Tourist

I've had no problem with any of my existing spaceplanes, either going up, or coming back. My ascent profile has changed bit, in that going for 1600 m/s before switching to rocket engines now appears suicidal. But I've had no problem getting to orbit, with enough juice to complete the mission by going to rockets at 1400 and pitching up a bit. Now, my spaceplanes admittedly are not as large as some of the monstrosities that I've seen posted around here, none of them are reaching Laythe. But they are no slouches in the cargo carrying capacity. I deliver all my landers for atmosphereless moons into space via spaceplane... key spacestation parts. I've noticed no difference when they reenter at all.

I personally don't use mechjeb but have no objection to its use. I think new players should not use it in the first instance though. Its in there interest to learn to do everything manually first, then use mechjeb to eliminate the routine tasks later on. I'd go further and say that there should be a stock autopilot. However I do not think it should be available from the start of a new career. It could be via the techtree, I'd say towards mid-game. Alternatively it could be available early on, but needs to be "trained". For instance, it can't do rendevous, unless you have performed one manually, or maybe certain scientific tasks, unlock its capabilities.

Good work! The first time you do rendezvous is hard, I had so much trouble with it when I started. I read instructions online, but it all seemed a bit counter intuitive, so I couldn't quite get my head around it. You feel like a real rocket surgeon when you manage it the first time. For what its worth NASA had to overcome the same problem during Gemini. They made the same mistake everybody makes when they start out in that they tried just pointing at the target and propelling towards it. Good to learn to do without assistance first, after that use mechjeb all you like.

Hmm not sure. Space Operas a ubiquitous for being about action and adventure over science. Everybody here knows the X-wing vs Tie fight dogfights in Star Wars are unrealistic.... but I'd contend they would not be as much fun in their genre if realistic orbital mechanics were involved. Don't get me wrong, I think realistic orbital mechanics could be a very tense, and exciting way of depicting an fight in an updated version of something like "The Enemy Below" or "Das Boot" (somebody please do this). Star Wars and to a degree Star Trek are the children of Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers, and being adventure stories set in space, rather than Science Fiction per see. But I realize I've treated a tongue-in-cheek OP far too seriously. So I would add 8. Able to solve logic problems without making up techno-babble. You should never have to reverse the polarity of anything to get your characters out of a jam. [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] [quote name='Norpo']<serious even though the OP isn't> I don't have a problem with lapses in realism in sci-fi, fancy lasers making fancy sounds in space is fine, probably because it's [B][I]fancy,[/I][/B] but I do have a problem with [URL="http://shinytoylabs.com/jargon/"]technobabble[/URL] that comes from stringing together [I]real[/I] concepts but with no real link. Sure, 90% of viewers might not know what an orbit is, but if you're one of the 10% that does, then whenever a show uses "orbit" wrong then a little voice inside your head is going [I]"No! That's not how orbits work! How can you prograde the curvature to radial the orbit? And what the heck is an [URL="http://rockyjones.wikia.com/wiki/Atmosphere_Chain"]atmosphere chain!?[/URL]"[/I] Maybe I could just start using [I]regular[/I] words wrong... Nah, that goose never work. And yeah, I was bugged by that scene in Doctor Who too. [SPOILER=spoilers]The part where the anti-gravity thing fails and the station starts [I]falling out of it's orbit?[/I][/SPOILER][/QUOTE] Its off topic, but the same rule should apply to anybody writing about using computers in TV Shows. Senior Cop: "We need to find the hacker who has been using his hacker abilities to make bombs from objects which are in no way computers, or connected to the internet in any way." Techie Cop: "Sure boss, I'll just login to a Terabyte Avatar, use the RAM GRU to track is location to the nearest BIOS"

I liked the previews. It should be good so long as the keep the hell away from the wackier and narrative destroying stories of the EU. I'm sorry EU fans, you enjoyed them in your youth and I don't want to take your enjoyment away from you, I'm not saying the stories themselves are bad, just that their overall effect on the movie narrative is disastrous. Disney made the right choice to not be constrained by them Examples of terrible narrative ideas in my opinion. First, because people have raised it as a possibility, and his absence in the clips, the whole Luke turning to the dark side thing.... absolutely atrocious idea, wiping out basically all of the character development and indeed the entire point of the first trilogy. Similarly bad ideas are Emperor clones or Vadar Clones. Basically any idea which makes the previous movies irrelevant. Also they need to stay away from "Buffy Syndrome" also known as a case of the "Stargates". This is a condition where after you defeat the [B]Big Bad[/B] you find out that really there was an even [B]Bigger Bad[/B] that you didn't know about previously. Of course, once you beat the [B]Bigger Bad[/B], you find they were just holding back the [B]Ultimate Bad [/B]all along. Before the previews, I would also have listed more super-weapons as being pretty silly as well... I mean, how many times do we need to destroy ultraweapons... but I'm reserving judgement on Starkillar base.

