Does anyone actually use the first level runway?

[DJToxica]

I'm personally don't want the grass any worse than now. Especially for beginners it's perfect to train landing at all. Getting in line with the runway was hard for me the first time i tried Sandbox.
It may be only interesting for big ass planes you build if you're further in career. But even then...i like spaceplanes those are my first choice in atmospheric landings...
I have some ideas for the runway. Tier 0 Should be really long and wide londer and wider than now. It's just dirt...dirt is cheap. But it should be flat (a steamroller is not taht expensive) especcially for beginners, starting with career it would be great so they can train the landing without the fear of getting off target. I would say double the length and triple the width then Tier 0 now is. It should have extreme low friction...which means a lot longer way to stop but sometimes that can help especially for beginners to have more time to stop. It should also be more vulnerable for crashes...if you crash you will destroy that part...but how expensive can a bucket of dirt be? Tier 1 should be the same as Tier 0. Extreme long and wide dirt patch but a short bit of it is now concrete which is sturdier and has a bit more friction. If you cras a light plane on the concrete it won't get destroyed. And last but not least Tier 2 which would be the same as now but like tier on the dirt part of Tier 0 would stay. Maybe later a Tier 3 which makes all of that asphalt. The is never enough runway...
If that would be the case i'm fine with making the surrounding grass a deathtrap. But the first basic plane wheels and maybe later some type of offroad landing gear should still be capable of landing everywhere.

[eddiew]

I would be happy with the tier 0 runway just... not being there. As in, no model for it, just remove it totally and land on the grass that's underneath it now. Put some bollards down the side to mark it out, but otherwise let it be the natural surface that people already prefer to use.

Anything's better than the pothole of doom  

[swjr-swis]

3 hours ago, qromodynmc said:

these are in my mind but dunno if squad ever reads it.

Pretty sure Squad has yet to master reading minds. Right? <adjusts tin foil hat just in case>

 

17 minutes ago, eddiew said:

I would be happy with the tier 0 runway just... not being there. As in, no model for it, just remove it totally and land on the grass that's underneath it now. Put some bollards down the side to mark it out, but otherwise let it be the natural surface that people already prefer to use.

Of all the suggestions so far, this is sounding like the best option yet. It's definitely a better solution than having what looks very deceptively like a better place to take off and land but in practice is a death trap.

So, let's make the tier 0 runway not simply more, but *exactly* like the grass field around it, even down to being at the same height level, and just put some marker/lights down. It'll be better for take off and landing (grass field 'better'), and for landings, the markings will be a way to train aligning ourselves until we get the hang of it, without having to fear careening off when we're not exactly aligned.

[Hyperpig]

I drive my plane slowly to the grass land on the left then take of from there.

it proves a safer environment to take off than the runway =P.

[tater]

3 hours ago, Mastikator said:

Make grass and dirt and sand snow count as "soft", soft ground automatically applies a breaking torque for wheels even if you're not breaking (or capable of braking). That would make it very difficult to take off from the grass. Rock, ice and asphalt would be fine.

Could make sand twice as soft as grass and dirt, adding double braking torque and also capping the torque at that amount (since wheels and sand don't play well).

That kind of terrain should break off any gear that hit them. When it comes to fund recovery for vehicles, any lost gear (including legs) should result in a total write-off f the airframe. All the engines---rockets as well as the OP plane parts that can magically survive 20+ m/s impacts---need impact tolerance reduced to basically zero as well (and the launch clamps should be tier 0 since any rocket resting on an engine bell should be destroyed).

[Mastikator]

1 hour ago, tater said:

That kind of terrain should break off any gear that hit them. When it comes to fund recovery for vehicles, any lost gear (including legs) should result in a total write-off f the airframe. All the engines---rockets as well as the OP plane parts that can magically survive 20+ m/s impacts---need impact tolerance reduced to basically zero as well (and the launch clamps should be tier 0 since any rocket resting on an engine bell should be destroyed).

How often are supersonic airplanes able to survive a landing on grass?

[Deddly]

9 minutes ago, Mastikator said:

How often are supersonic airplanes able to survive a landing on grass?

I do understand where you are coming from, but this is Kerbal engineering, not human. 

[tater]

1 hour ago, Mastikator said:

How often are supersonic airplanes able to survive a landing on grass?

Walk away from the wreck? often. Gas it up and fly away? Nearly never unless they are purpose-built for rough field landings, and even then that would be a grass runway, not a random roughly flat spot of the right length. I live in New Mexico, and we have many, random flat spots. They look flat, until you are walking them, no jet, and few light aircraft specifically built for rough fields could land without problems at random places.

Planes in KSP don't even need wheels, all aircraft wings have a higher impact tolerance than any of the landing leg parts.

[Mastikator]

10 hours ago, Deddly said:

I do understand where you are coming from, but this is Kerbal engineering, not human. 

What does that even mean? Are you proposing that accuracy and realism and immersion are not important or WHAT?

[Deddly]

4 hours ago, Mastikator said:

Are you proposing that accuracy and realism and immersion are not important or WHAT?

Heh, not exactly

I mean that we can't always apply human standards unless we're running Realism Overhaul. In this case, you asked:

15 hours ago, Mastikator said:

How often are supersonic airplanes able to survive a landing on grass?

