Sign in to follow this  
hobbez

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

Recommended Posts

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 :P). 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.

I don't know, flying a pre-made track would be easier for newbies. Manually making nodes could be the next level of detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

Interesting point, my landers still only touch down at about 1-2 m/s but I like the way they look, they are lighter than then the medium landing gear, and they roll! Triple win. when I found out I could make my landers roll all bets were off. Call me a dirty c word, don't worry I can handle it ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting point, my landers still only touch down at about 1-2 m/s but I like the way they look, they are lighter than then the medium landing gear, and they roll! Triple win. when I found out I could make my landers roll all bets were off. Call me a dirty c word, don't worry I can handle it ;)

You're ok, I wouldn't call that cheating, as you're not abusing the high impact tolerance of the wheels, your landing is at a realistic speed, and within normal physical stress margins for the way those wheels would be used in their normal application. You are just using a more unusual part for your surface interface, so it's reasonable creativity, rather than cheating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :P). 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.

This, so much. I know there is a mod, but stock would be nice. Further, it would be nice with more features on the different bodies. Once you have seen one area of a planet, you have pretty much seen it all (baring easter eggs).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use spaceplanes only for crew transfer, small satellite missions around Kerbin and as additional vehicles for Laythe and Duna missions (rocket versions for Duna of course). I am planning on building one for space station construction in orbit around Kerbin, Mün and Minmus. However, rockets are my main way to get stuff into orbit for orbital construction and interplanetary missions. A set of heavy landing struts for refinaries and groundbases as well as a set of non retractable small ones would be much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe instead of bigger struts some spacebase stands could be introduced for the different fuselage sizes, sort of like a wine rack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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've both seen and read it. The US program has been, for better or worse, pilot-focused. No other country used a crewed spaceplane (Buran never went beyond uncrewed testing); perhaps the most interesting stat is to count the percentage of launches to orbit that have been done with spaceplanes (spoiler: it's tiny), or even the percentage of people put in space with a spaceplane (still pretty small). Even the US is moving away from spaceplanes, shutting down the STS program and selecting capsules over the Dreamchaser.

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.

Oh I agree. There's room in KSP for planes, and I enjoy playing with them sometimes. I just have to wonder why stock Kerbal Space Program needs airliner parts, for example. The game should be encouraging players to go further and explore more places in space rather than roving around KSC to get the science there, or flying to some spot on Kerbin for a survey, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was one of the reason I turned my attention to mods. Many players are obsessed with spaceplanes and it's understandable that they get more attention. To me the atmosphere is just a hindrance I need to pass the quicker (now the safer) the better. The real game for me starts in orbit. My regular needs are 200-300 ton payloads (often unsymmetrical) no spaceplane can get to orbit in a single flight. I need 3.75 and 5 m legs, I want to land heavy stuff on other planets. Really, only 5 celestial bodies (including Jool) have atmospheres, but there are much more wings than other parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even the US is moving away from spaceplanes, shutting down the STS program and selecting capsules over the Dreamchaser.

I see your points. However, there is an unmanned X-37B up there right now, too.

Oh I agree. There's room in KSP for planes, and I enjoy playing with them sometimes. I just have to wonder why stock Kerbal Space Program needs airliner parts, for example. The game should be encouraging players to go further and explore more places in space rather than roving around KSC to get the science there, or flying to some spot on Kerbin for a survey, IMO.

Again, you make some good points. However, I think the feel of a X-planes program could be fun as well. Just because the goal is space, doesn't mean everything has to happen there. Some of the fun is in finding ways to get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The X-37B is kind of an odd case. It's not a traditional spaceplane in that its engines are not used during the ascent and it's enclosed in a fairing. It's more like a capsule with wings and landing gear instead of a heatshield and parachutes.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying at all that planes don't belong in the game at all; I'm saying that the game is more plane-focused and Kerbin-focused than I'd like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why stock Kerbal Space Program needs airliner parts

But.. but.. THE REPLICAS! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love KSP, i mean LOVE, i've logged over 300 hours, not kidding.

The thing is, going past minmus and actually hitting a targeted planet is INSANELY hard!

