Huntn

This is probably more of a rant but please bear with me. I've flown airplanes and flight sims for years but KSP is lousy from a space plane perspective. I realize a physics update is in work. First off I've seen some KSP planes that look fantastic. I've downloaded and they really fly, but I've not tested them extensively. If I look at the purpose of a space plane, it seems that vertical launch is the most realistic way to go because aircraft are not built as a barrel of rocket fuel with a cockpit, wings, and stability added. That's how rockets are built. However in my endeavor to build a simple space plane that can take off with a horizontal takeoff roll, I make sure that the center of lift and center of mass are close to one another. I can find a configuration that will fly, but not fly well, and then sometimes my aircraft flips end over end while flying, no problem. I'm definitely to scared at this point to install FAR. I have completed several survey missions where you have to fly over an area below a specific altitude. I've equipped my airplane with parachutes so I don't have to worry about crashing at the end of a mission, lol. Typically I build a fuselage with a delta or straight wing, but most of the time the basic aileron/elevator tabs are not efficient enough for rotating the aircraft. I've adjusted landing gear location to change the AoA of the airplane when it's sitting on the runway I've put a movable canard on the front, and it's not usual for my plane to flip over on it's back. No problem. Someplanes, simply will not rotate on with full backstick, but there's a bump at the end of the runway that seems to give them the little extra they need to become responsive. Anyway I'm frustrated. At the lower science levels, there simply is not enough good airplane parts, which if you use logic, there should be, as in airplanes developed before space flight. For now, I think I should stick to building rockets and just fly downloaded hot rods like the White Lightning.

Thanks for the advice and info guys! It gives me a better perspective.

I have no experience with satellites yet. Looking for info on satellites and orbiting the Mun, specifically Stayputnik. I've noticed during manned flights that a transmitted report carries much less data than a carried home report. I don't understand that. As long as you have electricity, eventually an entire report should be able to be transmitted, especially the kind of info in the narrative- "Hey, the Mystery Goo got hard!!" Anyway, is this the case with satellites? Data must be physically retrieved to get full benefit? And are satellites in themselves adequate as a source of science gathering? And do they need things like mystery goo, thermometers, and science station attached to them, which from my experience does not get the info back to Kerbin, without recovering the equipment. I assume a reaction wheel is required to prevent them from spinning? Do satellites have SAS? What is the best way to approach this- for Mun orbital missions should I be putting enough rockets on it to bring back to Kerbin, and a parachute on as part of a science package and mystery goo modules to recover it that way? Thanks!

Thanks for the info! I will do more research, especially the payload efficiency and fancy aircraft link you provided. As a pilot by profession, I'm just having a mental issue with planes designed using airfoils that provide ZERO lift, other than the barn door effect, lol. Now this is based on me hearing this in a video, not experimenting with them KSP wings. Technically I think these items in KSP qualify more as stabilizers or canards, but not wings, at least the type of wing on an airplane that always generate lift by virtue of moving through the airstream, and not relying on AOA to generate an upward force. However, obviously some lift generation is going on in the program whether it's from a realism standpoint or not. My goal is to work with what the program offers and hope as time passes, the physics become more realistic. Ok, I've found the FAR Mod. Have you used it? Yes, I want more realism, but within the constraints of KSP, I want flyable aircraft or space planes. Does this mod effect just aircraft or both aircraft and rockets? If it makes aircraft more realistic to fly, a big thumbs up! But if it just makes them harder to fly, then maybe not (while acknowledging the more realistic= harder). Thanks!

For the OP, I skimmed your tutorial, overall very nice. I looked at the section on wings and have to clarify that if, as reported, the KSP airfoils produce no lift like an aircraft wing does at 0° AOA, but relies solely on "barn door" effect for lift, and in combination with the current physics, it seems like stalling at this point does not really apply. Please don't take this as a criticism of your guide, just an observation. In fact, from a flying standpoint, KSP should be categorized as an arcade flight model (at least in an atmosphere), however I am having fun in space, not that I've spent much time there but I am doing the tutorials. Here is the question. I've googled some big wonderful looking Kerbal space planes and have to ask myself how much purpose do the wings really have other than adding mass? Granted I am new to the KSP, and I've been told new aerodynamic physics are coming which I'm looking forward to. But at this point, based on current physics, there seems to be little point to build something that looks like an airplane, but instead build something that looks more like a rocket with control surfaces attached. Thoughts? Thanks!

Overall I feel very positive about this. I want to think my physics based game is mostly modeled on semi-realistic physics. :) Thank you. I've not thought about it previously, but if you look at the Space Shuttle, relatively small wings, steep glide ratio, but those wings do produce some lift. I assume on launch that the rockets had to counter that lift to some degree to keep it going in the desired direction and/or they used that lift to help point the desired flight path. And with the update, I don't expect but would accept the need for something as large a a Saturn V to get into orbit as long as the principles have some realism associated with it. Ug. Would you say that as the game currently stands that it does space physics fairly well? I am no astronaut, but the mechanics of raising and lowering orbit feel right. I've done the transfer orbit in the tutorial and it feels acceptable, the maneuver node adds calculations which makes the game seem more realistic than just eye balling it. This simulation is very ambitious and I want it to feel somewhat realistic. Having to eyeball flying over a waypoint for a contract feels very unreal. Maybe the Kerbals don't have GPS, but they certainly should have some fairly sophisticated instrumentation besides looking out the window. The Waypoint Mod, came to my rescue for Kirbin surveys. Now I have to get up to speed with the scriptable auto-pilot. I don't want to be hand flying, not because I don't like the challenge, but because (my impression) it reminds me of how unrealistic that is. There maybe times when manual adjustments might be made, and in emergencies with equipment degredation, but I believe something along the lines of computers/autopilots is how astronauts really fly, not Kentucky wind-age.

