sephirotic

My Xbox one controller is starting to fail its buttons so I decided to buy a dualsense to play on the PC for a change for the added features and start using steam input for the first time to have some more advanced controls (Mainly using the trackpad and gyro). However steam input is bugged with KSP, the axis assignment won't stick and rudder is treated as different axis if I play with cable and emulated DS4 controller. This mod saved me and the ability to use modifier is a godsend. First time I can actually use camera controls with the joypad. It is a shame however that EVA axis are missing, I had to remap the controls for hardcoded keyboard keys instead. Any plans on adding the missing axis and buttons? Thanks a lot.

Flying for 2 minutes at mach 3: Your cabin explodes by overheating: Reenter with a SSTO on a 60% AoA on an eccentric 400x10km orbit: Nothing happens. Yeah, Heating needs serious rebalance.

I was in doubt if I should get this this or OPM, this mod has some particular things that I liked a lot, but the lack of a Titan analogue is a real bummer for me! If only that was added, I'd get this instead of OPM.

Yeah right, easy for all you guys to find the game "FUN!" Because planes are flying fast when you have 1.8 tons jet engines generating 1000kn of thrust to fight against the soupy atmosphere. Now fly with a realistic 100kn of total thrust for those planes for you to see how really wrong everything is.

Yeah, I already figured that the problem goes deeper than just tweaking some parameters.

Yeah, because doing a 145g turn on stock model is not reallistic but is FUN! Come on. While I do think the g-limit of FAR is a little bit conservative for desintegrating vessels, it Never was really a problem for me with FAR, Get a joystick. Otherwise you'll have to play on "easy" mode. Ow, wait, FAR doesn´t have that, so It would be better to get good instead. Sorry, couldn´t resist it. Haven´t tried FAR on 1.0.2, just saw that it was updated. FAR is not perfect either, it's independent control for surfaces is not very good IMHO, and rudders/yaw stability don´t see to work properly, stock 1.0 model rudders felt more natural to me. I will install it and do some more tests to see if there is any difference.

Same F-104 replica test on 0.25 with FAR. 400m/s with a 60kn engine. Putting a 120kn rocket engine wasn´t enough to push to 450m/s which was our target, I got only about 420m/s at sea level. But yeah, FAR is still much better than the stock aero model, I just hope Ferram keeps updating it. Whoever says that the 1.0.2 drag is fine, is either an inexperienced player witch never used FAR, or is too blind to see their own contradiction bias in favor of squad's questionable decision. Ideally we would have Squad to make up with Ferram and consult with him.

I for myself don´t understand were have you been for the last 3 years of game development as pretty much every more experienced played talked about how they just completely abandoned the stock aero model for being too soupy and switched to FAR and how this 1.0.2 is a retrogress towards what we have mostly hated for so many years about KSP after a brief nice experience with the aero of 1.0.0.

It's not about realism, is about good balance compromisses. You missed my point.

KSP is not ultra-realistic, for that we have RSS. A large part of the community HATED the old soupy atmosphere, IT WAS A BAD BALANCE COMPROMISSE. They have to come with some OTHER way. 1.0.0 drag is STILL MUCH HIGH than real life, but was a more balanced compromisse that felt more natural than the stats at 1.0.2. How about a planet with the density of a frigging black whole like Kerbin? I think is ridiculous but you, me and a lot of people have come to accept it as a realism compromise (this is why most of us, me including like playing RSS a lot) What lots of people DIDN`T ACCEPT, was the soupy atmosphere. Myself included. This is why FAR was so poppular, alhoug it had it's problems too and was ALSO a little bit too "draggy". But was the best we got, and now that squad got right at 1.0.0 with the aero, they made a step backward by instead of fixing overpowered jet engiens, they returned the hated soupy atmosphere. I don´t understand why it is so hard to understand, all the arguments in favor of squad decision don´t make sense to me. I wonder why.

I totally second this post, as a matter of fact, as I've stated before: EVEN ON 1.0 THE DRAG IS STILL TOO HIGH FOR SPACEPLANES AT LOW ALLTITUDES. This becomes obvious if you think that Kerbal's atmosphere has only 60% of the equivalent height of earth's, so the pods have much less time to decelerate. You are not getting the bigger picture: 250m/s IS REASANOBLE to depley a drogue chute, curiosity's droge was deployed at Freaking mach 1.7. You can´t expect a deceleration identical to real life by having a atmosphere that tops out at 70km. Progress that just deorbited by drag yesterday, decayed because IT SUFFERED DRAG AT 170km above sea level! So you can´t have two words: Perfectly reallistic chutes, perfectly reallistic drag levels, perfectly reallistic drag for airplanes at low alltitude. THERE HAVE TO BE COMPROMISES> The question is: Do we want to think that the first 10km of alltitude, are just like earth so planes fly simmilarly to real life, or do we want to have pods reaching the exact same terminal velocity at 2km alttitude? We can´t have both without some tweakings and compromisses, The onle way we can do the latter without messing with other things is by having a very condensed unrealistic soupy atmosphere. The community ALREADY SAID THEY DON`T WANT THAT IN THE PAST. We want a better balance: Planes that fly reallistically with low drag bellow 10~15km alltitude, and pods that reaches subsonic speed at 2km. How is squad going to do that? I don´t know, but the 1.0.2 solution IS CLEARLY BAD. Maybe they can Increase the drag of pods and non cylindrical parts, but don´t mess with excessive drag, Is it so hard to do that? And is ist so hard for people defending the 1.0.2 aero understand that?

