Gargamel

Just recently had a tourist contract that I crammed 9 tourists into. I got it into a minmus orbit after orbiting the moon, but the orbital path kinda went a little longer than I intended, but oh well, they'll be fine. Parked in the minmus orbit for a bit while I played with some other things, then switched back over. Had not appreciated the fact that I was using a Life support mod, and while I had packed a lot of Snacks, The longer trip and holding pattern left me critically low. Immediately burned for home, but before I could land, I ran out. Apparently I killed off the tourists and ruined my rep.

Ground effect isn't modeled in KSP. If you cut your engines to bleed speed for landing, then you really don't have a need for a converter to be running at that time, as you should have enough fuel to fire them back up. The point is, if a safe landing is your priority, then shutting down non-essential systems (Science, ISRU, etc) during the landing is probably a good idea. Those science points don't do you any good if you're dead. Also, the RAT would only work in atmospheres, so most of your flight controls should be through control surfaces, which don't require much electricity (if any??). I'll admit to not turning off my SAS and such because I'm a crappy pilot and everything helps. And also, the power generated by a RAT is only sufficient to run a few vital systems. There is no way it would be able to power an ISRU, science lab, and fly a plane all at the same time. If it could, we'd all have a little windmill attached to our cars and homes and nobody would need gas, ever. But again, I like the idea for a mod. It'd be fun to play with.

If you get crafty with your part placement and rotation, then a mk2 station might work out in stock.

Yes, in the case there is an upward slop of a runway, it is usually due to terrain, and not design per se. If at all possible, the elevated ends of a runway end in a downward sloping ramp, to allow the ground to drop away from the plane, not force it upwards. Check out videos of plane watchers at either Gatwick or Heathrow (I'm not sure which it is, I've only been there at night), it looks like the runway is set in a bowl, but the very ends of the runways seem to drop away some. Ramped runways, like RIC mentioned, are designed for a specific type of plane, under specific take off conditions. If a plane doesn't meet those conditions, then bad things happen. If a plane is unable to rotate upwards and lift off (usually due to poor wheel placement in KSP), then dropping the ground away allows the tail to drop and the nose to point upwards. If a plane is thrown into the air by a ramp, this would have a similar effect, but only if the plane is above stall speed. If the plane is not at flying speed yet, and the ground drops away, well, in KSP, let's hope you have good brakes and the ocean is feeling forgiving today. But if the plane is thrown upwards, not only are you out of runway to try to slow down, but now you're ballistically airborne below stall speed, which will usually result in a far worse crash than never leaving the ground altogether.

Yes, a toroidal mk2 ring is a very impressive sight!

I've often thought about having a RAT on a KSP plane, but I don't see a real need for it. You have to be out of power, either through lack of fuel or the engines fell off (sometimes an equally likely scenario given KSP physics). But when You are out of power, unless your plane is designed to be a glider, you rarely fall like a rock fly longer than your batteries will last. And if your plane is a glider, you sure as hell don't want a drag inducing windmill hanging off your belly slowing you down. The rare case where you would design in between these two scenarios would be something like a shuttle landing. Some players have mastered the art of dead sticking a space plane, but I'd assume most haven't. I sure as heck can't. My spaceplanes usually have a bit of fuel leftover to help make a powered approach and landing. Usually not more than what is enough to bring a plane down from about 12k over the mountains to the west, but I usually have plenty of electric. Now that said, while I don't see a need for it, I would love to play around with one, and think there are inventive players out there who could find good use for it. I think this would make an excellent mod.

And I thought a Mk2 station would look goofy, now you're suggestion side by side mk1's!? But that is good info to know, I'll have to keep that in mind. I know dropping the dreaded "Well if you just use this mod" line is sometimes frowned upon, but.... sigh.... the MK2 Expansion mod (Link needed, thank you, I'm horrible about bookmarking and linking mods) has 4 way junctions and 90' rotation parts for the Mk2 form factor, along with docking ports I believe. Artistic application of these parts could lead to some pretty cool looking stations.

