willitstimothy

I know how to land in real life too, and I know that a big jet doesn't make it into a short GA strip. 5000 feet if you\'re good, maybe, but 2000 feet isn't a safe landing in any large transport jet. A old Vulcan bomber could do it if it had a drogue parachute, good brakes, and reverse thrust, but forget it with a big bird.

Quite a narrative. You should try landing a smaller plane at Paf Cannery in Alaska. The longest runway in the game there is 800 feet and the shortest is 400 feet. Either that, or you could just land on the Helicopter runway at Miramar Marine Base CA it's lighted, paved, looks like a miniature version of the runways just to the north of it, and it's only 1000 feet long. I landed the F-18 there once.

Kerbol...The hot way. My Largest Space stations (yet).

Yeah you can orbit, and you can also 'crash,' as it were, at Kerbols 65400 Km radius. Just trust me, I crashed once at exactly that distance from the center of the point light source.

Maybe that's where the Kerbals came from...

Oh! Thank you so much.

Chances are that if you do not like flying in real life, you won't like it much on a computer. Some sims do have missions or, by nature of being combat sims, are thrilling to play, but most of the real flight simulators such as the Microsoft FS series and the X-plane series are really only entertaining if you enjoy going to terrestrial destinations such as mountains, desert isles, big airports, tall buildings, or anywhere on earth that you can imagine in an aircraft of your choice. You can fly fast or slow, high or low, correctly or incorrectly. You can land (and try to takeoff again) on buildings and ships, bridges and highways, lakes rivers and oceans, deserts and mountain peaks, and with good simulators you can challenge yourself to learn to fly properly, thus gaining experience that could save your life someday (or you can just fool around all the time and fly low, takeoff without clearance, fly between building, and terrorize imaginary people). There is a ton of stuff to do but you have to appreciate it. (most of that stuff is only really worthwhile in newer sims, older ones are not nearly as feature rich, but again they can still be cool if you appreciate their features properly) Real, and good sims, would either be X-plane 9 or 10 or Micrsoft Flight Simulator X (get it with the Acceleration Expansion if you want better scenery, 'missions,' and aircraft (like the F-18 or P-51).

Okay, well the collision mesh could be a problem, and I'm probably wrong. So that's that.

A 2 km lump of lead: R = 1km = 1000 m = 100000 cm V = 4.1887902*10^15 cm^3 ? = 11.34 g/cc G = 6.67384*10^(-11) m = ?V = 4.75008809*10^16 grams = 4.75008809*10^13 kg gsurface = G[m/(R^2)] = [6.67384*10^(-11)][(4.75008809*10^13)/(1000^2)] = 0.00317013279 m/s^2 but in KSP there is a scale of 10 increase for size hence: gsurface = 0.0317013279 m/s^2 Which means that it would only take about 30 seconds to accelerate to 1 m/s. Way weaker than Mun, but still strong enough to be somewhat usable. Escape velocity would be about 25 m/s in KSP

Maybe later versions of KSP will though. I can hope can't I, I mean the computers most of us use today would have been considered super computers less than a couple of decades ago.

My personal experience is with Microsoft flight simulators 5, 95, 98, 2002, 2004, X some X-plane 9 and 10 Janes Combat flight simulator Bob-Hoover's air-racing (and Combat) In addition, and partially because of all that, I am also a real world pilot. I got my license at age 17, and have been a pilot for over three years, but have been flying for the last 7 years.

I'm not sure, I haven't played it at all, but basically what I mean is that the game uses at least semi-realistic physics simulation and does not simply behave like some arcade 'simulator.'

This place is for talking about Flight Simulator programs of various makes and vintages. Programs that attempt realistic representations of flight are appreciated.

If we can make parts that are the size of small towns, and by all rights massive enough to have a detectable gravitational field, we should allow them to have gravity and small SOI. It seems like realism is to much of a bother, even in this matter (this is a space game, thus it seems to me that a space game should strive to treat all massive objects equally), thus I will just concede that this idea is out there but that I am not going to try to promote it further unless some olive branch of opportunity presents itself.

Really? You can go down to 4k with no problems at all. The highest mountains are around 3k or so, but for the sake of the safety of your crew you should probably go 1 or so kilometers higher. It's when you set up to land that you want to be higher (so you can be ready to deal with any problems that may arise, and so as to ensure that you can decelerate fast enough.

