WOODY01

I know the more experienced pilot gives the ability to point the vehicle in a certain direction. Myquestion is do they allow better control of of what they are piloting? I launched the same rocket with a different pilots assigned to fly it. It seemed to that the more experinced pilots made it easier to control. I am not really sure if I just happened to fly better and kept everything like my speed closer to optimal or pilots actually make it easier to control the more experience they have.

Thanks for the info I did not know it only happened then. Just got to remove mods to see if it still happens in the stock game to figure out where to post the bug. - - - Updated - - - Not sure how to change the prefix to solved but appears it is one of the mods I was using causing it.

I thought it was enhanced NavBall, but I do not see the options. If it is Enhanced NavBall, does it install the same as other mods in the GameData or different folders? Thanks for the Help.

I have noticed I only get around five to six launches until the game crashes. I already hit f-10 to turn off the temp gauge, is there any way to disable or remove this feature to stop the memory leak? Even turning it off I get a increase in memory use at every launch. It is interferring massively with my enjoyment of the game. I am trying to design two vehicles for a mission I am planning and have to reload every 10-15 minutes as I test and tweak the designs.

I had a rocket in my early career that the design had the second stage still rather low in the atmosphere around 12k. The second stage would flip so I added fins in 3x symetry and it still flipped. Decided to add more drag and added the fins to the upperstage by 4x symetery. That worked, so the extra drag provided by an additional fin solved the problem and the rocket made it to space. I also learned not to steer to far away from the prograde marker, keep it within 5 degrees until the upper atmosphere, with the new updates the game is less forgiving. I am noticing in the early career that fins are rather important and less so as you advance, could also just be how I design rockets. As for coming off the pad at an angle I found lowering my boosters enough that they support the rocket on the pad helps. Until I get the launch stabilizers I hold off on building anything too tall that would only be supported by one rocket motor.

I start my gravity turns between almost right off the pad to 1k. I just do not turn too far away from the prograde marker until I get up around 30k. Usually starting the turn early the rocket is somewhere around a 35-45 degree angle around 10k. About 1/2 the time once I lean my rocket over 5 degrees I hardly have to make any adjustments if I do it just right I do not need to touch the keys at all it just goes fine all by itself.

My point is more of this is not a flight simulator game, but agree that FAR and DRE do seem to do a better job. I also believe Squad not focusing on the aero or trying to balance the game to be friendlier to new or casual players is not a bad thing. It is not easy with a sim for devs to please everyone since everyone has different expectations of what should be modeled, how it should be modeled and how close to realistic it should be. I think Squad did a descent job of getting the basics down, things behave in a manner that is somewhat correct. More wing=more drag, jets lose thrust the higher they go , air hogging does not work, COL behind COM, COT behind COM, get the COL ahead of COM you have an unstable plane, COT off the center of mass can lead to some trouble, the faster you are going the more likely a large course change will cause a problem. Rockets need to follow a more realistic ascent profile. All these are very basic and IMHO adequate for a game centered on space exploration and where most of the places a player will go to have no atmosphere. My guess the majority of people spend most of their time out of Kerbins atmosphere playing this game. They are either designing, in space, or somewhere on the surface where all but one other place where jets can be used. At least that is how my games tend to go, spending a lot of time planning and designing a vehicle, a few minutes getting that vehicle up in orbit, hours where the aero model has no effect on my designs and game play and then a few minutes descending where the aero model comes into play again.

KSP is more of a Space exploration game then it is a game to design planes, they did an ok job with the aero. One thing they modeled some what correctly is how high aspect and low aspect ratio wings behave. If you look at the examples you posted they have very low aspect wings as do any aircraft that are meant to fly fast. Slower planes have higher aspect ratios to get the more lift they provide. At high speeds more wing means more drag which is not offset by the extra lift the wings provide. Basically what you are asking for is every design players make the game needs to determine how the part is being used, even if it is a wing being not being used as a lifting surface, determine each parts relation to airflow and correctly and accuratley calculate it all to determine how fast and well something should fly. The other option is just going back to the old way of as long as your lift is behind the COM and you got enough thrust it will fly, make suborbital flights with jet engines, and can get to orbit using very minamal delta-v. You may not be able to build planes exactly how you want, they may not have many options for fuselages and therefore design variations for planes, but the game offers what they said it would and what they ended up with post 1.0. If this was a flight and plane design simulator I would be more inclined to agree with you, but my guess with a similar flight simlation game where you design the planes yourself they would give you more parts related to aircraft and focus on aerodynamics more.

As the title suggest. Is there a way to get the game to recognize the wing changing it's aspect ratio in flight and change it's drag and lift?

