Northstar1989

Given the BS that's been going on with Take2 and KSP2 lately, I wouldn't count on much content being added to the Stock game anytime soon- but you're right, better landimg-legs like these are a NECESSITY that should have been added to KSP years ago... FWIW, there aren't enough super-flat landing engines in the game, either (closest thing is a cluster of Terriers) so we can bring the Center of Mass closer to the ground. We need proper landing-engines AND better landing legs for landers that don't tip over so readily...

To *ignite* air, there has to be some type of chemical reaction that can occur to release energy. I.e. a jet engine burns kerosene and Oxygen together. You can't ignite inert gases, or ones that have nothing to react with: i.e. the CO2-Argon atmosphere of Mars/Duna isn't going to combust in any way. You can superheat things into a plasma, sure, but this isn't *combustion* (a name that very specifically refers to a certain type of energy-releasing chemical reaction occurring...)

B9 Procedural Wings (wings you can customize the size/shape of, and add fuel to) B9 Part Switch (the ability to change what fuell-type some fuselages hold: would certainly simplify the stock fuselage lineup!) Reusability Expansion (larger landing legs, some of which are actually aerodynamically shielded when folded up; an engine designed for powered landing of crew capsules) Procedural Parts (instead of a million different fuel tanks and SRB's, a single procedural part for each that we can change the size/shape of, simplifying the parts catalog) Life Support mods (I don't care which: but Stock needs AT LEAST a really simplified system) and supporting parts- including greenhouses! (to produce all your life support resources in-situ for a large mass investment: giving more utility to ststions/bases/cycler ships. I suggest two new resources "Life Support" or "Snacks" and "Waste"- greenhouses turn Waste the other...) Larger solar panels and larger ion engines from the NearFuture mod. Would save on part-spam vs. adding a massive number of Gigantor's and ion thruster clusters for really heavy/high-performance ion probes. Might even enable the ion thruster TWR to be nerfed to be a bit more realistic (as then you could just use a larger ion thruster and solar panels to get better performance), compensated by higher ISP still (also more realistic: stock ion engines have very low ISP for what they represent...) The bigger solar panels would also be useful on really large stations with tons of science labs- or just for looks.

You can strut them to reduce this tendency (strut from below to prevent their shearing off when nosing up in a turn, from above to prevent them coming off when nosing down). You can also add more wings- the more wing area your design has, the less aero forces each wing part experiences! The FAT-455 is big, but it's annoyingly not a shape that can be used to build large wings like the "structural" wing parts allow. There need to be larger structural wing parts. *OR*, an unpopular opinion with some players here, I know, but it would actually make life simpler to just give us procedural wings in Stock: and then deprecate the other wing parts. There's a much better argument for it than fuel tanks, as wings often need to be fine-tuned in size/shape to get the plane design you want... Eventually, everyone would get used to it- and enjoy the better CPU performance, bigger plane designs, and less cluttered part catalog it would allow.

So if it's not an "official" branch, maybe somebody should fork it, and create an actual forum thread where new releases are periodically posted? I'm assuming this branch is "dead" for the moment? Forking dead mods to continue them has many, many, many precdents in the KSP community... Don't look at me though: I *definitely* don't have the skills to maintain a mod like this on my own...

Speaking of which: you can't really combust an atmosphere that doesn't have any Oxygen. So maybe the WarpJet should explain its open cycle operation somewhat differently, considering it works on, say, Duna or Eve?

What's the file/folder part name for the black legs requiring Firespitter? So I can delete them from my install. Firespitter is a dirty, dirty, inefficient and bug-ridden plugin that I will NOT have on my system again, after how much grief it's caused me in the past...

