DundraL

Hey just another lurker here.... After finding my wing parts much too heavy with the recent update, I read this thread and found the dev/master version on github... After which I found that the default strength for wings is much heavier than stock counterparts.... Any way I would ask that you consider making the default position for the "mass/strength" slider at a point where the mass would match with the part description. A step further and you might even allow a config file to change the default slider position for those who find themselves constantly tweaking every wing surface higher/lower. Other concerns with this is that some challenges may start disallowing FAR "because it can change the mass of stock parts"... that's not something I want but again, the decisions are yours to make. Also, I have noticed some changes to stability in existing craft, but I'll come back to this later as I expect there will be further changes to both stock and FAR that would prb render any fine tuning obsolete... Any way, thanks for the time- DundraL

While its true you can just keep adding wings there is a point you want to add struts from piece to piece, and beyond that, if you want to make a truly huge aircraft, you need to add structural supports inside the wing, then strut the wing pieces to that. For example: Note the big diagonal lines on the wings: Those are I-Beams that the wing pieces are strutted to in order to keep the wings from just bending. Also dont forget to keep an eye on where your center of mass/lift are when your fuel tanks are empty!

probably going to have its own folder in gamedata, like nasaparts did. probably gonna be able to just delete that folder. And then there will be me, who will hide a legacy part on any craft file I share just to troll =)

I disagree... I think that this "toughness" stat will eventually be applied to all parts in ksp, allowing for parts to be damaged before simply disappearing in an explosion. Giving a part different states based on how much of its toughness remains can allow for many possibilities: Imagine trying to pump all your fuel out of a damaged burning fuel tank before it explodes to minimize the damage done to the rest of your craft. (or dropping that stage entirely) Or getting out to try and doing repairs after a failed docking attempt. Maybe they will add effects to this damaged state... damaged engines providing reduced isp and thrust in a different direction till repaired etc... damaged fuel tanks bleeding fuel... landing gear not deploying... solar cells reduced power... or just pain ole not being able to control those parts anymore...there are endless possibilities with this. Or maybe they will add more depth to the actual destruction of parts... is it better for a fueltank to instantly disapear in an explosion, scattering everything that was attached to it? Or to have it explode and leave a burnt out structure behind, with the other surviving parts still attached? EDIT: I doubt this last one though, unless unity can allow for an object to change its model on the fly, it would probably require rebuilding of the craft on the fly.

This is such a nice forum. Elsewhere I see gg/sjw "debate". I shudder to think of that coming here. I highly think this is a hands off type of situation for squad... For example: Find a way to graphically denote a female kerbal as female that cant be considered sexist. Constantly bringing this up puts pressure on squad in an awkward way that there is no good solution to fix. Do not want. Constantly bringing us this subject on forums invites the aforementioned "debate"... DO NOT WANT. So overall, while I know your intentions are to improve an aspect of the game, I personally would like to keep discussion of such things to a minimum. =)

This isn't supposed to be a fix/workaround/improvement for any aero dynamic model. At it's core, it's all about gameplay. Using the above post above as a prime example, look at how you might recreate that aircraft in ksp. Its center of lift would be far forward of its center of gravity. THAT PLANE COULD BARELY FLY IN KSP! (if at all) It would be horribly unstable, because again, (in ksp im talking here) there is a very heavy jet/turbojet at the very rear of the plane, with FUEL and little else to shift that center of gravity back forwards to the wings. And even then, a major source of that balancing weight, the fuel, is temporary, leaving an already unstable configuration even worse later. If we were to say, remove some of the weight from the jet engine of that (in ksp) aircraft, and transfer that weight into the intake, you would be much closer to a stable aircraft design. Before AND after fuel consumption. Why air intakes? Because looking at that aircraft, the only other significant, permanent weight is the cockpit, and increasing it's mass would penalize rockets and wouldn't scale with plane size. Im not trying to police any system, and the reason I wouldn't want to edit file like you suggested is that after I'm done building and flying, I want to be able to easily share that experience with other players here. EDIT: Almost forgot realism. While yes, intakes are just "intakes," I think this is a misleading name to begin with, based on both the ingame model, and in function. The models depict a much shortened compressor(with the exception of radials). In function they ALL function as a compressor, as even standing still on the runway, they are force-feeding air into the engine. Even the radial air intake.