I think it is balanced rather well in career. If you are a new player by the time you should have figure out how to get to orbit then You unlock the node that lets mechjeb do it for you as an example. I do not think it is cheating, I use it to launch reliable proven launch systems, I still handle new designs myself or any launch that has an awkward or heavy payload. It almost exclusively handles burns for craft with ion engines. I do use it for targeted landings sometimes, I usually do not allow it to land just get me close to the area then I take over. Just too many failed landings with it. It also almost exclusively handles rendevous for me. I can do them I just find them a pain I would rather be done automatically.

I like your suggestions, I do not agree with the more plane contracts, all of the surveys on Kerbin I have done with planes and some of those planes needed a rocket motor to complete the contracts. I also mostly test parts with planes since I find them easier to control in the atmosphere and have an easier time getting to the correct altitude and speed. I do not do most test contracts unless it fits in with something I am already doing and the test is out of the atmosphere. I would add that contracts should be limited by biome, If you already have a couple of plant a flag on x then you should not get another one. I think more biome specific contracts would be great, would love if they were generated regarding the places you have not been to yet. Like if you have not been to the poles on Kerbin it would generate a contract to go there. I also would actually like contracts for space stations and bases to be more like the explore contracts which have several steps involved with them to complete. Right now it is 5 kerbals, generate power,, have a docking port and an antenna. They could make the future requirements include generating more power add a lab, add science part or other similar parts. You would get rewarded after completing each stage of the contract. I also think there should be a limited number of contracts along with an automatic income based on reputation. By limited number of contracts I mean once you have several sats in orbit around Kerbin you will not get more contracts to put a sat in orbit around Kerbin. If you completed several land on the Mun contracts you will no longer get them. This would mean they need to boost contract rewards but also lessen grinding the same contracts in the same SOI or biome, if you complete them all the monthly income based on rep would cover funding. Limiting contracts would also motivate players to expand beyond just the Mun and Mimus since once those contracts are complete you need to move on to other places. Having a monthly income based on rep also gives a player a little more flexabilty in how they want to play, instead of funding their program soley on completing contracts. I just say this because I have held up missions waiting for the contract to appear or had to grind some contracts to get the funds to do what I wanted. A monthly income will lessen this and the player progresses it would allow them to do more of what they want and not need to worry about completeing contracts as much.

You can adjust things by hitting alt-f12, may take some experimenting on your part to get the settings how you like that are closer to post 1.0. As for the current version it took me several reverts trying stuff out. Speed in the lower atmosphere is an issue beyond just wasting delta-v, turning too far away from the prograde marker at low altitudes is bad a lot of the times, TWR of 1.6 - 1.8 seems like the sweet spot for most of my designs on the launch pad, fins are a must if you are having trouble(you can launch without them but having that control surface makes things a little easier), you need to start your turn early like almost off the pad early or at least below 1k(this is no more than a 5 degree turn), I am finding it better to leave SAS off until the upper atmosphere since it seems to want to resist the turn. Most times now after my intial 5 degree turn I am only controling the throttle with SAS off letting the rocket turn by itself, this took several reverts with different rockets for me to get down. I am not an expert but speed seems very important in controling the turn, too fast your rocket resist the turn, too slow your rocket will turn to fast(someone may correct me on this but it is what seems to be happening). I also found it helpful to just focus on getting as close to orbital velocity as fast as I could and ignored my AP during several launches. It help me figure out efficient launch profiles which I am still working on but I am getting better with each launch costing me less delta-v and getting the AP closer to my desired altitude. To sum up going too fast is bad, turning too aggressively is bad, start your turn early, with enough launches, practice and good designs you will have a rockets that get to orbit almost on their own.

Just scanned this thread so it may have already been stated: If a LS was added it would need to carry with it a trade off significant enough that the player would need to make a meaningful choice to send a Kerbaled mission or probe. With each choice offering benefits and drawbacks. Otherwise it is just another part to place on the ship that cost you a little delta-v. It is already somewhat implemented in the game, probes are lighter, cost money to hire more Kerbals, you get less science transmitting data, no way to reset experiments, probally forgetting one or two benefits of probes. I would think if LS were to be added that science returned back to kerbin should be worth less then what a Kerbaled mission brings back. Now if life support can be done besides the addition of a few parts. It can be used to limit the durations of missions until you get enough tech, have a meaningful impact on the game if a LS requirment is not met like your Kerbals dying or a large reputation loss, more reputation for kerbaled missions completing contracts or visiting other SOI's and biomes, funds reward higher using a kerbaled mission for certain missions, the additional mass added by LS should be enough of an impact on delta-v. The above would at least give somewhat a meaningful decission to the player as to whether to send a probe or Kerbaled mission and would add that as the player advances in tech sending kerbaled missions become more cost effective and viable option. I would just prefer to send kerbals and assume that the capsule was designed to hold enough snacks and other things to keep them alive instead of adding to the part count. Who wants to send a probe when you can send a Kerbal like Jeb who is smiling the whole way on reentry after you lost your chutes to the heat?