Having destroyed the engines on my landable launch-stages in Career one too many times because there is no landing leg in the game large enough to land a Mainsail (or in my case, a cluster of Mainsails) without either heavy part-clipping of the engines or putting the legs on the ends of wings (which is draggy, structurally-weak, and makes it harder to maintain aerodynamic stability during an engines-first re-entry), and had even more launch stages tip over after landing, I am BEGGING for some larger stock landing-legs. Nothing too fancy. Just BIG. Maybe a 400 kg mass leg part? (this should put it in the right size/strength-range for landing heavy launch stages with Mainsail clusters, or crewed round-trip missions on Eve...) To avoid this being a problem again in the future, as players move towards ever-heavier designs, I suggest 3 new sizes of legs: - a 400 kg landing leg part, for landing Mainsail stages - a 200 kg part, more for when you just need a wider base: such as landing tall stacks with small Reliant/Skiff engine clusters on the bottom. - An 800 kg part, for truly insane designs: like heavy Eve landers. Additionally, if there were more aerodynamic-looking versions of some of these legs (like the ones in Kerbal Reusability Expansion) that would be amazing! I'll take any/all of those, as long as there is a leg in the 400 kg size range. But the 3 options I listed above really would make things easier (and more realistic: the stock legs are far too small for the forces they can repeatedly withstand) and less frustrating for players... And once again, for those who feel the need to make such comments: "LOL, just add mods!" is NOT an acceptable answer. Having been playing this game for 6+ years, I have seen countless mods come and go: but Stock parts stick around, are available on Console, and are official content- giving more players the chance to use these parts and become familiar with them. KSP has given me great diversion, frustration, and (sometimes) joy over the years- but it could be so much more. Expanding the range of stock parts available is a move in this direction: and I, like many players, would even be willing to pay for another expansion with a sufficiently-large selection of such new Stock parts... (although honestly, given where player base opinion is right now on DLC, how basic this functionality is of having larger legs, and how many people have been fiscally harmed by Covid-19: now is probably NOT the time for this to be another DLC: it would be better to add this "free" and sell other new parts/features later...)

1 km spawn bug??? Triggeted by which cargo bays? (Hopefully not one I'm using now!) Also, dry mass is incredibly important. Without good numbers it simply makes no sense to use some parts, if my goal is efficiency and function rather than looks. I generally don't put any fuel in the fuselages because I put all the fuel in the wings- as I use B9 Procedural Wings and FAR... Maybe I can suggest some new #'s for the cargo bay dry masses and structural fuselage masses- which are both too high. The fuel tankage fuselage masses were pretty reasonable in terms of the added wer/dry masses from adding fuel, if I recall correctly, but the base masses for many parts were too high... Correcting the fuselage masses would also enable you to *slightly* (like 4-10%) reduce some of the engine performances, and still get the same Delta-V/payload from the same spaceplanes using the same OPT engines. This would make it more competitive/reasonable to mix both OPT engines (which are *slightly* too good) and engines from stock/ other mods on OPT fuselages (right now you need slightly over-powered engines to get the right performance from over-heavy fuselages: even by Stock standards...) And lighter fuselages would also make for safer re-entry profiles in any aero model, and less chance of Rapid Unplanned Disassembly due to aero-forces when using FAR (planes that are too dense experience higher peak re-entry heating AND max G's when making sharp turns) a problem I have been experiencing lately on the STOCK parts in mixed Stock/OPT designs, that I never saw in all-stock designs due to their more reasonable dry masses (the OPT parts seem to have buffed connection strengths to compensate for their excessive density- but I have had stock Mk2 adapter parts simply rip right off the nose of my spaceplane when making fairly gentle turns at 16 km altitude... This is WITH extra struts added...)

Is this a standard branch? Or like the name implies, just one built for Realism Overhaul?

Why are the Stail and Avatar obsolete? I keep hearing that, but their size and stats are different (and in the case of Stail cargo bays- substantially superior. Many of the other cargo bays weigh too much for the usable volume they provide) and in FAR at least the different shape should give different aerodynamic properties. Also, I have to say it was a bit confusing when I first learned most of the new content is in Legacy. Normally when you hear "legacy" you think something older and more established- so I expected the older parts to be in that based just on the name...

That was interesting! Although it looks like it's a mod where everything is meant to fit together "just so", and doesn't really leave much room for customization. So I probably won't actually be playing with it... I presume your own engines won't be restricted to HydroLox? I don't use it, because if I did, I'd have to go to RealFuels (so all my engines used it and I'd have more customizability), and then I'd end up playing an upscaled Kerbin system... (right now I'm just trying to stick to Stock size and default fuels because I really don't have the time to invest in too complicated a playthrough of KSP right now...)

