Pecan

Wimp! What else is a space simulator for *joke* Seriously - too few people realise what a huge decision the basic engine means for the developers or how hard it is to change, let alone create, one.

Lots but ... First lunar (Mun or Minmus) landing is ... unlike anything in any other game/simulator, even almost anything else in RL. I was literally jumping around the room shouting 'yes, yes, YES', [Docking I always gave to MJ right up until it just 'clicked' for me, now It's one of the things I enjoy most. Even getting it right the first time wasn't as good as the landing though]

A moderator will be along in due course ... [wait ... ] <- fictionally If they don't move it for you soon, you can always pick on one of the moderators and ask. (Honest, I don't think they mind ^^). Just so you know I'm not trying to cause trouble for you, I'll even ask on your behalf :-)

It's OK - that's what the rest of us mean by that word too :-) It might not be something you'll find in a normal dictionary but it is something we here all agree means "to make [more] circular [and less oval]" Your post deserves a better place than in 'dicsussion' I would think - why don't you have it moved to 'tutorials'?

Add On Discussions is the place to ask.

Thanks for that. I am not playing KSP as much as I used to (RL is such an intruder!) and haven't tried horizontal launch/landing at all since 1.1 came out so I've not dealt with wheels much and only have forum comments to go on.

And to @AeroGav, this is also how I count it. @bewing - yes, I also think the wheels are (very much) the weak point. Bugs aside, it should not be an issue but skids either way (even parachute stop) are acceptable. I'm not doing a challenge here though, just asking what low-tech people have, are working with or is possible. The definition of SSTO is anything designed to reach (Kerbin) orbit in a single stage - nothing jettisoned. For what it's worth (which isn't much), my definition of a spaceplane is something that flies to space primarily using wings for lift, regardless of whether it uses a rocket or air-breathing engine for thrust. A reusable SSTO has to survive re-entry and landing as well, all without jettisoning anything, although refuelling and repacking chutes is fine - again only in my opinion. My original question was, therefore, whether anyone had made something fly to orbit with tech 4 (or lower) using aerodynamic lift rather than pure thrust. SSTO is a bonus, reusable SSTO doubly so :-)

What is your question?

Just think how much fun Squad have been having for the past five years ^^

I suspect MJ is seriously confused by you control-surface placement. Poor software.

SSTO spaceplane that, to quote and congratulate @AeroGav, "uses lift rather than thrust to overcome gravity". A SSTO rocket (not using aerodynamic lift) is trivial from tech 1, the benefit I would look for in a spaceplane is that (in contradiction to him) all of it comes back. As far as I know, such a (tech 4) rocket has never been possible, but a spaceplane used to be*. *ETA: in 1.0.5

Buying high-cost and -budget software from EA (especially) or other big publishers usually doesn't give you a less buggy product unfortunately. Then you wait months or years for a patch that fixes a few things while paying another fortune for DLC that, as often as not, introduces more problems. So far, I've paid for KSP once and huge additions have been made to it for free, even after the official launch of 1.0, when Squad had more than delivered on their side of the early access bargain. Like Snark, I'll also put in the software professional side of things and say we've been treated very well by Squad. While frequent (several times a year) releases such as we used to have are common in alpha/beta there comes a time in every project where you have to slow things down. The change of engine to Unity 5 was a major piece of work that wouldn't have made sense to release without completing and it should be no surprise that were bugs in it. We then got two patches quickly - compare again with how long the first Sims (2, 3 or 4) patches took despite it being the highest-earning game of all time and buggy as hell. As to the three-week holiday - why should any of us care? If we had, say, a release schedule that said the next release would be in another year should anyone care how Squad manage their time during that year? After such a big project as the engine-change I would be surprised if the team wasn't a bit burnt-out and in need of a break. Considering that having half the team absent at a time can result in miscommunication, stress and even more bugs it may have been a very good idea and time for everyone to have a rest at once. During my career I specialised in mission-critical, high-value projects that had to be completed quickly and accurately. We were well rewarded for it but only about half of the people who asked to join my team could stand the pace, despite the fact we worked 3 months and then had 1 month off*, so they went back to more normal projects and teams. Neither do top sports teams or individuals keep up the same pace all the time; there is a season to most sports for that reason. In team sports it is also common for the whole squad (no pun) to spend some time 'on retreat' together during the relative down-time. [* not all holiday, but also training and practice time; anything less intense than 'competition']

I have a couple of installations each of 1.0.5 and 1.1.2 plus one of the demo. Should there be a reason to dig them out I also have zip files of every version since 0.22 (when I first bought it), the freely-available early versions and the 0.18 demo. Yes, I stayed with 1.0.5 for a while to finish things up but I haven't really had any problems with 1.1.x so don't go back to it any more.

Understanding, accepting and applying other peoples' advice so quickly is an uncommon skill in itself :-) You posted a perfect picture to illustrate your design, which is not too bad in the first place, as illustrated by the detailed comments from @The_Rocketeer particularly. It is then very nice to see how your plane has benefitted from the changes you decided to make and how much happier you are with everything. Thank you for the thread.

