Alshain

The problem with that is that infrastructure of that nature is done with static models. These can't be applied dynamically, and using dynamic models, like those your craft are made from would just be added dynamic physics calculations to a game that is already using them rather excessively is probably not a great idea. There really isn't a great way to accomplish this. Even if it were possible, it wouldn't be a road paver. It would be a regolith 3D printer, because NASA and ESA are both already investigating that possibility.

@FletcherDragon I feel like pointing out that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it not being an SSTO. SSTO is just a label. There are perfectly good TSTO designs. The only reason for SSTO is to reduce cost (in theory), but in some cases cost may not matter to you. I've built planes that would otherwise be SSTO's but then to reduce drag I put nose cones on the back of the rocket engines (non-RAPIER designs) with decouplers. No, it's technically not an SSTO, but who cares? Nose cones are cheap.

The airship Turducken is ready for flight! Very cool video.

Thats a mod though. Not something that would be added to the sock game.

I'm a bit confused by your description. You are plotting your orbital insertion maneuver before you shut down the first stage? Usually you don't want to do that until your Ap isn't going to move anymore. That means all engines should be off and you are coasting to your Ap. As mentioned, you can steer from in the map view, and that is useful, but not necessary for orbit. There may be an issue with your ascent profile. Perhaps you are going to steep, or even attempting to go straight up (don't worry, most of us did that as beginners). Ideally you want to turn the rocket fairly low to the ground and gain lateral speed. But not so early that you burn up. It does take practice. Going straight up and then extending your orbit is very fuel costly. This is due at least partially to gravity pulling you back down, lateral velocity however doesn't get taken by gravity. Also, by gaining lateral velocity you are killing two birds with one burn, which saves fuel. By the time your Ap is where you want it (full engine shutdown) out of the atmosphere, you should have a very large ballistic arc that extends a little less than half way around the planet. At that point you have a lot of time to wait for your ship to reach the Ap, in fact once you have planned your orbital insertion, you will may want to time warp

I use a Thrustmaster T.Flight HOTAS. It's only about $10 more than the previous mentioned Logitech stick for a full HOTAS, but it is of course a lot bigger and takes more desk space etc. If you are interested, try to get the old PS3/PC one if you can (unless you have a PS4), the new one for PS4/PC has Sony icons instead of button numbers, but otherwise is the same. That makes it harder to use on a PC where those symbols are meaningless. I only use it for in-atmosphere flight though, I find the keyboard better in space. Really even with rockets I just use the keyboard.

Don't take this the wrong way, but if you are running out of time plotting your orbit, I feel as though you are plotting your orbit wrong or something. There is so much time to do all of that. Furthermore, this would be easy mode for landing. Part of the thrill of the game is descending toward the Mun at high speeds and figuring out how and when to slow down. If you could slow down time, well that would ruin it really.

It will probably be updated at some point. The Nintendo Switch uses Unity 5.6 natively, so if they want to go there then they will have to. However, it's probably not in the upcoming patch. EDIT: I guess technically it's the other way around, Unity 5.6 supports Switch natively. (P.S. I'd still rather have KSP on Wii U)

I finally found some time to go through this thread and update. Unless I missed something, everything should be updated to this point.

I don't think anyone (at least very few) uses it stock. I don't think it becomes a polarizing feature until you add mods like RPM.

You say that is if IVA use is some kind of major thing in the first place. It sucks and people avoid it already

There is a patch for that.

It can be quite the opposite actually. If you set your Pe too high, you spend more time heating and achieve less braking going through the atmosphere. It's the difference between a flash of extreme heat and prolonged extreme heat exposure. The parts can withstand heat, but if you leave them in the fire too long, they burn up. It's better to plow into the atmosphere a bit more and let the thick air slow you down fast than to linger up high and take forever to slow down.

