Runway Wheels vs All Terrain Wheels

[ZooNamedGames]

As we can see in the Dev notes, there is more development coming to the runway. Which although is good news, it still leaves one aspect that every player knows of. The decision to just turn around and take off from the flat peninsula around the KSC, or risk the bumpy level 1 runway. To counter that, I have a new idea.

My idea being; there should be two types of wheels added. Runway wheels and All Terrain wheels. Runway wheels would be capable of going faster speeds and would be capable of driving itself (internal motor). If these wheels are used off of solid runways (KSC runway, taxiways, hidden KSC structures, etc) they skip, jerk your craft suddenly or explode from the rough terrain. These Runway Wheels would be the ones you first unlock in career mode. They would be cheaper as well.

Alternatively, the All Terrain wheels are capable of greater braking power, and also greater impact speeds, as well as obviously behaving normally on non-runway areas. Despite being more expensive, All Terrain wheels would also have under carriage lights (landing gear lights).

 

The whole idea of this comes to me from the SNES game 'Pilotwings'. In the game, failing to land the Biplane on the runway (or any concrete structure) causes the landing gear to break (regardless of approach/landing angle or speed). Now I don't want KSP to be as harsh, however the game brings an interesting idea of how landing gear could work. Pilotwings teaches the importance of mastering your approach angle and other flight basics which KSP could also take from. Again it doesn't need to be as harsh for those who after a 5 hour mission barely misses the runway, however it should punish those who would rather just turn off the level 1 runway just to avoid the bumps and hills.

In real life, passenger airliner wheels are different from the wheels of aircraft that can land on undeveloped grassy runways or hills. Airliner wheels are designed to optimize breaking power and are not built to withstand small debris or bumps and other natural topography. Whereas planes which land in the undeveloped parts of the world are. So it would seem reasonable to consider that.

If players would rather, perhaps wheels could simply be interchangeable from the VAB/SPH right click menu (with respective cost increases). It would be simpler to add, but I think that having two different types of wheels would make it harder on players to not just change the wheel type out and then turn off the runway. But that's just me.

 

That said, let me know of your thoughts. _{Ps, thoughts on the new profile picture?}

Edited March 28, 2017 by ZooNamedGames

[KerbalKore]

32 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

thoughts on the new profile picture?

It is awesome!

also, i like this idea

 

Edited March 28, 2017 by Bill the Kerbal

[nascarlaser1]

1 hour ago, ZooNamedGames said:

. _{Ps, thoughts on the new profile picture?}

I like this idea!

 

P.s. I like the little dragon guy. He is cute .

[ZooNamedGames]

16 minutes ago, nascarlaser1 said:

I like this idea!

 

P.s. I like the little dragon guy. He is cute .

It's a Charmander  .

[nascarlaser1]

51 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

It's a Charmander  .

ohhhh ok lol. The only other Pokémon I k now the names of are Pikachu  (who doesn't ) and my favorite, squirtle!

[Alshain]

I would rather just see proper traction based on tire type.  Rough terrain tires, don't grip well on paved surfacing because so little of the tread touches the ground.  Likewise, pavement tread doesn't move as well through dirt.  Randomly exploding tires because they are going over grass instead of pavement don't seem like a very good idea.

[ZooNamedGames]

5 minutes ago, Alshain said:

I would rather just see proper traction based on tire type.  Rough terrain tires, don't grip well on paved surfacing because so little of the tread touches the ground.  Likewise, pavement tread doesn't move as well through dirt.  Randomly exploding tires because they are going over grass instead of pavement don't seem like a very good idea.

Hence option 2 I provided at the end.

[Hotaru]

Wouldn't it be easier to just make the surrounding terrain rougher than the runway?

[ZooNamedGames]

12 minutes ago, Hotaru said:

Wouldn't it be easier to just make the surrounding terrain rougher than the runway?

It's been discussed but seemed more work than it's worth. Plus it would be debated as good or bad.