Manley, and particularly Kottabos, were pretty good with my Mass Driver mod- warts and all. Kottabos, in particular, quite carefully explained how to get past many of the things players found most confusing about using it, and even discussed some of the apparent bugs/glitches it had. And now, maybe in part thanks to that publicity (which gave the mod some legitimacy in player's eyes), more talented modders than myself have taken it over! (With my request for help/takeover) A 5 meter Skylon?! What witchcraft is this?! I must see! I'd really love to have my hands on a working rendition of 2.5/3.75 meter Skylon engines right now. I'm sure that you'll come up with something even better- but there's a lot to be said for just giving players something they can work with, and bringing some publicity to a mod, in the meantime... i used to play with the Project Orion (nuclear mini-bomb propulsion!) mod, back when that was current. And let me tell you, boy was that fun, even if it wasn't polished! (And, it would probably be even better now, what with mods to add actual additional star systems to KSP... Never did find out if they solved the whole "solar panels can't derive energy from other stars" problem in those mods though...) Keep up the good work!

I am not playing re-scale right now. And full (100%) signal strength at Jool is literally impossible without mods (there is *always* a signal drop: even in Low Kerbin Orbit.) Above 99% signal or so, the game rounds up to 100- but to get 100% at Jool (or anywhere) requires a maximum range equal to more than 100x the signal path length, on average. My discussion of the DSN was an aside from the topic of runways. If you want to discuss it further, why not start a thread on that topic? And THIS is why we need a better ACTUAL runway! Because right now, the grass has become the default landing-zone, at least, for most players. A more realistic (larger) runway length and width would at least make the runway a bit more desirable...

It doesn't matter where the payload is. This is about the relative length of the lever-arms for the Canards vs. the Elevators. If the lever-arms are about the same, the difference is smaller. But Canards are still better, as they don't reduce the Lift of the plane as a whole or induce Negative Lift when they push the nose up. (Note: in a TAIL-DRAGGER design, where you have to push the nose DOWN, Elevators are better and Canards are worse- but these designs are inherently unstable, and so rarely used... With Autopilot Module Manager mod, which is a utility mod- no parts- that introduces basic Fly-By-Wire and stabilizing algorithms, however, it is possible to keep designs that are slightly unstable under control- and they tend to require less control input to maneuver, making them actually slightly better-performing. Military fighter jets in real life are sometimes tail-draggers for this reason...) That they are- but I didn't know if maybe you were using one of the other parts. You CAN create your own, much larger Canards by attaching the control surfaces (normally used as Elevators in Stock) to the front of Swept/Structural/Delta Wings though. 3 or 4 of these on the leading-edge of a frontal winglet of your own design will get you more control area than any of the Canard/fin parts, which are tiny (letting you reduce Control Authority, so each surface deflects less to give you needed control...) This is exactly what I just told you. Re-read what I wrote. Elevators, in neutral or very low deflection, generate little/no Lift but still generate Drag- lowering the Lift/Drag ratio ("l/d") of the vessel as a whole. This is why Canards (which generate EXTRA lift to push the nose up) are better. It WILL harm overall L/D a little- all of these differences are small, but add up (less efficient aerodynamics means you need more Thrust, more fuel, and then more wing area to support those- causing more Drag, adding mass, meaning more fuel still to reach orbit...) You have to remember that Elevators generating no Lift are basically deadweight you have to push to orbit. You might as well have replaced some of them with wing area with negative incidence, that is at neutral AoA in level flight, or just moved the Center of Lift forward, or Center of Mass back... The whole "edge of stall" case is *precisely* why you include LARGE amounts of Canard surface area, so each of them is nowhere near stall (only at a few degrees higher AoA than the rest of the wing). The Lift/Drag curve looks like an upside-down "U"- and your spaceplane should at slightly *below* the peak (having excess wing area like this increases Drag, but has benefits like reducing takeoff/landing velocity and improving cross-range by increasing the cruise altitude and V*L/D, even as L/D falls). So, having Canards deflect just a few degrees will bring them to peak L/D, and having them deflect a little more won't cause L/D to fall by much (while significantly increasing Lift). The key is simply not too place too much burden on the Canards relative to their area- they should be able to maintain control with maybe 6 or 7 degrees MAX deflection (so most of the time they only deflect 2-3 degrees). To achieve this in Stock, you need to build large "custom Canards" using the method I outlined. Even then, Canards should SUPPLEMENT control authority from your tailplane- allowing you to have less Control Authority there as well. If you use default deflection, your Elevators *ARE* generating Negative Lift, and this IS harming your performance. Canards help avoid this- by letting you turn down max Control Authority on your tailplane. The default CoM offset is very slight- the CoM still lies within the nozzle. In a REAL jet, the nozzle is very light. The weight is found in the Compressors, Combustion Chamber, and Turbomachinery- which are located much further forward in the aircraft. For KSP to be realistic, you would have to increase CoM offset to the point that jet engine CoM laid several meters in front of the nozzle part you place, at least. Tubes add drag. Fore-mounted engines require mountings- and also add Drag. Anyways, we're off-topic. Once again, PM me about your plane, [snip]

