts for 0.625m, 1.25m, and 2.5m, which is really all we need. Struts for 3.75m don't really make a whole lot of sense when there is no suitable 3.75m lander engine.

I was going to make that point too. OTOH creativity. Look at what people built out of the parts available. Space stations, bases, robots, asteroids with wings. Sure, there is always going to be some Whackjob whose needs cannot be met by anything readily available.

Give them something to play with and they'll find a way to (ab)use it.

I don't miss it - but I won't argue against it either.

[Alshain]

I think the problem with interplanetary can be solved with a mission planner that makes nodes for you. I have a feeling this is going to be called cheating but it is what happens in real life, a space agency is huge and some tasks are handed to different departments. Maybe the Tracking Station building needs a navigation section, where you can plan out a mission in advance (nodes and all) and then go fly it.

We don't need one that makes nodes for you. Making a node for interplanetary transfer would be really easy if it weren't so hard to grab the controls around Kerbin while focusing on Duna, or Jool, or anything (except Dres, nobody goes there ). The GUI for node modification needs to be better and not attached to a specific point in space but instead floating on a specific area of the screen. Obviously you have to choose where to start it, but once that is done then it needs to be accesible regardless of what you body your camera is focused on.

[Tw1]

I remember reading that Squad's internal data indicates that only a small percentage of players ever go interplanetary. IMO, this was an indication that the tools for planning interplanetary missions in stock are inadequate; going interplanetary is hard in stock with no external tools for the average non-physicist player. It seems instead that this was interpreted as "players aren't interested in interplanetary" so we get update after update full of plane parts, biomes around KSC, Kerbin exploration contracts, and a new aero model (the last isn't so bad, though). KSP is more Kerbin SoI Program now.

That's an interesting point. I'm not entirely convinced this is a bad thing, as realistically much of what a space program would do would happen around its home planet. The difficulty with KSP of course is the large difference between the timescale of interplanetary operations and local space operations.

Personally, I'd love a serious space program mode, where time is important. Done well, periodic budget, travel times, and launch windows cause you to both take interplanetary exploration more slowly and seriously, and spread out the timing of your local endeavours more.

'course, it could get boring if there still wasn't much to do during you stay on the other planets...

I think the problem with interplanetary can be solved with a mission planner that makes nodes for you. I have a feeling this is going to be called cheating but it is what happens in real life, a space agency is huge and some tasks are handed to different departments. .

Do it for me? No thanks.

Give me access to that department and the data/launch window calendars it has made? Yes please.

Mission planning tools in the mission control building would be awesome.

At bare minimum, it could have a map view which allows you to warp forward and backward, (without really warping in game,) set up maneuver nodes, then later load your pre-prepared nodes once actually flying.

I imagine you'd have you get into the right orbit first before the game would let you load that, otherwise all your nodes would be messed up.