[FleshJeb]

On 3/28/2017 at 11:14 AM, ZooNamedGames said:

Ps, thoughts on the new profile picture

Thank kod I can ad-block all profile gifs.

[ZooNamedGames]

2 minutes ago, FleshJeb said:

Thank kod I can ad-block all profile gifs.

Aren't you a party pooper.

[FleshJeb]

Just now, ZooNamedGames said:

Aren't you a party pooper.

Well, let me be more constructive then. Yes, I think the all-terrain landing gear is a neat idea. I've made many bushplanes using the medium rover wheels, and I'd like to see something better-suited.

[tater]

Landing anything like an aircraft anywhere but on a runway should result in a crash. Rough field wheels for landing in certain, limited locations I suppose could be possible for certain mass/wheel area, and perhaps a total mass. A Cessna 180 looking craft with balloon tires? Sure, they can land many places. A shuttle looking craft? No.

Even rough field aircraft are at grave risk anyplace that has not been at least walked over to make sure there are no hidden hazards. I'd honestly wreck any craft that wasn't VTOL anywhere off a designated runway.

[Wjolcz]

I'd rather not have to deal with even more types of wheels tbh.

[adsii1970]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Landing anything like an aircraft anywhere but on a runway should result in a crash. Rough field wheels for landing in certain, limited locations I suppose could be possible for certain mass/wheel area, and perhaps a total mass. A Cessna 180 looking craft with balloon tires? Sure, they can land many places. A shuttle looking craft? No.

Even rough field aircraft are at grave risk anyplace that has not been at least walked over to make sure there are no hidden hazards. I'd honestly wreck any craft that wasn't VTOL anywhere off a designated runway.

Not really. For a while, while in Louisiana, I had a neighbor that flew a crop duster. It was pretty awesome because he had his own airfield in his back four acres, which happened to be a few hundred feet from my back patio. He would often land his crop duster on his grass runway without issue... and even his P-51 Mustang he restored and flew to air shows... would land on either runways or grass, depending on where he was wanted. 

[tater]

Yes, a grass RUNWAY. Would he land a 1.5 million $+ P-51 on a random patch of grass, short of an emergency?

Like I said, "at least walked over." None the less, WW2 aircraft were designed to operate from rough fields, and in comparison to a KSP spaceplane, they are tiny.

People in KSP land "spaceplanes" on other planets... which is absurd, honestly, unless worlds start getting populated with hazards with colliders at the appropriate scale size.

Only allow landing at runways then add more runways. Some can be paved, some can be dirt, some can be grass, but offloading a apsceplane would more likely than not write off the hull.

Edited March 30, 2017 by tater

[Combatsmithen]

Or, we could get stock adjustable landing gear.... and have an option to switch between off road and on road wheels. Instead of adding yet another landing gear part, which are useless and can barely fit on any plane designs and you have to make huge compromises to your replica fighter jets to make the landing gear work....

Edited March 30, 2017 by Combatsmithen

[ZooNamedGames]

6 hours ago, Combatsmithen said:

Or, we could get stock adjustable landing gear.... and have an option to switch between off road and on road wheels. Instead of adding yet another landing gear part, which are useless and can barely fit on any plane designs and you have to make huge compromises to your replica fighter jets to make the landing gear work....

For fighter jet you'd just use the runway gear. There's no reason not to. Plus we can safely assume that's what it'd be for anyway seeing as the existing ones are modeled after real world airliner landing gear.

7 hours ago, tater said:

Landing anything like an aircraft anywhere but on a runway should result in a crash. Rough field wheels for landing in certain, limited locations I suppose could be possible for certain mass/wheel area, and perhaps a total mass. A Cessna 180 looking craft with balloon tires? Sure, they can land many places. A shuttle looking craft? No.

Even rough field aircraft are at grave risk anyplace that has not been at least walked over to make sure there are no hidden hazards. I'd honestly wreck any craft that wasn't VTOL anywhere off a designated runway.