There already are asteroid parts though: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=7844.0 And if we can make them, why can't we use them?

@NovaSilisko Please do, and then release it. I'd try it myself, but I am terrible at troubleshooting code, and not much better at writing it.

When setting up for a landing on Mun there is nothing more annoying than having your pc's accessibility controls pop up, taking you away from your nicely controlled landing which is now doomed to be a crash. The second most annoying thing is running out of RCS, hence I modded one of my RCS tank parts to have a capacity of 25000 volume units of 'fuel.' ;D

@Mr_Orion (In reference to an earlier comment you made to me) I talked with C7 about the part gravity thing already, and he mentioned that there would be some sort of problem if a dynamic (movable) ship had parts that were being treated as a celestial object. All pieces of debris are considered ships in the persistent file and that is why (currently) they are saved in their orbits and are cluttering up the sky as we speak. Hence it stands to reason that if one made sure that only static ships were used there should be one less problem. Well, that is why, as I have said elsewhere, that SOI could be only assigned to certain object that met certain mass and volume requirements so as to make it so that only the largest of objects would have SOI, thereby cutting the processor load enormously. When they give us the ability to create our own celestial bodies, and give us their own creations as well, I will be very grateful, but it still seems funny that I'll be able to ram a giant asteroid part into one of the future celestial asteroids that are roughly the same size and mass as the part, and have no orbital, or otherwise, effect on it. It will also be funny that I can land on one of them and not on the other.

Anything below 70000 meters will degrade eventually in this game. Give it time, it will 'get sucked in.'

Oh my, sorry C7.

We can't add new celestial bodies currently, and likely won't have any new ones until they release all of them (who knows when?), but for the sake of realism mainly, which is what this game has sought to a degree uncommon in its genre, and for the sake of being able to properly use the over-sized parts, which we are allowed to make and use, for more than just something to look at, it seems like part gravity and SOI for sufficiently large parts would be a must. Otherwise, at what point is this game going to make realistic use of parts that are 2 km across? Especially when everything is scaled down to 1/10th of the realistic size? In the real world, the Japanese have landed a probe on a clump of rock that was formed by smaller pieces merging together due to micro-gravity, this rock is called 25143 Itokawa, and it measures 535 x 294 x 209 m, and it's g is 0.00001 m/s^2 (it has unusually low density though). Now with a scale of ten factor in KSP this rock would realistically have a g or 0.0001 m/s^2, and with higher density and maximum size one can see that the g would get to the point where one could feasibly treat a very large part as a small 'planet' such that one could land on it and use it to catch a ride to somewhere. I understand now that there will be such things later on in a different form, and if part gravity is really such an enormous problem that the realism of it is not worth it to the game developers, I'll live with it and still love this game. I want this game to be perfect, and if it can be done it should be done. That's my view and my opinion.

'Wormholes - alphav1' doesn't work in 14.4. I tried using it already by placing the black hole parts at the center a static asteroid part via persistent in 14.4. It didn't work. But that's just me. Also, given an asteroid made of some sort of dense metal, i.e. lead, the gravitation of a 2 km part could realistically be enough to land, and even orbit if the velocity vectors of the objects were within a couple of meters per second of each other. Rovers wouldn't work pretty much at all though.

@NovaSilisko Why? Doesn't the game at execution load all the parts involved? Why not just add in (I know I must be wrong...it can't be simple right?) a check at part loading to see whether a part has a mass and volume (for the sake of game stability) that is compatible with the part having an SOI. If it doesn't, nothing changes. If it does then the game can then check to see if that part is in use and, if it is, if it is a part of dynamic ship or a static 'ship.' If it meets the mass and volume requirements and also is a part of a static 'ship' then it can have an SOI, otherwise not. Then all you need is a specific part ID, to differentiate between instances that are a part of dynamic ship vs. those that are a part of a static ship, that is never the same for the 'same' part. But you already have this, in a way: part = smallfuelTank_4294771432 part = smallfuelTank_4294780418 Same part, two different ships, and the numbers tacked onto the end are different (though initially similar). If the volume doesn't matter (from what I now understand, the acceleration is constant, and only varies because of simulated change), then forget that check.

NovaSilisko did, not you. You were very civil. I just didn't bother to say that I was responding to both of you, or that I was responding specifically to one of you.