XLjedi

I have played a lot of the X series in the past and its a solid series and definitely worth playing. I have X4 in my inventory and will probably transition over to that one next once I have grown completely bored with Starfield, which at 400 hrs, seems to be at its limit for me.

I played CoDE for 36 minutes, 2 years ago. Have not touched it since. Something about it, just didn't really sit right with me. I'm kinda sci-fi nerdy and like the popular Star Wars, Star Trek, BSG, etc. types of space battle. CoDE felt like I was just installing 15 guns on the end of a Hubble space telescope. It just wasn't that fun... and I came to the conclusion rapidly.

UBoat Finally! The game is getting ready for official release, it's on sale, and they have all the tools working in their unstable beta that I used in my Silent Hunter 3 days. I am hunting the North Atlantic once again. ...and I feel guilty that I didn't pay full price for this masterpiece.

Shapez It's just a fun little factory conveyor belt builder that ends up being a lot deeper than expected. The fact that it runs on any potato is a nice bonus.

I truly miss the early days of flight sim where you flew missions and there was a storyline and campaign... and the war situation would adjust to your mission outcome. We have truly lost something wonderful.

I will only point out that 1) I liked your original design better and did not criticize it, and 2) accoding to the timestamp, at least 5 minutes has elapsed on this response. The joke was intended to be, the silliness of your original design was fun. ...and if you have ever been on a real taxiway (which often times, makes you wonder "who the hell designed this?" then your silly design (ironically) is probably a better reflection of reality in the sense that that is what "real" taxiways often make you think.

I've used airport taxiways... the other one was more realistic. LOL

Agreed, it seems like it *should* be great? Just feels sterile, and the missions (at least the early ones) are tediously boring; like drive up a generic slope for an hour or two.

Cuz it never happened?

If you like Satisfactory; then Dyson Sphere Program is worth a look.

Lately, it's been a lot of Dyson Sphere Program. ...and it's pretty darn good now; with combat on the horizon.

If this were the only thing wrong with the game right now, I might consider it. ...but given that the whiplash jet in my signature simply disintegrates at speed in KSP2, there's no real incentive to play. There is just a ton of work needed (and missing parts) for functional spaceplanes. Right now, the devs can't even get the camera to function properly for plane building.

...and it won't do either of you any good; since it's hopelessly bugged right now. If you have more than one pair of wings on your craft every single control surface flips back to ON anytime you open that wing shape dialog.

I'm afraid... 5 pages in, yes.... my only reply remains the obvious. What we have to play with thus far is extremely disappointing, in too many ways to begin to list.

Neither have I, but I also had autostrut in KSP1 to correct the issue.

Any craft that has segmented wings, the wing parts will separate under force. Almost any wing design that is not the typical basic wing with a single aileron as a flight control surface might have the problem as well as any fuselage that has laterally connected parts. Unfortunately, the one plane I had is in such a sad state of disrepair at the moment that if I posted a pic, there would not be any wings on it. After the experience, I kinda walked away from the game and posted my observations here in terms of what is missing. I can't really build the planes that I built in KSP1 at this point. So I have to wait it out a bit.

I didn't need to mention autostrut on that list, because it is here. The absence of autostrut, plus the list of significant issues I have reported, are the answer to your question. "What kind of trouble are you having with your planes?" I can see the lack of autostrut is going to be an issue as clearly as I see the other issues I noted.

I'm having quite a bit of trouble with planes and parts that are currently missing. I listed most of the issues in the bug report section here filed under "Procedural Wings". Feel free to take a look. Unless you make very basic planes (ailerons only for instance, no flaps, split flaps, etc) there are too many parts currently missing for me to even make the plane in my signature. Complex wing shapes currently require at least 3 or 4 procedural wing segments. To have flaps, you would need at least two.

They do not work the same way. You don't fly rockets through the atmosphere; you are more poking a hole through it on a one-way trip. Am I correct, in that your career is focused heavily on rockets? If I heavily favored the use of rockets, I might share your opinion.