[quote name='Xyphos']that's great. you, like everyone else, failed to mention [B]HOW [/B]you did it[/QUOTE] [quote name='Tourist']All my SSTO spaceplanes that worked before 1.00, continued to work in 1.0X and still work now.[/QUOTE] Fair cop. I suppose some people are just sick of "Squad broke my ships!!" posts. But you did ask for help and snark helps noone. My method really hasn't changed much, except I find I need to build up speed at low altitudes first, before pitching up.... seems to take awhile to climb. So on takeoff, I point at the horizon until I reach 300 m/s then climb at about 30 degrees until the atmosphere needles moves to the edge of the first and second region. Then I pitch down to about 10 degrees to pick up speed. Switch to rockets (or closed cycle mode) at around 1400m/s then try to pitch up just a little, and very gently (too much an you can lose your wings, which makes landing.... a bit difficult). I know this is a little unspecific, at in the thin air, I kind of just feel my way.

All my SSTO spaceplanes that worked before 1.00, continued to work in 1.0X and still work now.

These are all [B]seemingly[/B] rational explanations. But that's what [B]they [/B]want you to think. But beware, they are all thralls of the Kraken. Be careful, we are a long way through the looking glass now and we're fresh out of croquet mallets. That or the curvature thing... its probably that.

First Submarine Plane? those were my favorite vehicles in Midwinter II.

Its not climate change, all the insane rocket launches have compacted the ground around the KSC down until its under sea level.... Kerbal scientist have already developed a plan to place another KSC on the opposite side in a hope to pop it back up using ridiculous launches.

[quote name='Xyphos']if his malnourished, already-dead corpse doubtfully survives re-entry, sure.[/QUOTE] In the head-canon for my current career, Kerbals don't need to eat, they photosynthesize, that is why life-support and supplies are not an issue (at least in this career, I may add the lifesupport mod at some point in the future) They only eat snacks for fun. So he could survive all that time, all he needs is sunlight. He'll be [B]very[/B] bored by the time he gets back though... you can only play "I spy" with mission control so many times before working out what "something beginning with J" is no longer presents the challenge it did in the first couple of hundred days. Spoiler: Its Jool.

I wished somebody had told me that struts break off when the stage they reinforce is jettisoned or undocked. My thinking was that because they are used to reinforce the stage it would just be pulled along behind. This led to several aborted attempts to attach them to decouplers, even abandoning the use of them entirely. Eventually I saw the errors of my ways.... but, yikes they could have been useful when I was first starting out and my rockets were flipping and flopping their way to orbit.

I also find that my spaceplanes no longer work on Tylo, my engines don't even start, let alone reach orbital velocity. Squad must have borked the atmosphere again.

1. My understanding is that if you are not in control of a vessel, then it is "on rails". It will just keep going around, and around its orbit, even if that obit takes it through an atmosphere. I think its a different story if its orbit actually takes it into the ground. I'm sure I've left ships, which were I in control, should have been captured by the atmosphere, but because I was in the tracking station, just kept orbiting. 2. There is no way to do this in stock... the Mechjeb mod can automate many maneuvers.... not sure if it works if you are not actively in control though, I've never used it personally.

You have to exercise the greatest of care when handling real life disasters for entertainment purposes, particularly if relatives, colleagues or close friends may still be alive. Generally you can only do it tastefully if you take a documentary, or "based on a true story" approach. In other words, a dramatic depiction of the actual event, or related events. An alternative fiction approach would be problematic, as it may trigger the grief of living relatives by positing a situation whereby the tragedy never occurred, and their loved ones may still be alive. That's not to say that a doco, or a dramatic re-enactment may not also trigger their grief, it probably would, but these seem clothed in veneer respectability because of its "educational value", and the public interest in the "truth" of the history of these events. But of course its a very thin, grey line. As an example Apollo 13 was fine, because it took the "based on a true events" approach of dramatization of real life events, and touched the Apollo 1 tragedy with the very respectfully and not gratuitously. In Apollo 13 it serves to depict the real dangers of space travel and depict, realistically what the crew and family may have feared during the events. Changing the names would also not do it, particularly if everybody knows what the story is really about. You would be better off with a purely fictional story, still sets in space, which picks up on the themes, tension and drama of the real event, but otherwise is not recognizable as a direct analog. Long story short. Probably bad taste, unless done as a documentary discussing possible rescues in a purely education way.. ie this is the capabilities NASA had, this is how they worked, this is why they were not deployed.

[quote name='parameciumkid']"impossible" I understand the troubles it's been providing, but hey, this is KSP. It CAN be done. Perhaps with lots and lots of retro-rockets.[/QUOTE] Exactly, its now an engineering problem. I managed to de-orbit a spaceplane onto Eve yesterday... just had to slow it down during descent by burning retrograde. No ablator needed. My understanding is that Eve and Tylo are [B]supposed [/B]to be late career challenges. Now, Eve at least, is living up to that destiny.

I [B]could [/B]test elements of my mission on or around Kerbin first to see if they will work. By doing so, I could avoid the need to revert after long burns and large timewarps, both of which still take real world time. Nah, too impatient, light this candle!!

