Meecrob

...someone should get to SpaceX about this "reuse" thing

...but Apollo actually went to the Moon.

Did I totally read this incorrectly? All I am saying is that entire fandoms were not misled or disappointed by a word in a PC Gamer article. For the record I was replying to this comment: "Yes, let's get a guy with no interest in orbital mechanics or rocket science to review a game with the word "Kerbal" in it. The least a game journalist can do when looking at a game is to do some basic, surface-level research on the topic of the game and do some proofreading, otherwise you get game journalists that mislead entire fandoms and cause disappointment as fans realise said game isn't getting galaxies, or just flat-out ignorant game journalists that bash a game they don't understand. Unfortunately that's most PC Gamer journalists, so why PC Gamer gets all the screenshots is beyond me."

What are you talking about? Nobody thought the game was getting galaxies. In fact, as soon as someone read "intergalactic" they posted this thread and all of us said "yeah, they meant interstellar"

@AechBomb Take a look in options for "Advanced Tweakables" and make sure it is enabled.

What was the old rule of thumb? Every time someone asks when "soon" is, Squad moves it back a week?

Look at this demanding bunch! Used to be the forum joke for release dates was "SoonTM". This time they actually gave us a singular day, and now everyone wants to know the hour?

Hey, @Probro, I don't have anything for you to launch for me, but if you are skilled at the game, why don't you check out some of the challenges in the Challenges and Mission Ideas sub-forum?

No, it means you are biased against two companies. And again, its not an insult. I'm on your side...or I should say I would like at least more information to see what happened and make my own conclusions, but this will be like an air crash investigation. We will only know what actually happened until much later.

The problem is that its easy to hate Take 2, but we are going on info from an article (one) about what ex-employees of one side of this issue said. Remember, we all collectively clenched our butt cheeks when it was announced that Star Theory was to develop KSP 2. "But they do ports to console and mobile games!"

Your comments are based on available information plus your personal bias. I'm not trying to say it as a bad thing. Everyone has biases. You are probably correct as well! I'm just saying that all we have is someone's summarization of part of one side of the story.

Careful...your bias is showing. Hypothetically, what if the reason was that Star Theory "pulled some childish crap" and Take 2 had enough? I'm not saying this is true, I'm just saying that conclusions have been jumped to.

Haha, when I first read your post, I took it as your ascent took 1 hour.

Oh hey! a genuine Hongda! Also, whats with the horns? I mean I get them on a King Ranch or a 70's Caddy...but the above on an "Accord", and I just saw a pair on a maroon, late 90's Corolla with no other "ricifications" in Toronto. It reminded me of the stereotype where if you were caught smoking as a minor, your Dad would sit you down and make you smoke the whole pack to teach you a lesson. This time the Dad caught the kid trying to install a spoiler or something and stepped in "so you like modifications, huh son? Well if you like them so much, and you are driving my car, why don't you use my old bull horn mod? Go on, get driving, son!"

This might sound a little Rube Goldberg-ish way of going about this, but did you try asking him? Jokes aside, I'm guessing he is unavailable right now, or he doesn't know how he did it, just that its like that now. I'd say just get him his own account. He's getting to the age where his friends will make fun of him for playing "Daddy's" account/getting to the age where it will be absolutely hilarious to mess with your saves. I have a mental image of the mods for the original GTA that made certain vehicles instantly launch across the map and explode as soon as you touched any controls, or changing all your Kerbal's names to "ButtFart Kerman"

Actually, let me share a story from my flight training regarding take-offs. So like most student pilots, I flew a crappy Cessna since I'm not a billionaire. I was doing a check ride to renew my currency (you need to fly within two weeks to keep flying solo before your license and I had not flown in 3 weeks). I was to do two circuits (laps around the airport to those who are smart enough to not pour all their money into flying)...when I did my pre-flight checks, I had a bad mag drop on the left magneto, but my instructor said it was fine...so I flew one circuit...no problem...then did a touch and go...and the engine basically said "screw you" so I was in this position where I knew the Cessna had crap brakes...I'm doing basically a wheelie down the runway with 50% engine power and hoping that I make 67 knots for best climb rate... I dragged that plane into the air and ATC was saying "Land anywhere you can, just get it down safely, We declared emergency for you". In hindsight this was really really stupid of me, but I was 16 and invincible...so my point is that just because you can take off, doesn't mean you should. Engineer extra lift into your designs so the aircraft leaps off the runway...If you wait for the drop off at the end of the runway in KSP, your plane needs more power or lift or both.