Then you're referring to built-in Angle of attack (what "Angle of Incidence" means in aviation). Has the same effects as flying at higher Angle of Attack, with regards to the discussion we were having. The important differences have to do with wing position on the ground (landing), fuselage drag/lift in level flight (should NOT be done with Lifting Body fuselages, like the Mk2 fuselage parts), and the angle of the engines relative to the horizon (better to angle the engine nozzles themselves if you have a lifting body, better to angle the fuselage and engines together if not). None of it changes the Trim Drag you experience from Elevators vs. Canards (less for Canards, both in-game and real life).

Built-in Angle of Attack, or are you just talking incodence from nosing up during flight? Negative lift is *very easily* generated at pretty modest levels of control input. If your Angle of Attack is 5-7 degrees (about what it should be in FAR for a supersonic spaceplane, at least) and your pitch control input is 50% upwards, with default Control Authority (20 degrees in KSP!!), you'll get *negative* 3-5 degrees angle of attack for control surfaces mounted behind the Center of Mass at 100% Pitch Control Authority (you SHOULD be creating separate surfaces for Yaw, Pitch, and Roll- and disabling the other 2 axes for each...) What's more, even if the rear control surfaces are at completely neutral (0 degree) incidence, such as 50% pitch-up input at 10 degree angle of attack, the control surface is still bringing down your Lift:Drag ratio- as it is still generating Drag for MUCH less than optimal (5-7 degrees FAR, more like 7-12 degrees Stock) Angle of Attack... By contrast, if you have LARGE canards (I don't think your canards were what I'd consider "large"- also keep in mind that on the stock winglets only a SMALL PORTION of the lifting surface actually acts as a control surface and deflects- the rest just provides Lift like a normal wing with a much smaller control surface attached...) and are flying at 5 degrees AoA at 50% pitch-up, with control authority limited to just 10 degrees (what I would suggest- sometimes even less) then your canards are only at 10 degrees incidence- which has a better Lift/Drag ratio than the same control surface at 0 degree incidence. What's more, on many designs with rear-mounted engines the CoM is well BEHIND the midpoint of the plane- which means nose mounted Canards have a much longer lever-arm with the CoM than do rear-mounted control surfaces. This means less force is required to generate the same torque and turn the plane. For instance, to maintain level flight at a certain altitude you might only need 6 square meters of frontal control surface deflected at 5 degrees from the rest of the wing (10 degree incidence), generating 2 kN of extra Drag, with Canards 20 meters from your CoM; whereas you might need 10 square meters of rear-mounted control surface, deflected at 6 degrees (negative 1 degree incidence) generating 2 kN of Drag directly and forcing the rest of the wing to generate an additional 2 kN of Drag (through either increased AoA, or larger wing-area of the design) to make up for the loss of Lift from the Elevators at this deflection (whereas the Canards generate MORE Lift when they deflect the nose up). These differences are *particularly* pronounced in KSP with spaceplanes (vs. regular planes), because spaceplanes end up with higher wing-loading and greater demand for Lift due to all the rockets/fuel they need to get to orbit, their payload, the poor mass-ratios of fuel tanks in KSP, and the need for spaceplanes to cruise at higher altitudes and speeds (with jets optimized accordingly, and often producing reduced Thrust at high speed/altitude- necessitating use of more/larger jet engines...) than normal planes. KSP jet engines also have all their mass in the nozzles- unlike REAL jets, which are embedded in the fuselage: meaning the Center of Mass tends to end up further back in KSP than in real life, and rear-mounted control surfaces become even LESS effective (and act more similarly to Spoilers and less like Elevators) as a result of their shorter lever-arms. To get back to the *topic* of this thread, though: the higher wing-loading and reduced effectiveness of Elevators (due to CoM too far back, thanks to unrealistic engine Center of Mass- which SHOULD be offset forward of the nozzle) in KSP spaceplanes mean that you need to fight against even more Drag, and thus require larger jet engines than Stock KSP currently provides. Hence one more reason why we need larger (1.875, 2.5, and maybe even 3.75 meter) jet engines in KSP... P.S. Send me a PM with an image. I would love to see a close-up of your Canards and their Actuation/Control settings (you need to enable Advanced Tweakables to see/change these in the editor. I thin this is a Difficulty or Gameplay setting? I always have them on, so I forget...) Many players in KSP under-size their Canards, either because they don't understand the value in having larger Canards with reduced Control Authority (less chance of Stall, and less extra Drag for a given torque generated), or fail to realize that the majority of the area of the stock winglets is NOT actually control surface at all, but just normal wing-area (and thus, functionally, they have tiny Canards that have to deflect at very high incidence to provide the needed Torque...)