I was never really a fan of the old one, it wasn't very pretty. Also I like the civilian look of the new cockpit... in my head-canon, Kerbal-kind were too focused on blasting themselves to the stars, than blasting each-other to smithereens (although in the process of going to space they have inadvertently blasted no small number of Kerbal's to smithereens.) I also never really used the Mk1 in space, my preference was always the Mk2. Its sleek and smooth. But, on the other-hand, if the question is should both be included in stock? I'm always in favor of more choice. I'd especially like it if they reworked it to be less Top-Gun and more Bell X-1.

I have noticed a bit of an issue getting a plane to deorbit on Eve. Ultimately though, Squad can't win. It initially creates the soup-o-sphere that makes it easy to get rockets into space, and the spaceplane builders complain the aerodynamics is borked. They tweak the aerodynamics to make spaceplanes fly more realistically, and the rocket builders complain that the game is unplayable and you can't aerobrake on Jool anymore. Squad tweaks again in compromise and the spaceplane builders complain the soup-o-sphere is back and the rocket builders still complain the of flipping rockets and you still can't aerobrake around Jool. It tweaks again to bring back peoples beloved Jool Aerobraking, and people complain its too deadly to de-orbit to Eve. Not to mention the constant tug of war between, more deadly re-entry please vs HELP re-entry is too deadly crowds. I would not want to be in their shoes. Its lucky they don't pay too much attention to the forums, otherwise they'd be tearing there hair out, screaming "what do these people want!!!" My answer to this is to take a philosophical approach. A change which makes something more difficult that was easier before is just a design challenge to overcome. When you couldn't aerobrake around Jool anymore, the challenge was to design a craft with enough delta-V to slowdown. I landed a plane on Eve immediately after the change.... it meant I had to burn retrograde to slow down and subsequently lost control of the plane because I needed the fuel to balance the plane. This just means I need to overcome this problem. My plan (untested) involves a deorbit/slowdow stage, ablators, and a parachute on the back to flip it around the right way.

I honestly have not had a problem through any of the updates, with the exception that the thinning of the soup-o-sphere in 1.0x led to a minor redesign of one of my spaceplanes. All my lifters, transfer tugs, landers etc. Have all worked fine, in most cases since before beta. Frankly, if they didn't announce the updates, I may not have even noticed.

Words or phrases which have lost all meaning No. 102 Game-breaking

Hello welcome to the forums. I'd just add to what Starhawk said, as well as those very useful pages mentioned, I'd say you can also learn a lot just by reading what people post in the "General KSP Discussion Thread". Lots of smart cookies discussing useful concepts there.... also they often post pictures of their craft which can serve as great inspiration. Finally I just note, a good piece of advice I can give is design you craft from the end of the mission to the start. What I mean by this is don't think Step 1, getting to orbit, step two transfer burn... etc. Step one should be (for a manned or returning craft) how do I get it to the ground safely, Step 2, how do deorbit it. Step 3 how to I get back into orbit around Kerbin.... etc. Happy travels!!

Hearing your story I could not help but hear the Benny Hill theme music. I see the scene as looking something like this: Jeb gets out of the plane, stands in a comically exaggerated heroic pose. Puts out a hand and leans on the plane. The plane rolls away and Jeb falls over. (queue Benny Hill theme). The plane rolls across scene, left to right, followed by Jeb. A group of nearby policemen (in classic British bobby helmets) see the plane and Jeb running by, and start running after them. In the next scene, the plane, followed by Jeb then the police ploughs through a fashion show set up in front of a plane on the tarmac, interrupting the show and scattering models and audience in all directions. The models join the chase. In the next scene the plane crosses left to right, followed by Jeb, then the Police, the female models (dressed in racey attire, by 60s standards). In the next scene the place crosses left to right... but nobody in following. Instead the female contestants are running right to left, chased by Jeb and the Police. Final scene, the plane plunges off the runway into the water. Jeb, stops running, looking comically dejected, but is shortly thereafter mobbed by police and models. Ahh yes, that's sophisticated British humor for you.

I do like the aerospike. Its the only engine I have used that has allowed me to reach orbit from the runway with spaceplane without needing air-breathing engines to reach the thin air. I get there with just enough fuel to de-orbit (landing again is unfortunately another thing... it likes flipping and entering through the atmosphere butt first or spinning uncontrollably... back to the drawing board). Not sure how I feel about it being stackable though. Sure, I will probably use it.... but I think there was some game-play benefit with some equipment having quirks that create design complications. I think it actually encourages creativity by forcing you to problem-solve around the quirks.

I'm fine with everything that's in stock so far, a bigger Liquid fuel tank would be nice, but its no a big issue. However what I really think is missing, is base parts oriented for gravity. Considering that there are contracts that require you to build bases, it makes no sense that no parts serve this need adequately. Sure, you can use the hitchhiker module, but its IVA clearly has the kerbals sleeping on the walls, oriented for zero-g. Same with the placement of the node and the hatch. The Science Bay is again, oriented for zero-gravity. So, my two cents: Ground based habitation module Ground based science bay. Connections between these things. Other ground-based stuff.