But seriously, when you get a bunch of pilots together, anytime you leave the ground and don't bend metal is a successful take-off! Even that 12-foot hop you did in the tail dragger going over a bump while trying your actual take-off! Edited to add: The B-52 has such an angle of incidence it points nose down while gaining altitude. Mods, please tell me if I am breaking rules by linking these pics and videos, I can host them, but I'm lazy. Just say the word and I'll do this properly haha

Well, of course there is always this classic video...and to make this on topic, this is the result of overloading your aircraft/having not enough wing for the weight you are trying to lift. There is nothing wrong with this approach necessarily, but that's like saying "its fine to scare old people, just make sure they don't have a heart attack and you're good!"

I think this is the biggest issue...you and I and a bunch of other players are experienced in atmospheric flight...and KSP introduces orbit and transfers...so a bunch of players understand orbital mechanics but not atmospheric flight. Here is a vid about what you can do with low weight!

We will probably agree to disagree, but I feel that unless you are designing an aerobatic aircraft or fighter jet, 45* of bank is useless unless you messed up. So I guess what I am saying is that there are KSP players wondering why their planes won't do certain things, and I think they are trying to bank basically airliners to aerobatics standards...treat your space shuttle like a baby in a carriage kinda thing.

Something about what you said makes me want to say this...If you need to hold nose up attitude when banking less than 45*, you don't have enough wing. And the other part of me feels stupid for not suggesting what @QF9E said...uncouple all your control surfaces...you don't want your roll control to influence your pitch, but by default, KSP connects them.

What did it do? Out of curiosity...not to be a jackass haha Edited to add: its interesting how people react to flying controls. And makes me sit down and think.

Ok, so this is the perfect example of how video games try to simulate comfortable, relateable concepts but are wrong...same as movies, etc. You should feel a "rubber band" when yawing. Yawing only changes where your nose is pointed, not your velocity vector. The rubber band is your vertical stabilizer saying "love you, stop hitting me in the side" but you are already past this point I take. I honestly think the best course of action is you posting a craft file because you are clearly not a noob. There is something that is probably not intuitive to correct with your design. Seriously, I think I sound like a jerk but honestly, the runway is way too big if you design your craft right Feel free to message me, I'm replying because I bet there are a ton of people lurking who have the same issues you are having. But you said loss of control at low airspeeds and nose diving..You are supposed to lose control at low airspeeds, the trick is making it just controllable enough...If you consistently nose dive, you are running out of lift. Either get lower or add flaps. Get lower as in fly that sucker onto the ground like a badass...or more reasonably add flaps and reduce your landing speed. Even with action groups, KSP is crap for setting flaps. Try between 20 and 30* and do a fly-by along the runway...see how it handles...try to roll it without the nose dropping

I think the biggest point to be made regarding rudder is that it is literally secondary. Control the aircraft with pitch and roll and then use yaw to fine tune. When you roll using ailerons placed outboard on the wings, the ailerons will induce a yaw away from the direction of roll due to differential drag (remember all lift creates drag!). So unless you are way advanced and trying to squeeze the DV out of your craft, just don't use rudder. It will just increase your drag if you don't know how to use it. It does not change your aircraft's velocity vector, It just changes where your nose is pointed.