So naturally, i resort to building SSTO's and planes, if interplanetary were a bit easier, i'd probably attempt it again.

P.S.

R.I.P Lenfry Kerman, still orbiting the sun back in 0.24....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose the cause may be that Squad is currently working with Porkjet, who specializes in plane parts.

I don't even like the plane parts he makes though.."porkjet" is too descriptive a name..all his parts are big fat and ugly. *sniffles*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't even like the plane parts he makes though.."porkjet" is too descriptive a name..all his parts are big fat and ugly. *sniffles*

Matter of taste there. I like his parts, and they don't have the "junkyard" aesthetic that half of KSP's rocket parts do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matter of taste there. I like his parts, and they don't have the "junkyard" aesthetic that half of KSP's rocket parts do.

Along the lines of aesthetics, I wish that the game had versions of the landing struts that retract into streamlined bays. While not necessary, I personally prefer the streamlined look more than the utilitarian look, and it would be nice to have the option with landing struts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the idea of keep adding parts ad-infinitum.

for those of us who are addicted to tweakscale half the parts are redundant already.

So my solution would be to force everyone else to use tweakscale too

go on, you know you want to! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why does it have to solely rely on rocketry?

Doesn't have to "solely rely on", but the entire point of spaceplanes is that they are more efficient than rockets. The reason why in reality we use rockets is that we don't have working space planes.

Something's got to give when spaceplanes are introduced into a game that set out to be a game about rockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I love KSP, i mean LOVE, i've logged over 300 hours, not kidding.

The thing is, going past minmus and actually hitting a targeted planet is INSANELY hard!

So naturally, i resort to building SSTO's and planes, if interplanetary were a bit easier, i'd probably attempt it again.

You'll pretty much need to take that complaint up with your preferred deity in the real world, or some international union of physicists if you are not into the deity thing. "Ya cannae change the laws of physics!"  Scotty, Star Trek.

Interplanetary transfers are extremely hard, with narrow error margins. Two things you need to look into, and try to understand, if you've not already done so: transfer windows (the dV for interplanetary transfer varies HUGELY based on the alignment of the planets before you start), and mid-course correction burns (it takes a tiny amount of dV mid-course to make a huge change at the far end, as it basically gets multiplied by the remaining travel distance). Once you're familiar with both of those, one of the other details is being very precise with your burn vectors, due the the mentioned feature that a tiny variation in dV makes a huge difference over interplanetary distance (at origin, just 1° off on the direction, or 0.1m/s off on the size of the burn can be enough to make the difference between intercept or no intercept of the destination, hence the need for mid-course correction burns, just don't waste all your fuel chasing that last impossible 0.1m/s, rather wait for it to grow a bit before correcting).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course interplanetary missions are hard. That is why there needs to be in-game stock tools to assist in getting there. Someone earlier brought up a valid point that the testing polls showed a lack of interest in interplanetary, so Squad took that to mean more interest in space planes when in actuality the interest was for an easier way to plot interplanetary missions without all of the same guess work needed to first get to Mun. Interplanetary ramps up that scale of guess work and there just needs to be a simpler way of some sort (that doesn't include changing the laws of physics.)

On the topic of all of the plane parts, yeah i am a bit tired of all of the plane stuff. I would really like to see more command pod ideas, or station parts for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course interplanetary missions are hard. That is why there needs to be in-game stock tools to assist in getting there. Someone earlier brought up a valid point that the testing polls showed a lack of interest in interplanetary, so Squad took that to mean more interest in space planes when in actuality the interest was for an easier way to plot interplanetary missions without all of the same guess work needed to first get to Mun. Interplanetary ramps up that scale of guess work and there just needs to be a simpler way of some sort (that doesn't include changing the laws of physics.)

Yeah, I'll basically agree with that. NASA have entire buildings full of incredibly smart people to figure out the long range mission profiles. It could be a quite positive thing to add some tools which kinda represent that a little, but without doing all of the work for the player (we don't want it to be click "go to Duna", then "EXECUTE!"). Just something to help find the transfer windows, efficient profiles, dV budgets, etc; but with the player basically still putting it all together (with some opportunity to screw it up and fail), and hopefully getting educated in how it works and some of the issues of real long range space travel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this