DoToH

If you want people to build their Duna/Eve landers from mk2 and mk3 plane parts powered with rapiers. No, I use Mk3 parts on my rockets. I use rocket engines on my planes. I use RCS on my planes....

Of course. Solving issues is a matter of identifying the correct cause, that's my point. Tweaking wrong parameters will solve some issues and create new ones, as they did when they increased drag without taking into account the effect on reentry mechanics. IMO, aero values have too much impact on gameplay to adjust them with a fast hotfix (and that's why I think 1.0.1 was a bad decision). If they tweak aero values, they have to test how new values affect gameplay: engine parameter balance for both rocket and jet engines, reentry, low altitude/speed flight, high altitude/speed flight, fairings..... Five days is not enough time to test every affected aspect. If their conclusion about reaching mach 3 ASL was "we need more drag", I can't trust them any more to give a good solution for aero.

If SQUAD thinks this is aero problem and not engine OP problem, I'm done with stock aero. Waiting for FAR is the best option post 1.0.

Asking for broken mechanics (reentry) to be fixed/balanced is how I deal with it. Deal with it.

Can't be sure without testing, but these seem the changes I'd like.

Ok, but then, LET them ask for fixes improvements and stop the "releases always have bugs, deal with it" and "stop whining".

I asked why I can't ask developers to repair my malfunctioning software. Maybe I didn't express it correctly (english is not my native language).

I agree. But that doesn't mean that we, as customers, are not allowed to complain because "software is easier to fix". Being easier to fix/improve doesn't mean it's not broken. I'm OK with some bugs, I didn't expect a flawless product. I'm not Ok with so many people telling me to stop asking for fixes/improvements because "releases always have bugs". I want fixes and I'm entitled to ask for fixes for a released (= not early access any more) game.

Same fuel quantity. Less ISP now. Burns fuel faster. Note it's 1,5 tons heavier and 50% more expensive.

Maybe, but releases SHOULD be almost flawless. If you buy a car, a smartphone or a fridge with malfunctioning parts or even severe desing flaws, you'd ask for repair or refund. Why is software different?

Is possible to answer this question by doing the math, taking into account part stats. But it's funnier to try and fail (or success). Yes KSP is a game. There is no "correct" way to play it, just have fun. If you find it too much easy, tweak your difficulty settings and start again. I'd recommend to take a trip (land and return) to Moho or Tylo before doing that. Orbit is, for experienced players, trivial. You'll find much more to do (and more difficult). At some point, "more whatever" will stop working (not exactly true, but your PC will not be able to handle so many parts) and you'll have to begin with the "less everything" way.

Bugs aside, I'm sure that QA and experimentals have played with different sets for aero values (the main difference between 1.0 and 1.0.1). Devs decision on adopting one or another different set for aero config values is a matter of how they want the aero to afect playstile. The change in 1.0.1 is big (~30% more drag and ~20% more lift IIRC). It's a very radical change for a hotfix unless they have tested the new set of values previously. That is from a logical point of view. There are more options: one of them includes devs playing randomly with aero values for dozens of hotfixes and sticking finally with the ones that generate less rage posts in the forums.

Yes. The fact terminal velocity of a command pod is closer to reality is a great point. Is so good for inmersion that I almost forgot the shuttle gliding at 25 m/s and crazy reentries without heat shield. Thats my point. I know how to tweak atmo values (or install FAR). But a new player will find these strange. A new player will attach a heatshield to the pod. a new player will expect shuttle's glide speed to be faster than a Cessna's. Aero doesn't have to be REAL. It should give the impression of being real. And, for me, that impression was better with 1.0.

My point is: artificially increasing drag and lift (patch 1.0.1) is a bad option. A low lift plane (your plane) shouldn't fly easily with 0,37 TWR. A low drag plane (your plane) shouldn't need TWR over 2 to reach mach 1 ASL. Remember 60% of 3,80 is 2,28. That is, of course, my opinion.

I made two changes. I switched LF tank with LF + O one (left inakes to generate same drag). Switched rapier with 48-7S (16.2KN ASL). Total mass 4.5t. Needed half runway length to take off. Turboramjet thrust is over 10x 48-7S ASL. Your test plane was over 3,8 TWR with turbojet and 2,80 TWR with rapier. I took off with my modified design with 0,37 TWR. Two possible conclusions: 1) Your test plane was too much OP. You should be capable of reaching mach 1 with TWR under 2.0. Aero is not ok? 2) My modification was too underpowered to fly. Aero is not ok? Choose the one you like. Note the question marks in "Aero is not ok?". 1 excludes 2?. Are both true?. Are both false?

Let me try it. Pics or .craft?

And planes with highly OP jet engines can't reach mach 1 ASL on level flight. Seems far from right.

1.0 was good. Only needed a bit of polishing. 1.0.1 .... mmmm ... do you like drag??? ...

Maybe SQUAD should have thought that before "hotfixing": SQUAD fixed the heatshield bug. Same hotfix made heatshields useless. SQUAD fixes overheating in ISRU mechanics removing overheating from ISRU mechanics. And WE are the ones who give a bad impression???

IIRC, Ferr4m said FAR license wouldn't allow to integrate it in the game. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

+1 ... You showed me the way...

Nope. Tested. From Jool to Kerbin without heatshield. Also tested from Jool to Eve. No heatshield needed, no overheat warning.

Totally agree with this^^. Given the reduced scale of Kerbin system and reduced speeds for reentry (you can reentry at Kerbin from Jool slower than a usual LEO reentry) there was no need of implementing any form of reentry heat mechanic. Since devs made a reentry heat mechanic, is fair to think that they want it to have some kind of impact in gameplay. Right now, there is no difference with 0.90's reentry cosmetic effects. I'm ok with not having reentry heat. I'm not ok with devs breaking it because of their 1.0.1 drag overhaul which I don't like either. And about arbitrary game mechanics, increasing drag to prevent planes overheating due to OP jet engines is also arbitrary. They could have nerfed jet engines (as you said: "just simulate physics"). As of 1.0, too many game mechanics were designed with specific gameplay in mind and changing them to fit another specific gameplay is not a good idea.

Disagree with point 1, 2 or both? @NathanKell Test from Jool to Eve. Hit Eve atmo @6000m/s. PE was 50Km. Landed ok. No heat warnings. Surely I can make the heatshield a need, but has to be o purpose, not on normal gameplay.

Remember: 1- KSP jets engines are OP. (you reached mach 4 beacuse of it) 2- RL planes won't survive much at mach 4. Temperature or airframe stress makes mantained mach 4 flight only bearable with specialized designs.(AFAIK). These two points make 1.0 more realistic than 1.0.2