While I was agreeing with you, in a seemingly negative fashion, your sweeping dismissal of any contribution I might have to this thread, has removed much of the credibility I was giving you, and therefore, are no longer worth discussing this with.

My condolences.

Ha. That made me laugh. Of course Quality and revenue would go hand in hand in an Utopian world, but we tend to live in something a bit more nihilistic. See also: Free market.

Look I understand what the limiter does. It'd be great for landing planes and such, so you don't waggle down the runway as much, so I'm behind the idea. Why not add it? But I think you are missing the point of physics. You cannot change directions at high speed without repercussions. On a perfectly flat surface, this can be done. On a very bumpy rock strewn hill, it cannot. To do so, requires the design and construction of very specialized high speed off road vehicles, ie Rally cars. These are probably possible in KSP, but the rover's you have designed and driven clearly are not these. So either design better rovers, or learn to drive better.

I think this is a wonderful idea, for a mod.

As I said, Do you take the turns in your car at full throttle with the wheel full over? Unless you are driving an F1 style car, I think not. Oh wait, yes, yes I am saying you drive too fast. You gotta remember, rovers in KSP go insanely fast, over rough terrain. 10 m/s is not that fast in game, but that's 22 mph (36 kph), and I would not consider that a 'high speed' rover in KSP. 20-30 ms is high speed. But go take your car down a dirt road at 22 mph, then try to turn. And that's a dirt road, which may be loose gravel, is usually graded and smooth. These rover's are going over rough terrain. So slow down and then make your turns. Lower you CoM on your rover, this will make it less prone to roll overs. Disable rear wheel steering, this will make it less prone to turning too sharp, and rolling over. Use SAS wheels to help keep the rover stable. Slow the heck down, that will make it less prone to roll overs.

So, you're telling me when you drive your car, you are full throttle all the time, and turn the wheel fully in one direction when you steer? I understand it's a keyboard, so it's a pretty much on/off scenario, an maybe having limiter's is a good idea, but first you gotta ask is it user error?

No likes for repeating a joke twice!

Speaking of OCD, I'm 99% sure it's Kessler Syndrome. Not Kessler's. Even on Don Kessler's web page, he calls it Kessler Syndrome. For some reason that has been bugging me. *shrug*.

A) Always create a .bak file of any .cfg file you change, ever. b) Just reset the value you changed, because you should write that stuff down. c) The terrain glitch may be part of the game, and not your changes.

Well, at this point, the common answers have been provided, and they haven't worked for you, so let's see a craft file or some pics. Most people don't have major issues with getting planes off the ground, so there's gotta be something in your designs that doesn't mesh with the new rules.

*looks at tfools job* Or perhaps stock......

Or radio-generators. All moons/bodies rotate, the question is, relative to what?

I think this is the third time in a month or so I've seen this question asked. Not a knock on you, I just never knew it used to do that, so there's a lot of people who have somehow recently discovered this. Backspace is now the abort action group key. I believe you can rebind it in the settings menu.

I use Snacks! and I see little to no difference in performance. If it does, it's at the bottom of things I'm worried about. I too use MJ to help with the lag issues, so I can feel your pain. But honestly, I found adding a LS mod added a whole other dimension to the game. Having enough fuel is one thing, but it doesn't get used up when you're coasting through space, but food supplies and such will. So then you have to consider recyclers and greenhouses to maintain a light weight food supply, or a huge cargo bay full of food. It can be a pain, but it's way more fun than without IMO.

Build ships and fly places?

I had the same thought, why use RCS at all if you aren't planning on docking. And it looks like the NERV is a booster stage for an ion type probe. He's got a full tank of Argon, and no LF left. I think he just hasn't decoupled that stage yet. That, or there was an issues getting the two parts to separate, but that just could be an optical illusion from the angle of the solar panels.

I use a 3/4" strip of wood to prop mine up. The stands always had a tendency to slide my laptop onto the floor. Just find something to stick under the hinge end of the computer, like a couple pencils or the edge of a book.