Vanamonde

basic.syntax, those are all valid questions, to which I do not have answers. It might be that what I’m talking about isn’t possible, but thank you for being one of the first people not to dismiss it out of hand. Again? Okay, as I stated several times already in the thread, the current situation causes engines to be unavailable for braking burns during part of the descent. It causes the vessel to flip violently when chutes open, possibly causing damage. It forces the player to try to anticipate whether a heat shield should be mounted on the nose of the vessel or the bottom. And it may force the player to discard more of the vessel before attempting atmospheric landings, reducing the recovery value. Because it is a new problem which has arisen while they are fine-tuning part statistics in response to new aero, it did not formerly exist, and isn’t necessarily inevitable now. This is the time to bring up aero issues, because this is the time the devs are concertedly working on them. I never said a word about making the tanks heavier. Why do you insist on arguing against things I am not proposing? When you brought it down from orbit. I have been flying it to the moons and back. It’s likely I’m coming back with less fuel in my tanks than you had in your test. But for whatever the reason, I find that that ship is absolutely unable to hold a retrograde heading during re-entry from the moons, despite SAS exerting its full force.

I see in another thread that you're unhappy about "wobbily rockets." This is not a problem that has ever bothered me. So, I see no compelling gameplay reason for the part rigidities to change to adapt to your style of play. Why is my point invalid and yours valid? Such as figuring out how to avoid rocket wobble? tater, I've already conceded that you've won the argument you're having. Since it's not the discussion I'm having, I'm going to ignore you from now on. Hey, someone who actually sees the problem I'm pointing out. Even if you don't agree with me about the solution, it's refreshing.

And changing the mass of the parts would move the center of mass. What is unclear about that? You are telling me I am refusing to change, while taking the stance that the current attributes of the parts can't be altered. What is perfect and holy and inviolable about those attributes? They are arbitrary, and can and should be changed when gameplay reasons call for it. As I said before, wild exaggerations of my position do not help the discussion. Okay. You're happy with having to discard additional parts before re-entering, sticking fins on the top or spamming it with SAS to avoid a problem which does not necessarily have to arise in the first place, go on insisting that the current attributes of the parts be set in stone and never change despite the fact that they are entirely arbitrary, and congratulate yourself for not caring about a problem which vexes someone else. Consider yourself the victor of an argument I was not having, and please, move on. Capsules could be made a bit lighter and engines a bit heavier, and then landers would no longer descend with their engines aimed at the sky while their parachutes yank them violently right-side-up again, and no violations of physics would be required. Is there anyone who does not consider this heresy?

Sorry, I missed this question. It's because Supernovy likes wordplay and rhymes, and even semi-rhymes like "banana" and "Vanamonde."

Did they make galaxies behave properly in #2?

There are two arguments going on in this thread. 1) That assembly is falling the way physics says it should. Great, Dandy. I never said the physics should be otherwise. I am not part of that argument. I don't care about it. Please, take it somewhere else, because it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. 2) This is undesirable behavior for that assembly and the attributes of the parts could be adjusted so that this does not happen in realistic physics. THAT is my suggestion and request. How many times do I have to say that? Well, that's too bad for you, because it used to work, and recovered more of the cost of the craft. Just because you chose not to utilize this doesn't mean others shouldn't. Arbitrarily changing parameters for gameplay reasons is what game balancing is all about. Are you suggesting that the way parts currently behave shouldn't be adjusted, and all players must learn to work around their flaws rather than fix the parts? Applies to argument #1, which I don't care about. Not even close to what I'm saying, because this is also part of argument #1. Perhaps. Just like some people are strongly attached to rovers, others are strongly attached to building and let Mechjeb fly for them, etc. If the recovery system is included as a game feature, why is it wrong of me to point out that another aspect of the game diminishes its utility? Okay, so we've mostly heard from people who insist that the attributes of the parts should not be changed no matter what contortions realistic physics forces them to perform. Is there ANYONE who would like to discuss what I'm actually suggesting, which is that an adjustment of the attributes of the parts would eliminate this undesirable behavior of the parts within realistic physics?

Does this work properly, though? (I'm asking, not arguing.) I've tried both, and I seem to get better results by keeping my original heading throughout the burn than if I chase the maneuver marker as it moves. The burn seems to come out more closely to the original plan if I hold the original heading.

