Sky_walker

I like it. It's by far better than the old system. Still far from perfect (nearly non-existent reentry heat being a major issue) but I have no doubt that it was a big leap in a right direction! Actually the new aero system is the major reason why I came back to KSP after a long break.

Sub-orbital jumps for me, with enough fuel to make some corrections if needed. Everything else is too time-taking. And I mean: time-taking in real life, not a game time. When I was starting my adventure with KSP I build a very elaborate VTOL that could switch into high speed plane and land on a surface for modular laboratory. This was the biggest waste of time I ever did in KSP. The amount of test flights, balancing, failed adventures and finally - the hours long flight to get samples from multiple biomes... I was totally exhausted after that and never touched my elaborate VTOL ever again. In my next playthrough all I did was sending simple capsule with chutes - got the same effect in roughly an hour.

It's actually a very helpful hint. If you'll remove it from all these parts that got it - you'll save some weight. Sometimes it's just several kilograms, sometimes it might add to a tonne or two. Doesn't mean that you need to have solar panels unlocked... you just have to remember about power management, for example - firing off engines now and then when in space to charge up batteries. upside down = inverted controls = mess. Though obviously sometimes you might want that in your design. lol

I would call these a realistic expectations. KSP requires tons of time, reviewers simply don't put it into the open sandbox games like KSP, and even fewer got any scientific knowledge to quickly notice that something is completely wrong.

Use spaceplane fuel tanks. Or take regular fuel tank and remove oxidizer. It's "waste of space" only because you think it is so. You still get an outstanding amount of thrust out of the fuel tank volume comparing to regular engines. IMHO - they aren't necessary - in fact LV-Ns have more options than any other type of engine. And nuclear engines aren't the only option for interplanetary missions, you can make them just fine with regular engines. No, it's not. It's the easiest and most lazy engine to use for these kind of missions, but certainly not the "only engine worth using". You already have that variety with existing fuel tanks.

By that logic - none of the materials in KSP have any real life equivalent, cause nothing here makes sense when you try to match it against real life. Even air doesn't. So we might skip it all together. And we probably should.

Rather redundant suggestion, not to mention that it works only in campaign. If your parts are overheating - hide them in a cargo bay, or at least - move them away from hot reentry plasma. I don't like a concept of upgradeable parts. As for whatever reason we cannot get a dedicated heat shields for planes - an idea with making all non-spaceplane parts less heat-resistant makes sense. Or better not at all. I think you don't realize just high G-forces it'd have to experience to be squashed like that. And it propably wouldn't be possible at all considering the internal structure. Not with unity engine I'm afraid. That would require whole new layer set of calculations and tons of additional details implemented into the game. You seem not to realize just how enormous change it is. Besides - if they'd want to make it realistic - you wouldn't see a thing, cause plasma would glow so bright that all you'd see are falling stars... but that's just nitpicking

Or no ablator at all and force us to actually use heat shields that... you know... have a mass and volume.

Your number of posts seems to say a different story... Wow, we're really down to the level of nit picking?

I wouldn't, seeing how they rushed the release and how little testing or feedback have been done to the new parts - and fairings are a new part.

^ This is IMHO top priority. Oh yes. I was underestimating these mods until I actually tried using them for a while and then stopped... suddenly game felt like it's missing something big.

And... I need to leave it like that? But... I don't want to. This also doesn't explain why adding 3 additional pairs of wings doesn't affect center of lift. It's not like it's a minor confusion - it's ignoring entire, huge lifting surfaces...

Nah, that's still nothing. I remember my Moho approach - high speed, long burn with Ions needed for breaking... so I get all my nodes and stuff ready, align, fire the engines.... and 10 seconds later got into the shadow of planet, just to realize that it's not a minor inconvenience - actually majority of my burn trajectory goes through the shadow as I planned entry into a low orbit.... ended up running emergency abort procedure and landing... touched down surface with ~10s of Xenon remaining.

Yea, me too. It'd be really nice to have. That would work if KSP would have nav lights. But regular lights? Nope.

I think he does understand it, he just thinks it's a broken mess. From his post I guess he is an advocate of realism, and KSP is really far, far away from being great in that regard. [edit] Seems like I got it right - here is his post where he expands on the issues and gives some examples: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/115440-Cool-concept-but-broken-implementation/page2?p=1838892#post1838892

It has an excellent TWR, actually: The best of all solid rocket boosters with exception of Separotron. So if you want a kick at some point - just use Fleas.

So, I was working on my new large spaceplane and went to test it, went back to the editor... and then I realized my lift indicator is completely off: It seems to be hooked up to the rear wings somehow, if I remove them - and then put new wings instead - it shows me that there is no lifting force at all. I tried toying with different additions here and there, reseting the game, clearing the editor and then re-loading the plane... I somehow can't make it work again Anyone got that happening? Any ideas how to resolve it? [edit]: It's version 1.0.2.

People always "already have something in designs". It never should be a reason to stop progress.

Mod is a mod, even if you make it yourself

What about reducing the base? Make it as thin as Stack Separator or thinner (depends on a size), cut the mass by half (or more), and bang - you already saved quite a bit, especially on a shorter fairings. And you also made it less obtrusive, cause right now it looks needlessly large.

I agree. It's a small thing, but would have a positive impact on allowing us to choose our own path through the Career. ps. it's Minimus, not Minimas

Definitely a bad suggestion. The old implementation of LV-N was bad on so many levels that a new one feels like a great refreshment. Also: I did interplanetary flights withouth LV-Ns just fine. If you are locked down to LV-Ns, then perhaps it's a time to start thinking about optimizing your rockets?

Players get frustrated with many things. Forgetting about solar panels, forgetting about engines, forgetting about this or that. IMHO as long as something makes a logical sense and is an implementation of realistic process - "frustration" shouldn't really be used as a counter-argument. Otherwise we'd still sit in garbage pre-1.0 aerodynamics, cause each time discussion about them sparked - there was someone popping up to say something about his "frustrations".

Try putting your fins on top of the rocket. Above center of mass.

You didn't even read my post. I specifically stated it's an extreme case that shouldn't be taken into account. Never said that it's impossible.