FAR? There is a aero change coming to KSP, as in improved aerodynamics? That would indeed be welcome. From a flight sim standpoint, X-Plane is the best (as far as I know ). Instead of using tables that determine performance, the game actually computes lift and drag based on the shape of the airfoil.

I did not have this issue on the following flight. It's possible in the previous attempt, either it was a glitch or likely I was on accelerated time when trying to perform my science experiment. What makes me wonder about accelerated time is that this happened to me twice in two successive flights. Yeah, it's possible operator error/accelerated time was the culprit! Thanks all for the help!

I assume the following is true, but would appreciate confirmation. As a space plane designer, this is very important to realize! I watched a Scott Manley Youtube Video on Space planes where he said all of the airfoils in the game are symmetrical and produce no lift at 0° angle of attack (AOA). These are the kinds of airfoils you'd see on a rocket for stability, but not on a plane designed to fly in the atmosphere. Instead they rely on "barn door effect", wind hitting the bottom or top side of the airfoil at something more than 0° AoA to produce some amount of lift. How much I don't know, but is it safe to say from a design standpoint that all/most of the lift being produced is based on thrust from the engine? The description of a dihedral wing adding to stability means there is some amount of atmospheric physics, but I've always thought the effect had to do with a lifting wing. I just don't know how much. But based on the videos I've watched there appears to be enough barn door lift to glide a plane to a landing. It's just that from a realistic aviation standpoint, flying through the air, I don't think barn door effect cuts it. For most airplanes a lifting wing is required. For KSP, think about this, for all those fancy space planes with fancy cool looking wings, they may serve little purpose except to look cool and add weight. If this is true (there are no lifting airfoils) I assume it is because KSP physics don't correctly model wing lift as you would see in a traditional flight sim. I realize this game is primarily about space, but being so physics inclined, it's a shame if they can't model a regular wing. After all the Space Shuttle wing produces lift... History of the Space Shuttle.

Thanks for the info! The Waypoint Manager does the trick! Devs- this mechanism should be included in the game!

Thanks for the help guys! No remote tech installed. I just had two batteries. Would I lose electricity and then have it come back later? Can the batteries rebound? That's something I'll check next run through, maybe add more batteries. Thanks. No solar panels yet; That is possible, but I don't think that was the case, but it's something I'll be sure to check next launch. At first I thought this was a game bug, but stuff started working again coming back down through about 600K meters. Is there anything else that could cause this non-responsiveness when up high, just to see it come back later at lower altitudes? Can stuff freeze up?

I flew my first flight to 1000 KM, not an orbit but a parabola landing on the opposite side of Kerbin. Both times I've attempted this, near the top of the arc, I lose control of my capsule, I can't command Crew Reports, No Mystery Goo Reports, No Science experiments. The game still steems responsive, I can click on capsule components and get status reading which appear normal, my pilot seems happy, I can select parachute deployment, but I have to get to a lower altitude before things start working normally. What am I missing? Thanks!

I've been playing KSP for a short while and am frustrated with taking wags. My impression is that a space program requires computers and calculations, not eyeballing it and holding a wet finger into the wind as the primary means of navigating. This game is not alone. I get the same feeling in Elite Dangerous where the ships have no autopilot (although there is a docking computer). Back to KSP, I've tried one survey mission, to fly over a location above an altitude multiple times without success. I've activated navigation to the point (Map window) and most of the freaking time, the marker is not visible on Nav Ball. It's on the edge and covered by the display at the top of the Nav Ball. For the developers- activating navigation should place a cursor on the edge Nav Ball that is visible no matter what direction you are heading that guides you in the right direction until the marker itself if visible. Also, when in visual mode, a marker on the horizon seems appropriate. It's looks to me I've flown close enough, I mean I can see the entire hemisphere, but the conditions are not met. One tip I'll throw out for newbies, in flight there is a small contract window that can be opened by holding the cursor on it and when conditions are met, they get a green check mark. And when the conditions are no longer met, if you have not competed the terms of the contract, the green check mark goes away. I've noted the Waypoint manager mod and will give that a try. Any other suggestions would be appreciated! Thanks!

Thanks. That's a good description, adding depth. I like accomplishing achievements that should be part of the Science mode of play. I'd call that a Scenario and it would be very interesting. Could you clarify please? Are you saying edit Contract mode or Science mode? I assume to see Contracts, Career Mode must be chosen. How are such edits achieved? Thanks!

I just started playing this game about a week ago (March2015) and looking at the different game modes. Hello! Sandbox, Science, Career. My Impression: Sandbox gives you everything, you just have to figure how to make it work. Science Mode requires you make scientific discoveries to advance the program. Money is not an issue. Career Mode, IMO is an odd notion from the developer that a space program can be profitable from the start. Contracts can be fulfilled with challenges to earn revenue. When I look at the cost of upgrading facilities (up to and over $1M) I wonder what the heck? Consequently my current choice is to play in Science Mode. However, I’d still love to have Contracts/Challenges offering incentive to earn money, reputation, and gain skills. I think Contracts should be included in Science Mode to give some guidance and goals to the player. Visual surveys and milestones seem very applicable to the science aspect of the game. In Science Mode, specific exercises such as these would be a nice addition. The difference is that progress is not really dependent on money, but on skills, knowledge, and milestones. What do you think?