While you're all having fun - has anyone tried to build a tech 4 spaceplane in 1.1 yet?

Wheels are a known problem in 1.1.x and are being addressed, but your guess is as good as anyone's when there'll be a fix (don't ask, it's a forbidden subject).

You have pilots' comments on real aircraft so I'll address your specific questions about KSP. It is not desirable to depend on SAS for stability but it probably is normal for most people. Better by far (pun intended) to use trim: <mod>+WASDQE (<mod> is the 'modifier' key; alt in Windows, Option on mac, right-shift in Linux.) I'm also assuming that you'll be using 'fine' controls; toggle between coarse controls (pitch/yaw/roll input indicators at bottom-left of the screen are red) and fine (indicators are blue) by pressing caps-lock. Pressing alt-S, for instance, increases the 'hands-off' position of the pitch controls so without you touching anything tthe vehicle has more tendency to pitch-up. Trim on all three axis can be cancelled/zeroed by pressing alt-X, It is quite possible that you will still want to engage SAS just so you don't have to fiddle with trim all the time (eg; as your fuel burns and the natural balance/trim of the vehicle changes) but ... ... The whole point of SAS is to keep the vehicle pointing the same way so, yes it WILL make turning hard(er). Assuming you are using it for a bit of 'auto-trim' as above then before any deliberate manoeuvre you should turn it off, then back on again once you're back in straight (but not necessarily level) flight. The full sequence for a turn to the right, for instance, is therefore: disengage SAS (T), roll right (E), co-ordinate with yaw-right (D) and keep the nose up by pulling the stick back (S), return to wings-level on the new heading and re-engage SAS (T). Now consider what will happen to a vehicle nicely-trimmed for straight and level flight when you disengage SAS (which is just trying for 'straight'). In theory - not much. In practice - maintaining a fixed altitude around the world is not straight. Therefore the longer you've been using SAS the higher and higher it has been pitching you - straight to Mun if you set it up right! - so when you disengage it and the vehicle settles back to its trim settings the nose is very likely to drop quite a bit and there are likely to be 'disturbances' along the other axis too. So - if you want hands-off level flight you should disengage and re-engage SAS every now and again anyway (and adjust trim), just to reset it to current conditions. This is also the RL case with any gyro-stabilised system (depending on how cleverly they are built). LINKS! A screenshot (F1) of a vehicle, preferably in the VAB/SPH with CoM and CoL displayed (buttons bottom-left of the screen when in those buildings) will usually tell the cognoscenti here enough to diagnose the more usual things. Otherwise the craft file itself is just a text file stored in your KSP_win\saves\<save game name>\ships\SPH or \VAB folder (If you're not on Windows change the 'KSP_win' as required). It's called a craft file because it has the extension of '.craft. so "My Plane" will be stored as "My Plane.craft". In order to post either of those to the forums you will need to use a file-sharing web site such as imgur (for pictures) or dropbox (for any files). and post/embed the link here.

In real life the strength of the shuttle was not that it can put things into space/orbit or even that it is reusable but that it could capture and move or retrieve things from space. Consider modular payloads (such as a science package) that a space-only transfer vehicle can carry outside LKO and that is handed back to the shuttle for return to Kerbin surface. In KSP there's even less point to a shuttle design but if bay width is your problem you might like to consider the Infernal Robotics mod. This adds moving parts to the game and lets you build things that unfold from the bay to form rovers, base-modules, etc.

Neither is a hatch ^^.

Confirmed and denied. No, it's not in the settings but, yes, it does indeed lock and unlock staging. Note that it is <Mod> + L, where the <Mod>, modifier, key depends on your OS:- in Windows it's alt, Mac option and Linux right-shift.

Is this your considered, version 1.0.5, analysis or are you necroposting?

That would be because 'beta' was only for 1.1. If you stay on that branch you're deliberately, officially and specifically saying you do NOT want the standard release (1.1.2). Saves are compatible between OSs, since they are only dependent on the Unity engine, but not reliably between different versions, because the different versions, by definition, act differently. You may also care to note that this thread is almost three years old!

An idea all about tourism - and space transport tycoon: The program objective is to provide timely and efficient passenger (1+) transport between every celestial body To this end a passenger-carrying vehicle must be available at each body, prepared to take advantage of each transfer window as it presents itself. Appropriate landers must be in place at each body. Rovers, surface bases, orbital stations and ISRU are optional. Emplacement to be in order of transfer window from Kerbin or another planet that can provide it (In case you wish to go to Birmingham by way of Beachy Head).. Does that seem simple but comprehensive enough? Good - now take a passenger from Ike to Bop, using the emplaced resources. Satisfy yourself you're doing it as efficiently/cheaply/low-tech as you wish.

Geschosskopf's 'flotilla' tutorial is excellent for this, though he modestly doesn't point it out :-) ETA: Link in his signature

Good question! Something I've often asked myself. In general I prefer the 1x6 but there have been a few space-station builds where the more compact 3x2 format made them easier to keep out of the way of everything else.