Alshain

1.0.5, the latest working version of KSP.

Not from my experience. I have two very basic planes, simple as can be early career planes. One is a taildragger and the other is a tricycle. Neither will stay on the runway. These are planes unchanged from 1.0.5. Why is that some people don't see the problem? I honestly have no idea.

It's a known issue, it's nothing to do with construction. That was probably @GoSlash27's module manager patch.

You would be surprised. EVA pushing is a common way of deorbiting a craft that didn't quite make it back. They aren't as negligible as you might think.

I'd say your first sentence is wrong. Do you have any idea what it takes to calculate physics between multiple lego-style parts? KSP is the first I know of to do it, a few others have been popping up but they don't come close to the scope of this game. Do you have any idea what it takes to keep track of all the calculations associated with orbits and maneuvers? You say it shows a lack of performance for the graphics and functions, I say you are taking stock of only the graphics and not the functions. You want "pretty", I want a space simulator. I'd like pretty too, but the gameplay comes first. I think you are discussing based on a faulty premise. Does that mean it is perfectly optimized? No, in fact if you have been keeping up with DevNotes, you would know they are doing an optimization pass now. However, I wouldn't expect miracles from that, you might a small improvement and bugs may be easier to chase down on the development end once it is done, but the bulk of performance increase we will get came from Unity 5. To put it simply, the game is more complex than it looks like from an outside perspective such as your own. That is a good thing, it means they made the game simple enough for you and I to understand rocket science.

It's not impossible at all. If it's going into an unrecoverable spin, either the re-entry profile is wrong or the design needs work. Many people have STS replicas.

I didn't say they should remove it, I said if they did not many would care. Big difference there. What they should do is put a very limited torque back on it. You can't even turn it in space, at all. So you have to use high level solar panels with it that will turn themselves. That doesn't fit because you get better probe cores before those solar panels. It just doesn't make sense where it is in the tech tree without some torque. Or you have to use a reaction wheel with it, which again doesn't make much sense. It doesn't have to be enough torque to fly a rocket with it, it does have to be enough to turn a small satellite around so it's solar panels face the sun.

I don't expect it to be perfect in every situation. I expect it to be perfect in the most common situations. The more you undock the more accurate it would be if every command pod has it's own name, the inaccuracies come when docking (which name do you go with? The docking craft or the craft being docked to?) or possibly if undocking two command pods at the same time as one piece. Your scenario of A1, A2, and B would be the best case scenario because each of those command pods have their own name and they are all now separate entities, they all take their own name. The docking scenario can be prioritized by craft type. If docking a craft to a station, take the station name. If docking a probe to a craft, take the craft name. Still not perfect, what happens when docking a craft to a craft (it would just have to pick one) but it's still better than merging them as they do now. I can't try your mod because it is incompatible, but from the screenshots it looks way more complex than I would prefer for a stock implementation. A simplified version where you just name the pod would be fine, the dialog for listing all the names and templates are fine for a mod, but overkill for a stock implementation.

I found a video showing basically the same procedure I use. This guy has guts though, his Re-Entry was incredibly steep even compared to mine. I may have to try that, seems like it would be easier to target the runway, I just didn't think it would survive lol. (He does hit the runway a little hard, but you can fix that by flaring more) https://youtu.be/T99shdw5XN0?t=2m25s

I disagree again, it always works for me, and the aerodynamics simulation are not that far off from the real world. They certainly aren't 100% but they are close enough to make this descent work. A very high Pe very rarely works, it's a good way to get you killed.

Pe is Periapsis. The lowest point in your orbit. Not sure what pancake mode is, he is saying 90 degrees from prograde, so wherever prograde is, 90 degrees from that, that is using his method of very slow re-entry. (this is called "Angle of Attack" or AoA also abbreviated with the greek letter Alpha) I disagree with that however, if you use a lower Pe as I suggested, 30-ish degrees from prograde should be more than enough for a proper descent if you set a low Pe. (This is how the real space shuttle did it) The idea is to have your belly to the heat, which also means more drag because that also puts the flat edge of the wings toward the aerodynamic forces I just looked it up, the shuttle AoA was 40 degrees. I was close.

You need a lower Pe. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but trust me it isn't. It's a matter of cumulative heat. If you set a high Pe and glide forever during re-entry, the heat builds slowly up to a point of destruction. On the other hand if you set a lower Pe, you gain heat much faster, but not as long. By the time it gets up to destructive levels, the aerodynamic forces slow you down so it cools off again. Try a Pe of around 10-20km on re-entry from 70km orbit and keep that nose up until the re-entry heating abates, after that you can nose forward and fly it like a plane on a steep descent.

What I have never understood is what exactly do you do with a Stayputnik? It has no SAS, but it has no torque either. It's really just a dead weight part. Sure you could add a reaction wheel, but that isn't worth it when you could just as easily use a different probe core. You could use it as a shuttle deployed science sattelite, but by the time you have that capability you have the QBE which has almost the same stats, is smaller, and friendlier stack nodes. They could just remove the thing and very few people would care. Honestly I've used the Micronode more often than the Stayputnik since it was nerfed. There is just no good niche for the part.

There are sub-forums here that are good for joke threads.. this really isn't one of them. People are making serious suggestions here and filling the forum with a bunch of joke threads just displaces those from the front page.

Where did you get that idea? I've never in my life seen a game rollout on a per-timezone basis. It usually releases at a specific time for the developer's timezone.

That's why the suggestion is to name the controlling pod which would take over as craft name if undocked. If each pod keeps track of it's own name it's not an issue at all. Add little logic to determine which name is selected in the event of a dock or undock and problem solved.

That has nothing to do with the runway, that's a bug in 1.1. I play 1.0.5 and the dirt runway is fine, it didn't change in 1.1 so the dirt runway is still fine. I don't care for the dirt runway either, I would rather see it flattened and had some kind of material based traction where grass is slipperier than dirt is slipperier than concrete method of difficulty. BUT, I still say in it's current state the runway does work fine and you don't have to use the grass as a crutch.

That's because it is bugged.

2+ wheels vs 1 wheel should already have more drag at the back. The whole friction slider even existing is a workaround.

Because higher priorities existed. Did you play 0.90? We didn't even have proper aerodynamics, which affects those hanging out around Kerbin all the time as well as those going to Duna, Eve, or Laythe. We didn't have re-entry heating either, which is a rather large aspect of space travel. Step back 2 versions, we didn't really have planes, I mean we did but it was around 10 parts and that was it. It's not that the graphic enhancements haven't been a priority, it's that they aren't as high a priority as the game functionality.

The PS4 supports it, from what I'm gathering KSP does not.

My little brother played pre-1.1 KSP on an Athlon 64 Winchester with 3GB of RAM. Those of you that think any version of KSP with Unity 4 or 5 would kill one of the 3 modern consoles, I have news for you.

Funny, I was hearing this.

Nah, a little extra code can easily determine vertical speed. It will be either negative or positive, so if you are going up, don't turn it on.

That is just gorgeous. I wonder if they implemented it and just haven't gotten around to testing and polish. It certainly looks great as it is. Maybe they are saving it for the supposed graphical overhaul (of course you'd think they would know by now you can't hide stuff from mod developers like that).