Thats a good point. Seeing as how I only use FAR, I sometimes forget that stock aero model scales drag with mass for some reason. As you said, other intakes would also need to have their drag coefficient reduced to 0.2 in order to benefit stock aero models. Will update OP.

Using a 3rd party program for screenshots is, IMO, the superior choice here. They offer many more features compared to what devs would implement in the forseeable future, and allows squad to continue work on other aspects of the game. So why demand Squad do a rework of something that already is available for free? I myself have used a few programs for this since BF2 came out, where taking a screenshot caused a 1/2sec stutter that got me killed too often. Since then Ive moved onto this one: http://getgreenshot.org/ I havnt tried the imgur plugins or anything but it has what I (and you) want: selectable output types, lag free capture, and rapid fire captures. And of course I love open-source freeware.

This http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92819-An-arguement-for-a-quickfix-in-the-spaceplane-patch But at this point, I'd say whatever is in .25 is in, as they said its already in QA, ie bugs squishing phase. Oh and just because its huge doesnt make it a monstrosity ^^ http://dundral.imgur.com/all?

Rather than having a part that manages fuel balance, you should search for a more permanent way to balance your aircraft and then put main fuel tanks near the center of gravity. While TAC fuelbalancer does what you want, in the end, an empty aircraft will still be unstable if you rely on fuel to keep your craft balanced. IMO, the problem isn't fuel weight, its that there's nothing that scales with craft size other than engines and fuel. And one of those disappears throughout the mission, leaving heavy engines at the back with nothing to balance them out. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92819-An-arguement-for-a-quickfix-in-the-spaceplane-patch My solution was to transfer some weight to intakes from engines, but I never got any responses. :/ Add a reply if you think its worth anything.

Actually, I would really like this idea if it had an option to disable in difficulty settings. Coulda make for some awesome stunts too...

Im not arguing for implying anything about other modes/difficulties. Im simply saying that career mode difficulty settings should be decided by the user. I dont even have an opinion about presets or default settings. I believe disallowing available settings based on what some believe to be a "good career mode experience" may in the end simply interfere with other possible avenues of gameplay.

Please keep in mind that we may want to have extreme setting just for giggles and challenges! A few examples that may seem absurd at first: 0%-1000% contract money/science/reputation rewards rewards. (separate settings) 0-3000 starting research points. Max # of kerbals hireable. Max# of saves/ quickloads. 0%-1000% GLOBAL science multipliers for science gained. I admit at first glance, having 1000 starting science and 0% contract reward multipliers may not seem reasonable... But what about challenges? How much rep/science can you get with only a fixed amount of starting cash? Who can do X with the least science points spent? Who can fill research tree with least money spent? What about challenges that have a fixed science budget? For each of these, player may have to start an entire new career just for that challenge... would we have to "grind" mun or minmus missions every time? Or can just start out with enough science to go after a challenge? So please remember that starting a career is not necessarily someone wanting to do a "playthrough." Anyone else have a setting that might be relevant for a challenge?

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43208-0-24-Jul18-SelectRoot-Set-a-new-root-part-0-24-new-UI Use this mod instead. This wonderful gem lets you select almost any (non-mirrored) part as your root part. It will save you many many many many headaches with having to rebuild some or subassembly from whatever part you want to attach it from first. Also, I like bacon.

I would like to know the source of these quotes...

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/66593-Throttle-Controlled-Avionics Thats a mod I once used that does exactly as you say. changing throttle on engines for turns. But be warned: there is terrible side effect. If you turn in the same direction often, you will burn more fuel on one side of your ship, causing a weight imbalance, burnings lots of fuel just to balance things out again. if you Turn in the same direction too often, you will have to stop and transfer fuel just to fly straight enough to overcome the imbalance... by burning more fuel. Great on early takeoff, and a possible nightmare in space.

