Green Baron

You are right, sir. I thought yourself, Pecan and others had answered the issue. What i do to deal with the weirdness is i make simple planes. A hull/fuel tank, cockpit, 3 wheels, a single engine (mostly the wheesly), intake, two wings and canards, airbrakes, (v-shaped) rudder. That flies easy and long ranges, lands almost everywhere (i mean in one piece). I switch off any reaction wheels but use sas to stabilize the course, just because i don't manage to trim the contraption so that it flies level (may be my own inability). To turn i bank steeply and use elevator pulses to do the turn. I fly at 250m/s (throttle down the wheesly). But i'm no ksp aircraft specialist, i just like plain straightforward designs. btw.: i'm using the keyboard, that means digital control surfaces ... Maybe using a joystick would give a better ability to steer in a graded manner ? Joystick-trim could partly solve the problem with the level flight, turning would become smoother as well. Could help with the weirdness ...

Option 4. Being on linux, ksp 1.1 was a huge setback compared to 1.0.5. I can wait. Being not on steam i can still play all versions since 0.23 if i want to. Smarmy git. :-)

Pls., guys, stop that joking on a serious subject :-) Engineer or not, F=m*v²/r describe a force, it's just Newton. Centrifugal force (cf) is not countered (rather caused :-)) by the pilot directly, that's right, but by the lift vector (partially). I don't understand what you @KerikBalm are trying to convince us of and what kind of problem you have with the cf. The degree of bank determines the centrifugal force in a coordinated turn (60° being roughly 2G). It's not that difficult and i'm neglecting other forces that act on the plane or special constructions of ailerons: centrifugal force, gravitational force and the lift force are (should be) in equilibrium in the coordinated turn. If not the aircraft slips (which can be fun). The adverse yaw you guys are battling about is (to be precise) caused by the higher induced drag at the tip of the wing with higher lift (a paraglider turns in "wrong" direction compared to a fixed wing because the force from induced drag is higher than that from the increased lift when braking one side for a turn, moreover, if you overdo it it turns "negative", one half flying forward the other backward, which can be fun). Concerning slip and adverse yaw: an aircraft can actively be slipped by applying rudder and aileron in the opposite direction. That's applied adverse yaw, one wing is highly obscured from the airstream by the hull, the other one points forward to some degree. It's a stable state of flying, controlled with the ailerons, used in cross wind landings or when landing over an obstacle. With a glider however, you can enter a slip unintentionally during a turn (if you don't counter the beloved adverse yaw) if you don't coordinate the turn correctly. Don't underestimate these forces ! Edit: I'm glad others helped the op with his problem ;-)

#1: These things would never fly IRL. jje64 was talking about about real aircrafts. #2: His explanation is near perfect. The lower(inner) wing is slower than the higher one when turning, so Yes and Yes. Sorry. And the lift counters the centrifugal force. It wouldn't turn from the lift alone, you have to ccordinate that with rudder (sorry, i mean yaw, not that perfect in english ...) and elevators. Sorry about that. Edit: turn: assuming not too much v-shaped or anti-v-shaped wings of course ;-)

pls. let me add to jje64 (had a ppl myself over 10 years), that once an aircraft is trimmed to a certain speed it holds that speed. I'm not talking about any sort of axis-stability or lability, which apparently is not modeled in ksp, just the power of the engine or the aoa. If trimmed, when you change engine power, a real aircraft sinks or climbs but it holds the speed. In ksp it changes the speed, the altitude stays the same. Furthermore, a real aircraft, once you change the trim (aoa), it changes the speed, higher aoa meaning lower airspeed. Well, if you pull it will certainly climb a bit but speed will drop, you'll have to pay that climb back after a few seconds. Or you change the engine power. Yes, the aircraft flies straight while kerbin is a ball. So after a while it "climbs". Or Kerbin disappears. I find that weird too. Furthermore no, an aircraft has no sas. Some instruments have gyro to stabilize, e.g. the artificial horizon. Hope that helps :-) (I last flew ksp-aircraft in 1.0.5, stock, maybe there has changed something now) Edit: Just fpr completeness: once in level flight you "trim all forces away" from the controls so that if you let go the aircraft just flies level without any autopilot. I never achieved this in ksp, but i must admit i'm more into rockets than planes. Cheers

Yep (Linux).