Sure, that might be a solution. But if that were the case, it would also mean that the autostruts are automatically being applied to the spaceplane parts anyway. So far, it seems they are using a similar approach to aerodynamics and non-rigid part connection as was applied in KSP1. Under that scenario, each laterally mounted part includes its own aerodynamic "silo" and you will see stress applied at the connecting joint. For spaceplanes, it made the airframes non-rigid and flimsy until the autostrut property (which are not separate parts, BTW) of each part was enabled to solve the problem and make our planes behave like planes. I don't see how the VAB would be able to differentiate between a spaceplane frame and a rocket in order to treat each one differently. The option to apply the autostrut property to a given part is best left to the designer of the vehicle. My suspicion here is that those who would prefer to see the autostrut feature removed also favor a rocket-based career. If you have built spaceplanes and had to deal with segments of the fuselage flapping around unrealistically, then you would know why the autostrut is important for air/space plane designs. I would agree that @Vl3d's point did not take into consideration spaceplanes. My point was to point out the unintended consequence of removing the part property (it is a property of parts, not a separate part) for the people who seem to favor rocket building. In my own rocket designs, I use regular visible struts where they would be appropriate, and autostruts also where they would be appropriate. It is not an unfair assumption that if two parts are laterally connected that a weld seam would exist where the parts are clipped together.

Well, if that's the case, then spaceplanes should not be in the game. Their purpose (IMO) was mostly related to making plane airframes stable. In the large majority of cases when I use them on airframes, I consider them a bolt between parts and whether or not they have mass is not terribly important to me.

Thank the stars we have the Steam forum as our source of wisdom to rely upon.

No, the panel is missing. It goes beyond just turning on/off the control surface. It's the overall teardrop shape of the wing. If you disable the control surface you still do not have a flat panel. The wing or stabilizer still has a cross sectional shape of a wing or stabilizer (either teardrop or half teardrop) you cannot create a flat panel which has a rectangular cross section. Also, refer to my first comment about the bug that is constantly flipping the control surfaces back to ON.

ON/OFF Control Surface Bug If you have more than one (symmetrical grouping) of procedural wings on a craft and you set the control surface toggle to OFF and then select the procedural wing edit tool for a different part, it sets all control surfaces of every procedural wing on your craft back to ON. Therefore, if you have 3 or more (symmetrical groups) of wings on your craft, it is impossible to set 2 or more of them to the toggled OFF condition. They are constantly being flipped back to ON every time you open the procedural wing settings window. Missing Procedural Panel There are procedural shape options for: Wing, Stabilizer, and Control Surface. Each of the procedural shapes has either a teardrop cross section or half-teardrop in the case of a wing. We are missing a Procedural Panel, which would be like the old panels in KSP1 which would have a rectangular cross-section. Currently, the thought seems to be that wings replaced panels, but panels were used in a LOT of situations that a wing shape would not be appropriate. For instance, the hull of a boat to go in that dock area the devs added for us. Or flat decks, parts for space stations, etc. The structural panels are also ill-suited for many tasks because the thickness is just too thin, they are flimsy, and typically explode on any attempt at re-entry. We need to have a Procedural Panel as a fourth procedural part option. Connecting Procedural Wings End-to-End ...is currently just a nightmare. There should be a connector node at the end of each wingtip that will allow you to attach the next wing segment. Currently, it seems that complex wing shapes that involve flaps and ailerons on different procedural wing segments was never contemplated. Independent Flaps and Ailerons are Missing We no longer have access to separate independent parts for control surfaces that can be embedded in a wing and used as a "Split-Flap" or "Fowler". Split flaps were particularly useful in my KSP1 designs for increased lift during takeoff, and bleeding off speed for landing. Symmetry Cannot Be Disabled on a Part-by-Part Basis There is no option to disable symmetry. This can cause problems if we use the mirror symmetry option and want flaps on each wing to behave like a flap (both deploying in the same direction). Granted, the part manager has an invert option that might suffice in many cases, but not all. No Adjustment for Leading or Trailing Edge Thickness This results in the trailing edges of wide wings looking as thin as a razor. Thank you for your consideration.

Kind words, thank you. My first attempt at porting a craft from my KSP1 hangar will be the FE-03 in my signature below. There are a couple interesting new parts that I am looking forward to incorporating (nav lights for instance) but we are missing a LOT right now. I think my biggest concerns at the moment are related to: control surfaces with no ability to turn-off symmetry on a piece-by-piece basis we have no control surfaces that can function as flaps or fowlers procedural wing bug where if you pull up the dialog to adjust the shape of any wing part, it sets the control surface back to ON for every part on the craft. Therefore, if I have 3 or more wing parts it might be impossible to set 2 or more of them to OFF. Spaceplane construction is just woefully bad right now.