Hi, DundraL here. Still new to he community even though I've been playing a while. I've heard the next major patch is going to focus on spaceplanes/aeronautics so I figure now would be a good time for these suggestions. Anyway I'll just cut to the chase... Quick version: Adjust Jet engine/ Intake weight How- Reduce weight of every jet engine by 0.2-0.5 tons. Increase weight of every intake by that same amount. Effect- Shifts weight forward on aircraft. better realism. game is more accessible for new guys. increases weight cost of airhogging. More variety in aircraft design. This one change to a single stat on 7-10 parts can have a very positive effect, both in terms of realism, and accessibility for new players. Seeing as how most aircraft tend to place jet engines towards the rear of the craft (crazy I know), and an intake somewhere infront of the engines, currently this means an unstable weight distribution for one of the heaviest subsystem that aircraft: propulsion. Why does this even matter? Because propulsion (and fuel) are the primary design elements that scale up with aircraft size. Unless you do something silly, your center of gravity is going to be way towards the back. This also means that a look around the forums will see the same aircraft shape over and over again: wings way back under the heavy engines, and everything else far forward, trying to balance out the weight of those engines, struggling to make a stable craft. For beginners, the solution is to balance things out using the only other heavy thing that scales with an aircraft: fuel. This is a trap that will make planes inexplicably go out of control due to the heavy weight at the back becoming dominant once that fuel is burned. Payload? Just like fuel, it's temporary, leaving an unstable aircraft. For more advanced users, this is an engineering hurdle to be overcome with every aircraft. But what else is there to balance the center of gravity? Extra cockpits and hab modules? Batteries? SAS? Keeping forward trim tanks full? This is just adding dead weight. Thats where the (heavier) intakes come in. Combined with lighter jet engines this would give users much more control over where their center of gravity is. Compressors in jet engines in real life are a major portion of their weight, so it definitely is more realistic. Worried about overall weight changes? Its the same weight for any 1:1 combination of intakes and engines. Also as a sidenote, this will also increase the weight of airhogging craft. I'm not sure this is an issue, as I personally see airhogging as an exploit, but your opinion may differ. Less airhogging is more realistic to me =P EDIT: Perhaps leaving 1 type of intake as is can allow those who like airhogging to continue to do so. Considering that this change is litterally, a change to a single stat on 7-10 parts, it likely wouldn't require much time to implement. Probably more time discussing/testing it than implementing. Also it is one of two perfect times to do this: A: when overhauling spaceplane, users will likely redo many of their saved craft. You dont want to implement a change like his AFTER that, as that is the time it would interfere with gameplay the most. With the overhaul, users will be rebuilding craft anyway. Changing it during or just before a patch like this would minimize it. B: when redoing flight physics. same reasons as above, but this IMO would be the second best time to implement this change. Tell me what you think guys. Edited title since it is no longer just before the spaceplane patch. As noted OP was written just before the economic boom patch, so keep that in mind if anything sounds crazy.

Didnt know I would offend you with it. Only reason it didnt take off with a regular LF:O ratio on that flight is for scoring purposes and the additional time it would take, as stated in the description of the craft. 10+ min is a long time to orbit.

I'm back! so after seeing vectors win, I asked myself; What would wackjob do? Heres the result, a 1,148 ton (in this configuration) spaceplane =) http://imgur.com/a/MN5yj Initial cost: 927640 Recovered: 871132 Mission cost: 56508 O2 into orbit:78745 LF into orbit: 12761 LF/O in orbit: 91506 Score: 148179 As for the people complaining about the scoring system, yes, it favors getting large amounts of things done in one mission. This I think is a good thing because you should also consider the opportunity cost. Is it better economically to launch two fuel missions, or a single large fuel mission and rescue a kerbal in orbit for money? Even on this scale, its economically better to do it in just one mission.

Well finally got back to my computer, here ya go =) launch cost-392532 Recovered -360147.15 mission cost- 32385 Fuel to orbit-49112* this number does not include all fuel shown in orbital pic, some was kept for deorbiting etc. Score-74,478.5 I suck at BB code so I'll just link to the pics. http://dundral.imgur.com/all?

Is usage of FAR allowed? I definitely have a few spaceplanes that could do some damage to the leaderboard, but they certainly require FAR if they are to even be flyable... If so Ill update this into a full entry. Also, on scoring, is the payload(fuel) considered cost? It definitely makes a difference for spaceplanes and sstos, where leveraging the efficiency side of the equation is where their points come from. In the case above, it more than doubles the cost.