Everyone, since there has been roo much off-topic discussion of the lvl 4 Tracking Station idea, and my ideas have continued to develop (there are other reasons for lvl 4 buildings- such as bigger/cooler-looking buildings with actual parking-lots), I have created a new thread on lvl 4 facilities. I would request that you please take any discussion of the DSN, and NOT the runway idea, there. OP will be edited as well.

This is lmall largely true- but so many players play with mods (including FAR- which makes landing harder) that this has to be a consideration. And, even if I am wrong about whether it is reasonable to account for modding, it *IS* easier to land of a longer/wider runway (new players- who likely start on Sandbox or Science, and thus with a max level runway) need all the help they can get in landing planes! We shouldn't be making the game needlessly hard- this IS a game, after all- and I'm fully convinced that 90% of the opposition to this just comes from veteran players who want to think they are somehow "better" just because they can land huge spaceplanes right on the runway, and newbies csn't. We shouldn't humor such horrible, selfish, arrogant egotism, and should make the spaceplane aspect of the game easier by adding a longer/wider runway at the KSC (and if you ask me, upgrade the Desert Runway as well- which new players rarely use, but are in for a huge shock if they do try- as it is even worse...), helping the mod crowd (a group that includes me- it's MUCH harder to land ENORMOUS spaceplanes on the runway with RSS or FAR) as well in the process..