I agree buuut I don't want it to be difficult. Albiet your 110% right. 

As to random terrain hazards, that's what the runway landing gear will simulate if they're used off road. They will act as if they're constantly getting snagged by roots, or hitting pot holes and rocks causing erratic behavior. 

My biggest thing about it is, if you manage to land slowly enough, you should be able to land it. Even the space shuttle could land in a grassy field if done right. The landing gear isn't built for it, but it is possible. 

[tater]

The "erratic behavior" you refer to is a gear breaking, and the airframe being a write-off.

[ZooNamedGames]

Just now, tater said:

The "erratic behavior" you refer to is a gear breaking, and the airframe being a write-off.

Which is again accurate but KSP doesn't model internal structural stresses. 

Basically, I'll accept those stresses as damaging, once I see pogo oscillations added into KSP. 

Can't have it both ways.

[tater]

Landing a plane is rather different than a launch problem. I'd want the same fidelity on, say, mun landings. If small scale stuff cannot be modeled, require some level of survey to mark out a safe landing area (no hazards larger than 1m or something), and you have to land in that area, or you face a random chance of gear failure based on "biome."

[ZooNamedGames]

Just now, tater said:

Landing a plane is rather different than a launch problem. I'd want the same fidelity on, say, mun landings. If small scale stuff cannot be modeled, require some level of survey to mark out a safe landing area (no hazards larger than 1m or something), and you have to land in that area, or you face a random chance of gear failure based on "biome."

Well grassy landings are different from lunar landings but I see that point.

Ultimately that's a development point further beyond what this request I've made aims at. But in the future I'd hope for the same.

[Combatsmithen]

1 hour ago, ZooNamedGames said:

For fighter jet you'd just use the runway gear. There's no reason not to. Plus we can safely assume that's what it'd be for anyway seeing as the existing ones are modeled after real world airliner landing gear.

I agree buuut I don't want it to be difficult. Albiet your 110% right. 

As to random terrain hazards, that's what the runway landing gear will simulate if they're used off road. They will act as if they're constantly getting snagged by roots, or hitting pot holes and rocks causing erratic behavior. 

My biggest thing about it is, if you manage to land slowly enough, you should be able to land it. Even the space shuttle could land in a grassy field if done right. The landing gear isn't built for it, but it is possible. 

 

 

No. I want STOCK ADJUSTABLE GEAR, IDC for MORE gear sets, make 3 parts like baha's mod. Small, Medium, and Large, and allow you to tweak them to be onroad or offroad. Im SICK, of these excrementsTY, FIXED, landing gear which are USELESS because they just PLAIN OUT SUCK. I need landing gear where I can tweak the length of the shaft, angle of the wheels, angle of the shaft....

Edited March 30, 2017 by Combatsmithen

[Jarin]

What I want is the RoveMax Model M1 to be rebalanced as a bushplane wheel; non-motorized but good speed and impact tolerance. Then make ALL wheels go skippy-bouncy if you're not on a runway-like surface, but have "offroad" wheels handle it better with shocks. 

[sdj64]

The problem is really that KSP doesn't model terrain hardness. You can't have all terrain wheels without... terrain. 

The grass field next to the runway is just as unyeilding as the tarmac.  It would be great if different surfaces reflected their properties.  It should be really easy to get the little landing gear stuck in the sand on Laythe or Duna, or sinking in the mud on Kerbin, reducing your speed dramatically if the vehicle is heavy and the tires are small.  On the other hand, a light vehicle with big tires wouldn't get slowed much.

Once that is implemented, give plane landing gear the chance to pop their tires if they exceed a certain speed on certain surfaces.  The Mun's surface is hard and rocky so it wouldn't get the landing gear stuck, but sharp rocks and bumpy terrain can easily puncture the tires.  Ideally each biome would be its own surface.