That'll will keep the universe from expanding so we have more time ... :-)

Example: A rover on the pad starts to jump around ever more wild in a self increasing cascade. Landing gears slip until the lander topples over (solved). And then ... the crashes. @tseitsei89: I know about the "workarounds", they don't solve the problem. I'm not so much into planes in 1.1 seeing the problems wheels caused in other threads and because the aerodynamics make me laugh. Rovers where enough to keep me from trying. ... so it's Orbiter for me (right now). :-)

I enjoyed it very much between .23 and .90. But game mechanic hasn't changed that much. 0k, we got the manouver nodes and indicators on the nav ball as well as automatic holding of direction which made landing a peace of cake. 1.0 was a set back, 1.0.5 brought me back to the screen again. I did enjoy 1.0.5 long enough to install opm and head out with a big fleet of star ships. Up to now i have set a few hundred (maybe thousand) manouver nodes, the game is becoming customary, i was looking out for 1.1 because of performance gain, dreaming of huge stations. But, being on linux, the performance gain isn't that big (it's not like multiple times faster), though i realize some. I only played a few hours mainly because of crashes and because rovers, planes and everything wheels breakdances about the place. Even landing gears are difficult to handle (though they work for me). Of course i read "do this and that, strut it up and fill out a bug report, when we're back from vacancies we'll have a look". Hmmm ... we'll see :-)

Wheels, combined with squads head-in-the-sand behavior are actually one of the reasons i'm starting to turn away from ksp. If i recall the devnotes right they spent so much time on the wheels that i doubt they'll get it right in the near future. Provoke-mode: Building an own game engine requires more than c#-coding. Before setting out on that i'd strongly advice to redesign the whole internal value creation chain, from feasability study to product release. btw. game engines: a very nice and completely open source game engine is godot ! It's more stable and easier to use than unity (linux). Two problem: first it's just 20mb, unity is a gb. How can that be :-) ? Second: no documentation ...

I don't know. OP asked about our preferences. Finding out about the basic capabilities might be worth an own thread ? :-)

Since 1.1 Orbiter, just because i don't play ksp any more due to the pile of issues it has right now. I even resurrected an old Win7-Partition for Orbiter. But i won't compare these two. KSP is more on the gaming side, Orbiter is much more a simulator. Knowledge about navigation and basic aerodramatics help a lot, as well as patience (10 min. to leo). You can of course build "own" ships via an api (c++) and even script it (lua). Big disadvantage for me: it's windows. The game-mechanics of ksp (i mean the space-part without career and administration) or the realism of Orbiter combined with procedurally generated bodies .... that would be a nice game i'd say :-) Problem is, i don't dig the mathematics behind Orbiter though it's delivered with the game ... too high stupidity :-)

Hi, i'm with you about the grinding. Over the time i shipped hundreds of passengers (they bring money) and landed dozens of tripods on mun and minmus just to get thru the science-tree before going further. But tools (am using KER, KAC, PreciseNode and the LaunchWindowPlanner) are not *necessary* to go interplanetary, they just make things easier, espacially when a whole armada is sent out to distant bodies. But we could as well calculate time and angles on our own (not mentioning dV because it's trivial)), it's not magic, many did so and probably still do so. It's not trial and error and not kerbacidal. btw. AlexMoons calculator works fine, you don't have to wait for the in-game version if that's what holds you back ;-) Sorry to disagree on that :-)

The "old school" players have surely been everywhere. Playing since 0.23 i have been to and returned from every possible stock body except tylo, most of them multiple times. Played OPM in .90 and 1.0x and planted a probe everywhere and set satellites everwhere to obtain charts. I sent manned missions to every system including opm but didn't land everywhere. I see it as others before: once that's done there isn't any more to do. I'm through with the game-mechanics, and the bad quality of 1.1.x doesn't lure me back. But if i can encourage others who think about leaving Kerbin's SOI: going to Duna isn't more difficult as going to the mun, it doesn't take that much more dV (see the charts), but doing it the first time is of course much more rewarding. The game mechanics with maneuver-nodes and course-markers make these trips really easy.