Of course the answer is there aren't any, but you could theoretically make one if you had the right materials and knowhow. On top of that, we don't know what Kerbin is made of. How dense is Kerban soil? All we know is that the planet is much smaller than Earth, yet has the same gravity, which could make the ground very hard and compact. 

I do actually agree with you, by the way. I think that taking off and landing on the sand or grass seems unrealistic. On the other hand, I know that Squad have made a number of realism compromoses for the sake of gameplay, and I'm in two minds about this one because how far should realism go in a game for everyone? If the mechanics are altered so as to basically make planes impossible to land away from a runway, what about reusable rockets and tall landers? Should we expect craft with landing legs to sink into the sand or soft grass and tip over? Sure, I can see a place for that, but I'm not sure that's where most people find their fun in this game.

[Mastikator]

I don't see how the density of the sand is at all relevant to the issue of how to make the unupgraded runway better than flat sand.

I would prefer if simply the runway was less bumpy and all other ground was more bumpy to make it always preferable to land on a runway, but if bumpyness would break certain computers then I don't see any other option.

[tater]

6 hours ago, Mastikator said:

I don't see how the density of the sand is at all relevant to the issue of how to make the unupgraded runway better than flat sand.

I would prefer if simply the runway was less bumpy and all other ground was more bumpy to make it always preferable to land on a runway, but if bumpyness would break certain computers then I don't see any other option.

Because 99.99999% of the landings in KSP should result in a total airframe loss.

I'm fine with the landing strip being better, I'm fine with adding runways all over, and KSP runway upgrades should include making a crossed runway for different approaches:

With all that, landing anywhere else (off a runway) in the kerbol system with an aircraft that isn't VTOL should be a "crash" not a landing.

[damerell]

8 hours ago, Mastikator said:

I would prefer if simply the runway was less bumpy and all other ground was more bumpy to make it always preferable to land on a runway, but if bumpyness would break certain computers then I don't see any other option.

Level 1; shorter, not bumpier. People whose sense of exploit is offended by using the grass (and that would include me if the level 1 runway was flat and short) have a sensible runway upgrade path.

[Superfluous J]

4 hours ago, tater said:

Because 99.99999% of the landings in KSP should result in a total airframe loss.

I'm fine with the landing strip being better, I'm fine with adding runways all over, and KSP runway upgrades should include making a crossed runway for different approaches:

With all that, landing anywhere else (off a runway) in the kerbol system with an aircraft that isn't VTOL should be a "crash" not a landing.

I like the multiple runways idea. I also like having runways and airports scattered around Kerbin.

[Tourist]

8 hours ago, tater said:

Because 99.99999% of the landings in KSP should result in a total airframe loss.

I'm fine with the landing strip being better, I'm fine with adding runways all over, and KSP runway upgrades should include making a crossed runway for different approaches:

(nice picture snipped)

With all that, landing anywhere else (off a runway) in the kerbol system with an aircraft that isn't VTOL should be a "crash" not a landing.

 

3 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

I like the multiple runways idea. I also like having runways and airports scattered around Kerbin.

These are both good ideas.

I also think the 0 tier runway should be very short, grassy strip which is a lighter shade of green than the surrounding grasslands to denote mowing and being flattened by frequent landings. It could also have tire tracks at the ends heading towards the  KSC to show the route crafts are taxiied along. 

[tater]

It's a space center, it can be paved. Perhaps the upgrades should be adding length, then additional directions of runway.

Actually, each upgrade could also add secondary airfields.

Tier 0: short, paved runway at KSC, plus the island.

Tier 1: Longer runway (substantially longer), and an additional airstrip (short, paved, or airstrip as suggested, better than the current tier 0) on each continent.

Tier 2: One additional runway direction (18-36) at KSC, upgrade some of the strips worldwide to a single, long paved runway.

Tier 3: Add 13-31 to KSC, maybe upgrade some others, or add some in odd places on Kerbin.

The upgrade costs would not feel so great as you'd be making multiple strips, too.

Then make sure that landing anywhere else in the solar system is is a Bad Idea^TM.

[ExtremeSquared]

I'd love to be able to downgrade to the lowest tier runway at some point. Later on in career the technology required to build bushplanes has been unlocked.

[Sereneti]

the gras is still/way better than the level 1 runaway...
 

[RandomUser]

On 4/6/2016 at 1:52 PM, Coeus said:

All of the terrain (except the KSC) should really get roughened up. And the friction should greatly increase. The same goes for other bodies. The Mun shouldn't be as smooth as it is now. If you look at any photo of the moon or mars for that matter, you see rocks everywhere, and small hills and bumps. Now everything is just one smooth surface.

Please.  I'm tired of landing on planets and having my 8 ton lander sliding around like it's nobodies business.  Needs more ground friction. 

[Wjolcz]

Yeah, I actually have made this mistake once or twice in the past. Wish bac9 could come back and fix all those tiers of KSC. He had so many great ideas about how the buildings should look right.

[Renegrade]

On 2016-04-12 at 3:52 PM, 5thHorseman said:

I like the multiple runways idea. I also like having runways and airports scattered around Kerbin.

When they first introduced upgradable/destructible buildings, I thought that was going to be the next step.  Being able to buy additional launch sites.  That would have been awesome.