cantab

This game is like golf. To win you must score low. 4

Nee Naw. Sir, did you realise you were heading the wrong way in a subtraction way thread? 4

Make a legal U-turn. 4

The cake is a black forest gateau lie. -2

The cake is a lie. -2

-3 you can't deny

and a bit further -3

down down down -7

How about YES -8

Light speed delay really wants a good programming/automation system unless Squad are happy to cripple interplanetary probes. Such a system is obviously possible (NASA have done it!) but it's not a trivial task. Remote Tech's flight computer fails abjectly in my view, while kOS does well but is daunting for those without a programming background. Smart Parts looks good but I think it would get messy for more complex missions. I think the way to go would be a visual programming language, maybe something like what Lego Mindstorms uses, or perhaps more like Scratch. However it's done that's a big addition to the game and a big new direction for the gameplay.

Shift down a gear. -8

To go into some detail on the different aerodynamic models: Stock takes a part-by-part approach. For wings it treats each wing piece as making lift regardless of what's around it which means that aspect ratio doesn't matter, you can stack wings up like playing cards for more lift, and so on. For other parts it means that clipping is ignored for drag calculations, only node attachment matters, and two ships that look the same can behave very differently depending on how you put them together. Changes in aerodynamics with Mach number are largely ignored or fudged. Overall Squad's objective with stock aero seems to be to make something "fun" and playable even if it means deliberately being unrealistic. FAR takes a whole-vessel approach. For wings it considers how each part is placed and considers the aspect ratio of the whole wing and the proximity to other wings, tailplanes, etc. For other parts FAR goes by the shape of the whole vessel, and therefore half-hiding a part in another part will affect the drag as you would expect and a ship should act how it looks. Aerodynamics change with Mach number as you'd expect. Overall Ferram's objective with FAR is realistic aerodynamics within the limits of game and computer performance. Both share the same parts. That helps you make crazy stuff fly in either model - powerful engines can brute force through drag issues and the magic of reaction wheels can compensate for stability issues to an extent. For example I built a UFO in FAR. For a bit of history and completeness, old FAR used a part-by-part approach for the fueselage similar to current stock but handed wings like modern FAR. And old stock just gave everything that wasn't a wing the same aerodynamic deceleration, ignoring shape, orientation, and relation to other parts completely.

Feature request: Allow control surfaces to respond to trim only, direct inputs only, or both. The most obvious application is to copy the way some airliners move the whole tail for trim while also having separate elevators. I'm not sure how feasible it would be though.

In fairness, that's a problem to an extent at Gilly.

like a dodgy credit card transaction, this number will be declined -8

Well yes. After the number gets to -100, it will indeed return to 0 -16

not so fast -18

I actually got somewhere with my spaceplane development. Granted, it might not have been *space*, but hey.

Minus. Twenty. Seven.

Much like my spaceplane, it's going down -27

I'm going to space (hopefully), and this number is going to minus a hundred (hopefully). -26

Indeed. You're supposed to be subtracting. -19

If we win, it's going to be honestly. -21

And now it's -27

It's really not. I expect anywhere from no change to a 10% framerate reduction from FAR. The bigger problem is KSP since 1.0 has performed horribly, it was a lot better in 0.90.