This might be true, maybe if it was implemented better I would find it adds a cinematic value to the game. Right now I just find it annoying.

My guess there is some part clipping involved with that design and maybe taking advantage of stacked SAS? Not saying you can not make things work, I have seen a pic of a flying box somewhere on the forums today. Most games you can figure out how to exploit the mechanics. As for me I just find it more intuitive. High aspect wing ratios do not perform as well as low aspect ratio wings at high speeds, jet engines perform how somewhat as I would expect them to losing thrust and having max operating ceilings regardless of how many intakes you put on, more advanced intakes increase the max altitudes, more advanced engines increase operating altitude, planes that look like they should fly will fly relatively well in alot of cases unless the balnce of COL, COM, COT is too far off, COL closer behind COM more nimble aircraft further away less nimble, put it ahead and you have a plane prone to flip out of control. I am just finding it a lot easier to trouble shoot designs now since the rules are more realistic. Also just to make it clear I am not saying the aerodynamics are realistic, I would not want them to be anyway, just closer to being realsitic.

Really think they should remove it, I turned it off once I figured out I could. Just was hendering clicking on parts and really did not add much to the experience for me.

Nice recreation. I see where you are coming from having more restrictions placed to build more realistic vehicles can take the fun away for some people. It is really hard to balnce simulator type games for different types of players. I like the new update simply because I can now design a plane or SSTO and understand how it will behave a slow and fast speeds and when it will likely have control issues. Since the release of 1.0 I am finding it more intuitive for me because it follows more realistic rules but I am also finding it more restrictive when it comes to asthetics. I have one plane I would really like to move the wings back on a little, just so it would look better to me. I probally can with some tweaking of the fuel in the tanks but decided to put plane/SSTO designs on hold until I am sure Squad will make no adjustments to the aero model. As for your design options to be honest I have not seen much variation simply because this is not a game focusing on fantasy based designs. If everything you design can work it takes away one of the challenges of the game. If I can get a jet engine to put me on a suborbital trajectory you took away a lot of the challenge, if they model the aero to be more forgiving and allow designs like that x-wing to work you take away the challenge simply because it would allow everything to fly. I think you can adjust most of what you are complaining about by hitting f-12 and adjusting some sliders, I am sure I saw a slider to adjust drag and some other things not sure if it all adjusted something with the aero or not.

I like the update. I remember being a little put off by the first plane I ever designed, which was pre .90. It was a small one engine thing it flew very well and I wanted to see how high and fast it could fly, I nosed up to a 45 degree angle then nosed up even further. When the engine finally died I went to map view to see how high I would coast. The Ap was in space forget the hieght but I remember making it to space at under 80k closer to 70K I think. I also find the update to make designing planes and SSTO's a little more intitutive. Jets lose thrust at higher altitudes, high aspect wing ratios cause more drag than lower aspect ratios at high speeds, build something that looks like it can fly it probally can reasonably well, you may need SAS to help out if you did not pay attention to COG, COL, and COT. I am actually finding it easier to design because it is now related closer to reallife. Sure there are still some things you can do to take advantage of how things are calculated and can get some crazy things to fly, which I think is a good thing. It is fun to build some crazy stuff that I like how it looks and "cheating" to get it to work. Overall I am happy with this update, I am not sure about reentry heat. I set the difficulty to maxium and after 1.0.2 it seems you have to work at a craft failing during reentry. I can get parts to explode easily enough but I have tried some very agressive reentry angles with no ill effect. The only time I worried was when returning from the Mun and only had enough delta-v to get my PE to around 40k for return. Several orbits around kerbin and I started worrying my ablative was going to be gone during my final descent. It seems spending more time in spent in the atmosphere above a certain speed effects ablative wear. Which kind of makes sense to me it is the friction wearing it down pulling it and the heat it is holding away from the craft. Not sure if that is close to realistic but that is how I see it from my limited understanding of how this stuff works.

