Alshain

ROFL. Ok, whatever. I'm done listening to you now, if you aren't listening to me, why should I? The plane works fine.

It has flaps too, but for some reason in KSP they actually create more drag and significantly less lift. That and the fact that stock flaps are 2 position, which is annoying really.

What I have is not too far behind. It depends on what you are building. Close to the center of mass makes it very maneuverable, which is great for a fighter jet, but for and SSTO that goes from the runway to orbit doesn't need a lot of turning capability. Having the CoM a little further back makes the craft less maneuverable, but more stable, which is what I prefer on an SSTO.

It increases lift, and helps stable flight on that design so it flies level with no hands on the stick. Not all my planes have angled wings like that, but they do all run off the runway in 1.1. That's how I know that won't fix the problem.

I don't think 1.0.5 wheels are perfect by any means, just better than 1.1

He didn't just rotate the wings (something that does not fix the problem anyway). He completely replaced the wings and came up with a new design, which is fine, but I design my own planes. I'm pretty good at it, and his plane wouldn't drive straight on my machine anyway. Speaking of which, having the Center of Lift in front of the Center of Mass is not a great idea. I don't know where you learned that but it's just wrong. I don't think his plane was that way either or it wouldn't have flown, but that has little to do with the landing gear.

I seriously doubt it. If anything with the way the wheel colliders in 1.1 are, it would make matters worse. Guys, I'm not looking to redesign this plane for 1.1, I don't even have 1.1 on my computer anymore. The plane works fine.... in 1.0.5 where the wheels aren't bugged. Hopefully in 1.2 it will work again once they fix the issues. The fact is, at least on my machine (and many other players machines, including consoles), any plane I fly in 1.1 slams off the runway. It's not a construction issue. I promise you if I tried to fly that new plane that foamyesque designed it would still drive off the runway. This is not new, it's all been done, you guys are late to the party.

That's a good looking plane you have there. Not even close to my plane, so basically you have designed an entirely new plane and called it the fix to my plane which works fine when the wheels aren't bugged. There is certainly nothing wrong with the wings on my plane, altering them doesn't actually change the fact that it veers off the runway. I know this because I did that about 2 months ago. Nope. Afraid not. It's a bug in the wheels in my case.

Why?

This is the one you see in my signature there. It runs off the left side of the runway. Works great in 1.0.5 though.

If you want it on XBox, yes. If you want it on PC, no.

I don't have his plane, but I have plenty of mine that don't work. Bear in mind we have been discussing this issue for months now, plenty of screenshots, videos, and craft files have been passed back and forth. Plenty of people have tried to correct the designs through construction. You are coming in and the tail end of this discussion now, the conclusions have all been made and devs have acknowledged. I promise you the people that have witnessed this problem, including myself, are not ignorant of plane design.

Screenshots of what? I have hundreds of screenshots in my signature.

Well that's 4. That means to reach the low end of your statistic (50%), there are 8 total KSP players in the world. You shouldn't waste your time. Even if every member with a registered forum account has posted about crashes, you still can't assure that is 50% of all users. The point here is that games sometimes crash, and it sucks and it should be fixed, but KSP is far from alone in that. Your claim was no other games you know of crash. If that is true then you either haven't played a lot of games or you have just been incredibly lucky beyond belief. The more likely scenario is that you are exaggerating.

Someone should really do this in texture replacer (I would if I could do textures) I can just imagine it now... "The Evil Kerbal Texture Pack (EKTP)".

If you post some images I could give you pointers, if I have any. Personally I like to classify the cost and mass capabilities of the lifter separate from payload, as payloads can vary in cost at the exact same mass. The only thing you need to know about a lifter is how much mass it can lift, it doesn't matter how much that mass costs.

There are still some physics involved. Mainly gravitational physics. If you send a craft flying near a planet or moon with both of them on rails in the tracking station it's trajectory will be altered. I've offered no statistics at all. Do you know what a statistic is?