Reading the descriptions here makes it sound complicated. I set my "touchdown" (for lack of a better term) out off the coast beyond the KSC. Re-entry will usually bring it back, if it goes too far in front of KSC, pull back to glide a little more (after re-entry of course), if it's not enough you are going to want to do a dive. With a little practice you will get it routine to the point of coming it at a 20 degree glide slope every time. It's a little un-nerving at first because it feels like you are coming in really steep compared to landing a plane, but that's normal. Once you get near the end of the runway, pull back hard and flare for a fast brake.

I agree you have to know what you are doing, but I don't consider it tricking KSP into making it work. I just consider it advance craft building. As for the CoM behind CoL means stability, I think the context of the word "stable" is missing. Stability is the opposite of maneuverability. Neither are good or bad, but too much of either can be very bad. Stability does not mean your plane won't flip. Having the CoL forward of the CoM has too much maneuverability, making the slightest tap on the controls go nuts, but having it behind the CoM doesn't guarantee it will fly well, it's just a necessity to fly well.

The good news is, you can get really creative with tail designs to make it fit any engine layout.

I have to disagree here... mostly because I've done it. You can build a shuttle look-alike, you just can't slap it together quickly and have it work. Rocket launched glider planes are one of the hardest things to do in the game, they take a lot of time in the VAB and in testing. That said, a lot of people think they are building a shuttle look-alike, but don't pay attention to small details (like exact wing position) which makes it not a shuttle look-alike and causes issues. That thread you linked, he built a plane much bigger than a shuttle (it's cargo bay is huge in comparison) but kept the same sized wings. That's why he had issues. The small Mk3 cargo bay is about the size of the real shuttle's (in relative proportion). If you are using the large one, your craft is a lot bigger.

@Randazzo, I know the difference between expansion and DLC, and what they have described is certainly DLC. DLC is usually worthless bits of stuff, while and expansion adds significantly to gameplay. This screams worthless bits of stuff. I don't think your definitions meet up with mine. I think this isn't for casual players at all. Casual players don't need missions to tell them what to do. They just go do what they want. I do agree that is the majority of the player base in this game though.

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.

Because people insist on discussing the hypothetical question: "What if Squad were a evil and terrible company despite the fact that all evidence points to the contrary." Basically they are talking about a class action suit if Squad doesn't give those promised a free copy of the expansion, even though they already said they will. It's just insanity really. Though, I can't entirely blaming people for assuming the worst, it's been bred into us by giants like Ubisoft and EA. It's hard to not assume they are somehow trying to cheat us when the big companies do it routinely.

I'm not sure that is a bug. Target mode isn't always used when targeting something on the planet. If you factored in the rotation of the planet during a rendezvous in orbit, it would be incorrect. I don't know of a way to avoid it.

If I could offer a suggestion to the OP I would suggest the person who wants to take up the challenge offer the "Hold my beer" line first, then it's claimed for 24 hours. If they don't come back and edit the results into their post in that time, the next person can take it. Sounds like a fun thread. If I can tear myself away from Zelda, I may take on one.

Dihedral (angled up) high wing mount does make it more stable, but I'm just talking high wing mount on it's own. You don't want it too stable, then you won't be able to make even small maneuvers. But as an SSTO or TSTO in this case, you don't need to turn on a dime either. If it still ends up over-stable, you can make the wings anhedral high mount and still mount the drop tanks under the wing. The big problem with TSTO is making sure it's CoM doesn't change so much that the plane is great for ascent and then flips out of control on descent. Losing all the engine mass is a pretty big change. So make sure you test the position of the CoM with the drop tanks removed and most the fuel gone too.

Try mounting them under the wings. The wings can be a little high, in fact, mounting the wings high makes the plane more stable (mounting them low makes it more maneuverable but this isn't a fighter jet, you are going in a pretty much straight line to orbit). Plus if you are using a drop-tank design, under wing mounts carry less collision danger. However, you may still need more wing, that little pair of wings may be a bit small for such a large craft. If you haven't seen it already, read this. It's old but still relevant. Comments on the KSP atmosphere are outdated however.

Well, they do land on the Mun before inventing the airplane.