Because they work properly and there is no effective alternative. I have designed around it. Now the conditions have changed, and I will have to lose more than I used to. This is not desirable. Yes. Wild mischaracterizations don't help the discussion. I was just spitballing, but a bit more drag and less mass for capsules was what I had in mind. People were telling me I should accept having to trim more parts off of my landers to get them to fall right, so that was an example of a probe lander which has no extraneous parts, and still falls nose-first. You're telling me you're okay with that little thing being unable to orient its engines for braking burns, and snapping violently around when chutes open? I didn't do that. Its root part is an OKTO probe core. Guys, you're free to disagree with me, but the save the smarmy condescension. It doesn't improve discussions.

Like most other players, it varies. I'll play intensively for a few days, switch to Minecraft for a few days, etc. About 6 hours yesterday, 2 today.

Threads merged.

And for those complaining about the design of my lander, consider that this little thing also insists on falling front-first.

No, Adrian likes minmus. Only your first few posts need approval. You should already be past that.

Done.

Right. That's enough incest, reproduction, and excretion references for a while. Let's talk about something else, please.

Question merged into the thread for the mod.

Causes nasty problems on ascent, and requires carrying otherwise useless parts all throughout the flight. If you look at my pictures, SAS is on, and trying to hold attitude. It gets over-powered. Viable option, if one is resigned to losing the recovery funds for the discarded parts. Carry multiple parts all through the entire flight just to help in the last few moments? Possible, but wasteful. It's not solely about the past. The game has a mechanic which rewards the player financially for bringing back as much of the craft as possible. But this issue with the aerodynamics, however, penalizes one for bringing back additional parts. If it's the case now that we must discard everything but the capsules when landing on kerbin, they might as well scrap the parts recovery system as well, because then it would only meaningfully apply to aircraft and spaceplanes. I'd love to. So far, however, it's been my experience that chutes opened at the altitudes/temps where this is happening are quickly destroyed. As is so often the case on the internet, some of you are replying to things I never said. I do not want a step backwards in aerodynamics. I am not saying it's unrealistic for the parts to behave this way with their current attributes. I am not asking for a revision of physics. What I am saying is that the attributes of the parts are arbitrary and entirely under the control of the game's makers, and it would eliminate a problem I (and possibly others) are having if the part attributes were adjusted. And seriously, guys, stop telling me I'm trying to force others to play my way. I have stated several times that this change would be my preference rather than an insistence, and the purpose of this thread is to gauge support for what I would like to see done about it. (It's not looking good so far, I must say.)

Oh my. Very old thread. And we have real girl kerbals now. Closing this thread now to avoid confusion.

It is my preference rather than an insistence, but I would like the mass/drag of the parts adjusted so that this doesn't happen. Yes. In my opinion, gameplay should trump realism, if the two conflict. And what's more, anyone who uses warp rather than fly multi-month missions in real time agrees with me, whether you'll admit it or not. I am expressing one player's opinion. No need to get superior and snitty about it. And I object to characterizing it as a "mistake" to try to use a kind of design which has been working just fine for the last 3 years. Because they always used to, and it's productive and convenient for it to do so. No, I am wishing that the game be changed to suit me. I'm just seeing if others agree. And for you folks who are unhappy with me for valuing gameply over realism, consider this. That ship DOES land intact. It's just harder to do so than it would be if the adjustments I'm suggesting were made.

Yes, if it will help you to have a rocket crashed short of its destination, be sure to let us know.

We're online friends, r4pt0r, but scattered all over the world. Few of us have met any of the others in person. I think the closest one to me is 10 or 12 freeway hours, and visiting most of the guys would require a trans-oceanic flight.

Merged into the existing thread for this subject.

Here's the thing that's bugging me in version 1.x. This is the kind of lander it is useful to build. Fuel tank, engines, landing gear, and most other working parts below the capsule. But with drag and mass distributed the way they are currently, during re-entry, landers like this are subjected to an ultimately irresistable force which flips them around so that they are falling nose-first. This renders the engine unavailable for braking burns, and forces the player to try to guess whether a heat shield needs to be mounted on the bottom or the top. After the ship slows to the point that it's safe to deply chutes, doing so forces it once more reverse itself, this time violently. Note the 6Gs or more this unwanted manuever imposes on the craft. I'm not saying its unrealistic for the parts to behave this way with their current attributes. What I am saying is that it's undesireable from a gameplay standpoint for the player's landers to forcibly flip around twice during reentries, and those part attributes are arbitrary and can be changed. How much work it would take to fix this, I do not know. But I really don't like it.

Random failures is one of the suggestions that has been put forth so many times that it has been added to our list of things not to suggest again, so this thread will be closed now. And by the way, Squad has stateed that they hate the idea, and will not add it to the game.

Welcome TinPotKoala. The Imgur link you want to copy and use here is the BBCode one. I edited one into your post for you.

Showcase thread moved to Spacecraft Exchange.