Having been discussing this, and slowly fleshing out the idea further, I would like to suggest a set of level 4 upgrades for each of the KSC facilities should be available, as well as (as a reach-goal) some way to upgrade the alternative launch sites (the Desert Runway needs an upgrade to its length/width/surface, in particular). Why: - Gameplay progression and "reach" goals for longer-running campaigns by more advanced players (although, these should not be out of reach of any player, they should require even greater Funds cost than the lvl 3 upgrades). - Rule of Cool. Bigger and more impressive facilities are a worthwhile goal in themselves, if it doesn't harm immersion/fun. - Realism. Real space centers, like Kennedy Space, took DECADES to reach their current size/scale. - Mods. Some of the features these level 4 facilities would provide would make some of the harder mods- such as Real Solar System scale-up's, a bit more playable on Career without having to tweak the Difficulty settings yourself. What the upgrades do/ look like: - Lvl 4 Launchpad. Somewhat bigger than the level 3 pad. Located a bit (maybe 10-20 meters) further away from the other buildings for range-safety of colosssl rockets if this is possible- otherwise the default distances should be increased 10-20 m or more (they are too small for realism, and increasing the distances a bit would add more of a sense of scale/size to the space center...) Maybe also adds a big, bare concrete pad nearby that still counts as Launchpad biome (100% recovery) for SpaceX-style recovery missions (the lvl 3 pad is an INCREDIBLY small taget to aim for landing on, and most players, except the truly crazy-skilled ones, just aim for anywhere near the KSC grounds for landing launch stages as a result...) - Lvl 4 Runway. Wider and longer than the KSC runway (currently 2.5 km long, the KSC runway in real life is 4.5 km, and quite a lot wider than the KSC one in game as well. I suggest at least 3.5 km for the level 4 runway, preferably 4-5 km). Maybe a bit thicker surface, for realism of handling heavier planes on it (could also justify then making the lvl 4 runway being a bit harder to destroy than the lvl 3 one). Wider runways will allow players to safely launch wider planes. The runway separation from the SPH should also be increased a bit (at least 10-15 m) for landing approaches of ultra-wide planes, range-safety of massive planes full if rocket fuel, and so wings of huge planes don't collide with SPH if players decide to taxi around near the SPH a bit. - Lvl 4 VAB. Larger/taller inside than the lvl 3 VAB, so players can see more of their tallest rockets (and have less of planes overflow the VAB when they merge really long shuttles/flyback boosters built in SPH, before attachment) without re-rooting of parts and constant shifting of the rocket stack. Larger exterior dimensions too, for immersion/coolness. - Lvl 4 SPH. Longer/wider internal dimensions than the lvl 3 SPH, for even longer/wider planes (having really wide planes that you can't see the wingtips of in the SPH is *particularly* annoying). Larger external dimensions for immersion/awesomeness/impressiveness. - Lvl 4 Tracking Center. Provides higher-powered DSN (so players have a better way to increase this with more immersion/coolness than just pulling up the DSN slider under Difficulty settings. I won't argue the necessityof the DSN upgrade beyond saying it'a both more realistic, and less obnoxiousfor players than building their own more powerful ground-stations on Kerbin and an enormous relay network just to provide stronger comms to Jool, or mods that expand the # of planets beyond Jool) and larger/more impressive-looking satellite dishes for the building. Maybe give the Tracking Center a proper parking-lot too? - Lvl 4 Astronaut Complex. Should provide a discount to astronaut-hiring costs (maybec10-20% off the base cost. 30%? 40%?) By the late-game, when you have a large crew roster, it becomes PROHIBITIVELY expensive to hire more Kerbalnauts (and forces players to just spam rescue-contracts to get more) or replace any lost crew members (w/o respawn). An option to refresh the current list of available hires, for a cost in Funds, for the lvl 4 complex (if you're going to spend a fortune on hiring, maybe you want a Pilot with better Courage, or a low Stupidity scientist? Helps with immersion/fun). - Lvl 4 Science Center. Purely a handout to modders. Lvl 3 center could be given a tech node cost limit beyond anything in the stock tree- allowing modders to lock parts behind a lvl 4 science center (which would remove all limits) for Career Mode balance and realism for futuristic parts taking even longer to obtain... Could possibly be disabled by default (but re-enabled under difficulty options, with a tooltip "just for looks in the stock gsme") if would annoy stock players. Could be larger/ more impressive than the lvl 4 center, so even some Stock players might use it, for coolness. Would of course also be default level in Sandbox/Science modes (so most players would still benefit from the cool model). - Lvl 4 Admin Building. Should come with a moderate (20-30%?) discount to buy-in costs for all strategies, or *maybe* add a few new, more powerful strategies (or allow existing strategiesto be set to 100%- with lvl 3 only going to 80%, and the strategies all being buffed a bit). Would make the game a bit easier if players bought it- but at VERY low Return On Investment (as the upgrade would be very expensive). Besides, most players don't use the Admin building much. This might give players a *bit* more motive to do so. Could also cone with a larger/cooler building model, maybe also a bigger parking lot? (To represent the increased staffing demands of a more mature apace program, and all the complex clerical work that makes modern space programs possible...) These are just ideas for what each of the lvl 4 upgrades could do- amd I'm sure other players could come up with even better ideas! This is a great game, and little improvements like this (or in the case of players who struggle with launching/landing enormous rockets on the puny lvl 3 pad/runway, BIG improvements...) would make the game even better. I don't expect everyone will agree with me on thos, or all the details, but I would like people not to be closed-mindef about this, or respond "there's a mod for that!". Thank you all for reading this! I think some lvl 4 upgrades, as part of the base game, would be a nice way to show appreciation for the KSP community- and by showing players the game is continuing to grow/evolve in a VERY noticeable way to any playthrough, would keep them involved- and more likely to consider buying KSP 2 and any future expansions for KSP as well...