Ok, so since you are pulling statistics out of thin air now, I think you have lost all credibility here. Seriously. Have you asked all the KSP players in the world? How do you know it's 50 to 100%? Please do show me your sources.

I find that highly doubtful. Either it's not true or you don't play many games.

Flying Tiger and Microsoft both would be worse anyway, their offices are both West Coast.

Exactly my point. It doesn't need much, but it does need more than 0. Historical accuracy is irrelevant if it hinders gameplay. KSP is not the real world, it does not directly translate into the real world scenarios.

1. No. The only real reason to be concerned about number of stages in a stack is for cost effectiveness (by means of fuel efficiency). Really you can use any combination of number of stages on a stack, but with carefully selected engines, you can tailor the fuel efficiency for the altitude your stage is at. For that reason, you really only need 2 stages in a stack, which can be augmented with SRB's radially if you need a bit more thrust at sea level. Why only two? Because we are really limited to 2 classifications of engines. Those that work well at low altitudes (Reliant, Swivel, Mainsail, etc.), and those that work well at high altitudes/space (Spark, Terrier, Poodle, etc). Adding a 3rd stage would mean adding an engine that duplicates of one of those two functions, if you are going to do that, just add more fuel to that stage and save the funding that way. Some engines do work pretty well in either position. For example the Skipper can be used on Stage 1 and paired with a Poodle, or used on Stage 2 and paired with a Mainsail depending on your payload mass. Keep in mind, this 2 engine strategy is only for getting to space. Once you get there you can of course have more engines on your payload. If this is the craft you were referring, he is using that same strategy, a 2 stage stack to space with SRB, a command module and a lander. What about mass? Yes, dropping mass and making your rocket smaller improves fuel efficiency, but the bulk of the mass is from the engine, so that tank has a small impact once empty, but not significant enough to warrant the cost of the engine. What about Asparagus/Onion Staging? (i.e. Radial LFO stages). These almost always end up more costly on a launcher. SRB are cheap, LFO engines are expensive. I have personally lifted as much as 100 tonnes with only a 2 stage LFO stack and SRB. If you really build to the extremes you can do it, but personally if my payload is any heavier than that I just break up the payload and send it on two rockets. 2. No. 2 tanks vs 1 tank makes no difference (unless you are discarding one) at all. These tanks are equal mass and have equal fuel. They scale perfectly. The only room for pause is their tech tree node. If you are targeting an earlier tech tree, the 2 tanks may appear before the 1 tank option. One other thing I will note about the craft I linked. He is building for the sake of replica. However, the real world and KSP often differ. For example, if the Apollo engineers had tried to put landing legs on the command modules, well that likely wouldn't have worked very well. However, that would work just fine in KSP. For that reason, a Apollo style lander separate from the command module is not going to be as cost effective as just putting legs on the command module with a little extra landing fuel. That isn't to dissuade you from doing a true lander (it's fun!) but you should at least have all the facts.

Not all experiments are per-biome. Some are Global, and even that can depend on situation. For example Crew Report Flying High is global, it doesn't matter what biome you are flying over, there is only 1 for each planet (with an atmosphere). Crew Report Flying Low however is per-Biome so on Kerbin for example, there are 9 of those. There is a grid here on the wiki that may clear it up (or confuse you more). http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Science You can transmit as many times as you want, you just get diminishing returns each time. Depending on the experiment the first transmission may send all transmittable data, so the next time you may get 0 and the only way that experiment in that biome, in that situation would get you more science is to return it manually.

The second option is your best bet. You need to find the right angle to take off so that you can continue to climb while evenly gaining speed. Too much speed too low, and you overheat, too much altitude gain means your engines lose air too quickly and your orbital speed does not increase as much. Every time you alter your velocity vector away from prograde you gain drag and take a cosign loss, so you want to avoid it once you get it where it should be.

No, it's not. It's an completely unavoidable issue for many players. Just because you aren't having the problem doesn't mean it doesn't exist.