Near perfect the first design. The second design could be tight on dV for a beginner. My suggestions: 3 legs are enough and put them as far down as possible, strip the ladders (fly jetpack on the mun), strip the rcs-ports and the 2.5 to 1.25-adapter, that's just overweight. For easier reenrty: use a 2.5m heatshield and adjust the ablator to 160 or 240, that makes it easier and avoids flips in the atmosphere (pe on reentry around 25km). Then you can forget about the casing as well and glue the parts inside on the outside of the experiment container. Don't forget a battery and solar panels. And i'd use 2 of the larger lateral parachutes (1 would be enough but balance ...) instead of the tiny one. In that case you could take 2 versions of the experiments.

Well, by now we all realized that 1.1(.x) was rushed out too fast, has unexpected bugs and crashes from time to time, but no complaining will change this. We can only wait or move on. btw.: i find it not helpfull to discuss internet-rumors about a company (that salary thing). I don't think anyone of us can verify whether these things are true, but anyone can spread almost any accusation and the accused has little chance to "defend" himself. I'd just ignore these things. @Sirad: If you haven't already, try orbiter until ksp 1.1.5 is out and stable ;-) Hail the probe

Complaining is futile :-), the only thing we can do is wait until it's done. I played two hours and decided that it's yet too frustrating, the errors i've encountered are either already known or very basic things like memory corruption, so if squad didn't write any addons to the engine these things come from unity. I might come back when it's 1.1.5 (am extrapolating from 1.0 :-)). Cheers

I know :-) My dreams are sometimes compiled without warnings (-Wall -pedantic). Just didn't want to get deeper into it cause it's not my job ... :-)

Hi, got a *** Error in `./KSP.x86_64': double free or corruption (out): 0x00007f922b370630 *** each time i close ksp. Something like this might be responsible for crashes during scene change as well. Last ksp.log-entries: [LOG 14:57:08.848] [MessageSystem] Reposition 0.02 244825 [LOG 14:57:16.403] [UIApp] OnDestroy: MessageSystem Other errors in ksp.log refer to convexhull of potatoeroid which has more than 255 polygons, wheelcollider that needs a rigidbody, invalif configuration entries for the engines, and disbaled highloghting. Mods: Scansat, habtech, ker, realplume, planetshine, krnd, precisenode, kjr

I get a headache from the small thin letters as well (on the 15" laptop screen, it's ok on the 24" desktop). I wear glasses for reading.

Pros: it's 1.1 has new dialogues and things tries to be smart offering contracts came surprisingly suddenly Cons (after 2 hours, linux): hangs from time to time during scene change. Was just about to send a kill when i realized ksp was just contemplative and still running. offers salvage contracts with parts that have no hatch (habtech mod). Pls. let me suggest to add a can-opener, can be an old-fashioned manual one ... left handed version pls. How about using pods for the candidates of rescue missions ? Other: seems on the first glance not to be faster than earlier versions, but haven't tried large contraptions yet. edit: good idea is to switch off suspension on landing legs ;-) This is very cursory superficial

Just read that a passenger airplane collided with a drone when landing at heathrow airport. The plane landed without damage. What do you think, how long will it take until something terrible happens with a drone, be it ignorant fool or coolblooded assasin ? You still can have nice things, but they cost knowledge, training, handicraft (and an open field somewhere out there) :-)

From now on, i shalt be known as Green Baron ... please ?

I play ksp because it runs on native linux, not the other way round and i'm totally with renegrade and steve_v. The only reason why i still run a win7-partition is orbiter, in that case the application dictates my os. That is because gnu/linux is the most sophisticated, fastest, versatile, stablest and best documented and configurable programming environment and os that exists, well that i know of ... Does that answer the question :-) ?

Many thanks for your coverage here ! :-)