I have seen differnt results with higher tier plane parts, keep in mind I have very limited knowledge and piloting skill. I recently designed a plane that seems to be able to go faster at an altitudes of around 3-4 k then it does at sea level. This was 1.0 and not with the recent patches. The design had two basic jets, the intakes after the circular ones in the tech tree, and the delta wings. It flew faster at lower altitudes then previous designs which were basically the same except using intakes and wings from lower tech tiers. It could also get to higher altitudes. I was going to run further test but decided to focus on rockets until I am sure Squad is not going to make anymore changes to the aero model.

Focus on space I say, get a descent enough aero model in place and then leave it at that. I pretty much expect that things out of the air stream do not cause drag, it be an extreme challenge to get a SSTO that takes off from the runway working or able to carry large paylloads until very far into the tech tree, putting a pointy thing towards the direction of travel causes less drag than a blunter thing, if you design a plane that looks like real planes they should fly reasonably well, if I turn a rocket or plane to aggressively in the lower atmosphere it should cause bad things to happen. Basically I want a challenge getting to orbit but not so much of a challenge it is not intitutive for someone with a basic understanding of aerodynamics. So build a rocket with the things that can cause drag covered by a fairing you get better performance course, you build a rocket symeterical it will not be pulled one direction by being unbalnced by weight or drag. Focus on the space part of the game I say, let modders tweak the aerodynamics once Squad thinks they got a good balance between game play and realism.

I do think they should add future tech engines, maybe ones with poorer performance at lower altitudes so there is a trade off the player has to consider. Maybe not realistic but I do know engines can be tuned to run better at certain temps and atmospheric pressures. I am seeing videos post 1.0 release where people are successfully using SSTO planes, so not sure why besides designs that worked well before do not or unable to carry the same payloads as before. As for playing this game as a plane simulation it would be nice if squad could find a balance between focusing on rockets and planes. I purchased this game pre .90 release and I suspect their original concept was focused on rockets and they did not expect the popularity planes would have. I could be wrong and they intended to focus on planes and rockets equally and jueeded st started with rockets. What I have seen from older videos is they did switch to focusing on plane parts a lot more when they saw the players' demand for it. Adding new plane parts, how jet engines perform more realistically losing thrust as the plane gains altitude and air hogging does not work any more. All of which can make some designs pre 1.0 obsolete or in need of some tweaking. I have some rocket designs that needed to be adjusted after 1.0 simply because of the new aero. I will admit for rockets it is a little easier since a lot of the rockets just required adjusting the TWR or simply adjusting the launch profile. I have a SSTO plane design that I just abandoned since the new aero was intoduced and started a new design which I am still working on, not sure on the weight of the payload I can get to LKO yet, but it performs ok at the moment. Once I get that design working effiently and able to get a small satelite into LKO, I'll move to a larger design when I get the tech for better intakes and engines.

The problem you are having is the jet engines lose thrust as you gain altitude and when the intakes are not inline with your forward momentum. I think they got the progression of planes pretty good now. Your First tier jets and intakes can get you about the max altitude of around 12-13K, you can increase this a little by doing an effient skip. Which is you go your max speed at a lower altitude then climb converting your forward momentum to altitude. The 2nd tier plane parts can give you a little more altitude. The 3rd tier plane parts can take you up to around 15K. I have not progressed further than this yet. With some of the contracts I need to have a jet/rocket hybrid. The jets take me to their max altitude with a skip and the rocket motor takes the plane the rest of the way. It is very important to check your COG in the SPH by draining the tanks fueling the rocket. You do not want to try to recover forward momentum after climbing with the rocket motor in an unbalanced plane. On a side note adding more engines do not always equate to higher TWR, particuliarly once you gain altitude. The extra weight of the engine counters the extra thrust you gain.

I think they should add them but there needs to be some sort of trade off. No sense in having a mechanic in the game that the challenge is easily fixed by an addition of a part. Maybe a trade off , you dump a lot of heat for a noticable TWR loss, maybe increased power consumption? Maybe increase the effectiveness of radiators as you progress in the tech tree? You start out with overheating as a big concern then it lessens as your tech increases.

The contracts would pay more since there would be a limited number, encourage players to push beyond Kerbin and it's moons, take away grinding contracts to fund your program and allow players the funds to do more of what they want instead repeating the same contracts. If a player completes all the contracts then they could get automatic funding each month to do as they will with it. The funding could be based on rep, the more kerbals killed the less funds you would get. The more crews returned safely the more money you get. Eventually it would get to a point that funding is no longer an issue and allow players to build as large and complete as grand goals as they want.

I just thought of this today. I am playing career right now and was thinking of starting a sandbox game specifically to go search for it. Then decided just to wait to get the tech I need in career to see if it exist. I am surprised I have not seen anyone posting confirming or denying it exist post 1.0 release, maybe I just missed seeing the thread.