Hodo

I am not saying go out of your way to be mean, but don't worry about how people feel about your challenge. If they don't want to participate then they wont. If you fret about it you will never submit a challenge or do anything in these forums.

Any challenge that you submit will face scrutiny from others. Some will hate it because you have mods required, others will hate it because you dont, others will hate it because you are including everyone. You will never make everyone happy, so dont try.

FAR provides, MORE than enough information and aides to a player to build and operate an aircraft given the control system. You want a challenge try taking a F-16C Falcon in Falcon BMS and ramp start its engine follow the towers guidance for take off and then fly a 2 hour sortie then return to a tanker refuel in pattern order head to landing and follow instructions of the tower for landing then taxi to your parking grid and perform a proper shutdown procedure for the aircraft.

Real aircraft have long final approaches. It isn't like the bad video games where you turn and land within the span of 100ft. No a real aircraft lines up something like 15km out on approach and follows a very specific glide path till it lands. My average approach distance is 20km on landing. I use MJ to give me an icon on my NAV ball for the line up and I follow that icon with my flight path indicator. I can come in at a steeper angle or at a shallower angle but it is dangerous. Most of the problems that you mentioned are not problems at all if you know what you are doing when you design your craft. If you have a 50 ton aircraft and you have 2 tiny wheels trying to stop it, that is like a 20lb toddler hanging off of the back of an NFL running back trying to get him to stop. It just isnt going to happen. It comes down to basic design theory. If you have a poor design it is going to perform, poorly. If you have a good design, it will perform well. FAR just highlights many peoples bad designs and they can't handle it. It is not forgiving for "fail" designs, not in the slightest. If people cant get a grasp on that, then perhaps they shouldnt use FAR.

Actually FAR isn't that bad, and landing speeds are not that fast if you design the aircraft properly. I have built aircraft that land at 75 or less m/s which is less than 160knts. This aircraft the F/A-106A Thundergod that I built late last year could and still can land at 74m/s or about 145knts. And that is one of my FASTEST landing aircraft. This aircraft lands at 60m/s. As does this. If you design an aircraft with a high wingloading it will have the landing speed of a missile. But if it is designed with some idea of how a real aircraft is built or with a set design philosophy in mind you can actually avoid high landing speeds and long distance braking and actually everything on your list.

This is simply awesome!

Actually that would be an AJE possibly RO discussion not FAR.

Well seeing as you put two of the most powerful engines ever made on perhaps one of the smallest twin jet engine airframes ever made. I am surprised it didnt turn inside out. There was this test design last year... It did well up to mach 4.4 then its nose melted. Then there was this design which was a joy to fly. But I mainly tested it for lower altitude speed performance testing out AJE.

Yeah I am still having problems with the mod, I have tested on my second install and it is having the same issue. Its the same output log as the one posted. The second install isnt in the steam folder it is on the desktop. It is a shame because this could replace my Pwings which I love, but being able to place fuel in the wings of the craft would be SO great. If there is a way to transfer that particular part of the mod over to other parts I would do it.

Are you using FAR or NEAR? If you are using those things and the stock overpowered turbojet engines you can do some stupid numbers in KSP D/V wise. I never make full size replicas in stock KSP because of the horrible aerodynamic model and over powered jet engines. If you want realistic numbers go full RO with AJE and you will find that the F-15 is an amazing aircraft.

My best mistake was forgetting to put a life support o2 tank in a space plane... I launched the fighter up and the pilot died before it could came back down to thick enough atmosphere. This was my biggest mistake. I learned from it, now every craft I make has a life support system and a backup system, a crew escape system, either ejection or cockpit ejection system. If it is an interplanetary craft it has a reserve life support of at least 3 months.

I am right here with Regex. Both of my installs have FAR+DRE and one is RSS. So well ahead I curve also.

That would be cool, napalm weapons, but they wouldn't have much of a blast force but they would do a great deal of heat damage over time. Would be cool but probably not that useful other than looks.

Retrofuture parts. It has a slightly bigger cargo bay that is a bomb bay but isnt huge.

Those were the only two that I had pictures of the landing gear. LOL

Yeah B9 has a line in its cfg.... Nerf Squad jets for great justice. That is the line. It reduces the power curve down from dying at mach 5 to losing power by mach 3.2-3.4. It isn't a bad cfg addition, it brings the turbojets inline with the B9 jet engines. And honestly it is pretty easy to still get to orbit with Turbojets and a small rocket engine.

That is actually FAR. B9 only adjusts the engines in its mod.

That could be the issue I will try it without Pwings to see if there is a conflict. Thanks! EDIT- Well I tried removing Pwings didnt work, still get the same error, I am going to try and removing B9Pwings and reinstalling it.

Usually what I do with heavy aircraft is this... Two sets back to back or side by side.

Could they be related to the B9 procedural wings? I have tested several craft that dont have the b9pwing on there and no errors, but as soon as I put the B9pwing on it spams those errors.

The mach 4+ ground vehicles would be equally awesome!

You have to take into account that the TWR changes on the RAPIERs as you go faster. There is a point where they will generate barely 60kn of thrust, and a point where they will be pushing 100kn. The other thing is you have to look at the drag of the craft vs the overall thrust generated by the craft and the pressure of the air the craft is traveling through. (I know math right?!) The simplest way to figure this out is P*cd=loss through drag. (that is if my memory is right, which today has been one of those days so check with others on that.) This does not factor in the skin drag that FAR now adds. Which is another factor. But a decent design can overcome this. Most of my SSTO space planes have a TWR of 0.8 sitting on the runway, and climb to over 1.2 at mach 3.5. So getting to space is a matter of building speed then climbing. But I have to be around 20-25km before I can go fast enough to get close to orbital velocities.

You will need to post your output log. It sounds like you are having an issue sort of like mine. There is probably a string of nullref errors in the background and it is crashing out your game.

At 24km altitude you aren't going to get a lot of pictures. Seeing as nothing on the ground will render for you. Although it would be fun to re-create the Cuban Missile Crisis recon flight by that brave F-8 Crusader recon pilot. He stayed low and fast and got a lot of good pictures.

I will test it on my second install, which is at another directory. Nope, no change in the log. Same error, no new log.