I'm throwing this thought out there just to see what replies it gets, so here goes: Why don't you guys just learn how to build and fly planes properly? If someone said "Docking is too hard, lets add a tractor beam cuz I can't manage to maneuver my craft properly", people would tell you to learn to dock properly, no? Here are some things mentioned in this thread and the solution to them in no particular order: Yaw control ineffective? Try more vertical surfaces, make sure they are aligned prograde (use angle snap on rotation widget), mess around with control authority and movement. Yaw control is supposed to be ineffective if you are going -30* to +30* deflections. Try something smaller. Remember, when flying real planes, you messed up big time if you NEED to use full control surface deflection when not doing something like aerobatics. Of course, keyboard controls will make this difficult but visualize the fact that KSP thinks you are slamming the controls back and forth and design around this shortcoming of the game. Wing size/stall speeds - This will take significant testing to tweak to a well-balanced aircraft and is admittedly usually where I give up and just launch something large for a change of pace. The basics are pretty straightforward though, start with your wings a size that "looks good" for your plane. Test fly, note down what you are trying to improve - in this case stall speed. Now back in the editor, use the rotation tool to add angle if incidence (angle of the wing relative to prograde of the airframe)to the wing. try 5*. Test fly, note new stall speed. Rinse and repeat until you maximize your design. Now go back and do the same but for dihedral (angle the wings make relative to the airframe when viewed head on...-o- vs \o/). The larger the angle from zero with the wingtips being deflected upwards will increase stability in the roll axis...to a certain point...clearly its not effective to have your wings at 80* dihedral. Unless you are an advanced designer, I would suggest a modest dihedral of 5* just to ballpark it...more advanced designs might have anhedral to enhance maneuverability...see the Harrier wing layout for an example. All of what I said is for cruise, so lets get to the nitty-gritty of making your plane dirty..I.E. gear and flaps out for slow speed flight. ***This is the big "SECRET"*** You can spend literally hundreds of hours tweaking your plane, but before I tell you how, I will tell you the thing you need to master first and that is airspeed control. Your plane still probably handles like crap even after tweaking the angle of incidence and dihedral/anhedral of the wings...that's OK. Test fly and use a landmark...your choice, whatever is easiest, but set a speed and hold it for a fly by. Now fly it again but slower...say 5m/s slower...and continue doing this while trying to do simple maneuvers like heading changes and note how your aircraft flies. You will come to a point where the wings simply do not generate enough lift and that's fine. Try flying that airspeed for as long as you can. You NEED to be flying slower than that to land. Landing is literally running out of lift from your wings while you are in close proximity to the runway. Chances are you can't really control the aircraft at this point, but at least you got practice at slow speed flight. Now we add some trailing edge flaps to give that extra bit of lift/control-ability when you are really bringing it in slow. Flaps help in two ways - they lower your stall speed and change the wing layout to allow you to have a more nose-down attitude for the same airspeed vs. without flaps. Add small flaps at the wing root to start. Ailerons for roll control are always outboard, flaps inboard. Do the test-flight thing again and tweak the deflection angle of the flaps, or size of flaps to suit your aircraft. This will probably take a while, but basically you are aiming for a speed that is slow enough you can coast to a stop and brakes are useful to expediate your landing...***you should have a landing speed slow enough that if your brakes hypothetically failed, you wouldn't care*** This is independent of aircraft size! Look on youtube for real life examples...the heaviest and largest aircraft have roughly the same landing speeds as smaller ones. If you have a large/heavy aircraft then the next step is leading edge lift devices AKA slats. Take those really long and skinny wing parts that are a throwback to the original C7 aircraft parts and toss them on the front of your wing. Again, play with the deflection angle to the aircraft's suiting, but in general you are looking to make your aircraft control-able at the absolute lowest speeds you can. Usually the deflection angle of the slats is lower then the trailing edge flaps. I hesitate to give numbers due to the sheer amount of configurations allowed by KSP, but in general, the heavier the aircraft, the more emphasis you ideally should have on the slats. I'm going to post this now so you guys can tell me if I am full of crap haha, but if this is helpful, I'll post more tips.