I'm quite aware of that, that is why if you take a closer look at my SS, you'll see my actual thrust at 100kn, I've actually checked the specs of the J39 engine and I doubt it can actually reach that.

Some people indeed complained about this back in the day, I never really tought about that, i figured just showing the fuel gauges being drained was enough, there were some older cheaty videos on YT of older attempts hiding the fuel gauge that clearly were cheatty, I forgot to turn the resources on in the beginning and I only noticed it on the video after I had already overwritten the save file. I tought about making a second video of another ascent with the same vessel just to prove it was possible but then again, anyone who had experience leaving Eve would see my design had more than enough D/V for that. Now that 0.21 is totally obsolete I'll share the craft file anyway. The nice thing about this video is that is the first video ever on youtube or foruns to be released showing an Eve ascent from a low altittude with the nerfed aerospikes! Unfortunately it has become completely obsolete now, but the pioneer merit still comes to me I got pretty angry when they boosted the already overpowered the 48s to 30kn in a following update, I could have saved over 20 tons by having a larger final stage and less aerospike boosters with that extra thrust! Well, it is nerfed again down to 18kn so I'm less pissed. Thanks, I don´t really like the overengineering "Lolsokerbal" approach some users have, I prefer more intelligent and efficient designs. Gyros are less weight efficient than a proper optimized monoprop vessel with conservative fuel-use, it ends up being heavier! Thanks for the feedback, sorry for the delayed answer! Thank you very much! There was no career mode back on 0.21!!! But I'd sure have brought it back if I could! I'm a old KSP player, been playing since 0.16!! God, we have come a long way! Mechjeb wastes LOTS of fuel and monoprop when docking, is just not efficient enough, I like docking a lot, having a Xbox controller makes it a piece of cake, sure got a LOT of experience back in 0.17 when we didn´t had dock nor maneuver nodes, it was so damn hard that the pratic I got from it making doing it with Maneuver nodes a piece of cake! But playing a long mission manually without MJ and WITHOUT Quickload is just damn impossible! I had to quickload a dozen of times to find a flat landing spot for my Eve vessel whereas MJ can easily calculate the aerobraking for you Ow, good job identifying the last composer as a modern Russian, you came close but it's not Stravinsky, that is actually Shostakovich! I'm a classical lover too! The piano play was a piece called "Celestial Letters" from a Modern Brazillian composer called Almeida Prado, a beautifull piece with a very fitting theme to the video! I'll be adding the rep to you guys, thanks a lot! By the way, to anyone who might be interested: I SUCESSFULLY DEVELOPED A 110 ton 1-man Eve ascent Vessel compatible with 1.0.2 that reaches orbit from as low as 2km! I solved the problem of the TWR by using a single mainsall! It has 8.8kms of d/v I'll make another video of it after the next update when I hope Squad will re-balance the drag once again! Too bad the challenge is over but I'll post here nevertheless and find a new place to report the mission! Cheers to everyone.

Then you were doing something wrong, probably were using drogues or trying to chute very large vessels, because even a single Mk-16 can stop the Mk1-2 pod with the OLD 1.0 aero but with the REDUCED drag of the chutes from 1.0.2, Take a look: Of course 18.0 m/s is not exactly a smooth splashdown but the Mk1 pod can survive that, with the XL chute it touches down at a gracefull 5m/s

Just some random information for the discussion: Current sea-level speed record on a manned controlled airplane was set in 1976 on an F104: Lockheed test pilot Darryl Greenamyer built a F-104 out of parts he had collected. The aircraft, N104RB, first flew in 1976. On 2 October 1976, trying to set a new low-altitude 3-km speed record, Greenamyer averaged 1,010 miles per hour (1,630 km/h) at Mud Lake near Tonopah, Nevada. A tracking camera malfunction eliminated the necessary proof for the official record. On 24 October 1977 Greenamyer flew a 3 km official FAI record flight of 988.26 miles per hour (1,590.45 km/h).[73] The F104 is a very streamlined single-engine interceptor built in the 50s, it weights around 9 tons and it's engine has a maximum thrust of ONLY 79KN. A quick dirty replica in KSP weighting 8 tons and with throttle limiting the engine thrust to just under 100kn got the Following absolute max speeds: 1.0.2 aero: 265m/s 1.0 aero: 316m/s Half the 1.0 aero (0.3, 0.030 1.000) 356m/s 1600km/h, which is the speed we were aiming here is 450m/s However, at the half 1.0 aero, a pod reentry from a 200km orbit was stil at mach 2 from only 2km to the ground. Well, I hope they could balance this better.