Additional GROUND-BASED infrastructure. This would be the equivalent of purchasing a Level 4 DSN upgrade after a probe's launch in KSP. You lack an understanding of the relative distances involved. Relay networks are not meant to drastically EXTEND your DSN- they're made to provide signal around the far side of planets/terrain, and somewhat increase signal-strength while already in range. To obtain 64% signal strength at 56.5 Gm (about 86% the SMA of Jool) further than the 80% signal range of the level 3 DSN (250G of power) you would have to add a 282 G relay (FOUR of the stock 100G relay dishes- for a MASSIVE relay mass measured in metric tons) in an orbit 56.5Gm out from Kerbin. This would give you 64% signal when the relay was on a straight-line path between Kerbin and Jool (only a VANISHINGLY small % of the time) at a distance of about 82.8 GM (Jool-Kerbin when NOT in phase, but still not anywhere close to opposite sides of the sun: where distances exceed 130 Gm) using a 15G antenna on the craft in question. At that point, where you invest that much time/effort in just relays, you're playing Kerbal Relay Network, not Kerbal Space Program. In short, it's unrealistic to expect players to use Relay's to obtain a strong Kerbin-Jool connection. I'm not going to debate this further- you seem set on trying to argue against this no matter what justifications I provide the stock DSN clearly needs a level 4 upgrade- for player sanity as well as realism...

Please don't dismiss others' concerns. The KSC runway is unrealistically short. There is no reason players should have to struggle against this (and unlike many other aspects of spaceplane design, the length of runway needed for takeoff does NOT decrease with the scaled-down Kerbin system vs. real life). Also, I'm not sure if you knew who you were talking to- but I'm an old hand and a pro at this game. I can build spaceplanes in my sleep. That doesn't mean I don't get incredibly annoyed at having to work with a runway that's a fraction of the size of ones in real life (also, it makes landing harder: which is still hard for extremely high-performance planes optimized for hypersonic performance in FAR- which forces you to make trade-offs in the design of your planes that make landing much harder, if you want the best performance for your spaceplanes...)

By the way, you might find this new interesting: https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/10/22/british-made-hypersonic-engine-passes-key-milestone-at-colorado-test-site/ Apparently the SABRE precoolers (by far the most revolutionary part of the design) have been validated at Mach 5 conditions in hypersonic wind-tunnels now. The British government is already preparing funding to equip future combat jets with precoolers to improve their high speed performance...

Not bad enough to be a big problem. The lawn around the KSC is also perfectly flat. Yet planes don't roll on it (much). Players may have to up their brake-strength (through stock right-click) a bit: but this is realistic for other reasons. Real jet engines can't produce zero thrust, even when stationary. Some produce enough stationary thrust at zero throttle that the brakes have to be upgraded. I don't have any issues with planes rolling on the KSC runway, though, unless the engines are throttled to high with brakes on. Most players who experience motion do so for other reasons: like a Center of Mass too far forward relative to the wheels...

That's what we call very low signal-strength in KSP (a 1% signal models that well enough for a game). But it still managed to send and receive control signals. So it WAS still in-tange out past Pluto. It also had a rather small antenna, compared to what we could've given it, to save mass. Calling things edge-cases and saying "there's a mod for that" is simple defeatism. It can be done in real life, has utility in-game (with level 3 DSN, many antennae can't even operate near Jool- an upgraded DSN would make these missions slightly easier, with better signal strength or signals with antenna that currently get none at all), and it adds good publicity for the game, adding a stock lvl 4 DSN and runway (dev's can say they're continuing to add new features: yet neither feature is actually much work to implement). What's more, mods break, get abandoned, or are slow to update. Basic features like this that SHOULDN'T slow future development in ANY way (a new model for the DSN and runway is a one-and-done deal, requiring almost no feature maintenance) there is no reason not to add. Yes. The runway is unrealistically short, to a degree that makes the game harder than it needs to be for no reason (we should by trying to make basic actions like landing and takeoff easier so more players will engage with the spaceplane features and the game in general, not harder), and the plane WAS able to land and takeoff with the larger flat grasslands near the KSC. My plane was IMPOSSIBLE to land or takeoff on a 2.5 km runway, but many designs (including most shuttles) are just "hard". Adding a more realistic, long runway would make these missions a little easier... This isn't an uncommon problem/solution either- so much so that the knee-jerk reaction of many players here was to say "just use the lawn" on a suggestions thread- where the whole POINT is to suggest new features! We should ask more of SQUAD, and ourselves. When you do a job, you should do it to the best of your ability: if there's a widely-useful feature that requires very little cost or effort and would improve the game, even marginally, SQUAD should add it.