I don't get the whining about 1.0.2

[randomnimi]

returning to KSP in a naked Mk2 cockpit. It acts as a lifting body, which is kinda-sorta alrightish (shape's not quite right, but wth) -- what bothers me is that it can land slow enough to glide to a halt on the runway.

That's what happens when you can magically create huge amounts of torque out of thin air and some electricity. I'd encourage anyone to try the same with reaction wheels turned off.

[viila]

That's what happens when you can magically create huge amounts of torque out of thin air and some electricity. I'd encourage anyone to try the same with reaction wheels turned off.

You'd have to add control surfaces then to control it. But landing works just the same with the smallest possible horizontal one (to minimize any lift gained; vertical one is split to get roll control without needing two horizontal ones):

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17789257/lolglider/lolglider1.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17789257/lolglider/lolglider2.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17789257/lolglider/lolglider3.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17789257/lolglider/lolglider4.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17789257/lolglider/lolglider5.jpg Touchdown!

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17789257/lolglider/lolglider6.jpg Full battery - no torque used.

[klgraham1013]

New hotness: returning to KSP in a naked Mk2 cockpit. It acts as a lifting body, which is kinda-sorta alrightish (shape's not quite right, but wth) -- what bothers me is that it can land slow enough to glide to a halt on the runway.

http://imgur.com/a/ImS1x#0

Here we have a mixture of questionable aero and overpowered reaction wheels. Please enjoy.

[Jouni]

I tried landing with the Mk2 cockpit in FAR when the Mk2 parts were new. It didn't work, because the reaction wheels weren't strong enough to counter the aerodynamic forces. Still, it was a close call due to the ridiculous impact tolerance of the cockpit.

[Laie]

overpowered reaction wheels

you can magically create huge amounts of torque out of thin air and some electricity

Please, let's not even go there. The OP reaction wheels, like restartable engines and deep throttling are features that make this game playable. You know, as a game. These days I can try Realism Overhaul and guess that I may eventually get into it; but if that had been the stock experience to start with, I'd probably have given up in frustration.

[randomnimi]

Please, let's not even go there. The OP reaction wheels, like restartable engines and deep throttling are features that make this game playable. You know, as a game. These days I can try Realism Overhaul and guess that I may eventually get into it; but if that had been the stock experience to start with, I'd probably have given up in frustration.

Oh most definitely, I'm not hugely upset about the aero whatever Squad decides to do with it because it won't affect my gameplay with mods. I think the stock aero would ideally be fun for new players with a dash of realism to introduce them to more complex concepts. Like nearly every other part of the game is.

[klgraham1013]

Please, let's not even go there. The OP reaction wheels, like restartable engines and deep throttling are features that make this game playable. You know, as a game. These days I can try Realism Overhaul and guess that I may eventually get into it; but if that had been the stock experience to start with, I'd probably have given up in frustration.

There's always RCS.

[Superfluous J]

There's always RCS.

Until you run out.

[spudcosmic]

Until you run out.

You could always just bring as much RCS as you need; kind of like what you probably already do with normal fuel.

[Superfluous J]

You could always just bring as much RCS as you need; kind of like what you probably already do with normal fuel.

I could, but the reaction wheels work great.

(I understand that my circular argument is circular)

[viila]

There's always RCS.

RCS is pretty bad in KSP... I often have horrible oscillation when using it with SAS or MechJeb. Plus, it's really hard to design a good RCS system onto a spacecraft because you can't designate nozzles to do only one thing or adjust their relative powers. Easiest way to get RCS working well with translation is to put linear ports inline with the CoM, which makes them useless for rotations (except for wasting fuel), but if you add more ports with longer moment arms for rotation, that screws up your linear setup because you can't usually get them exactly balanced around the CoM. So in almost all cases you have unwanted translations when rotating and unwanted rotations when translating when you try to have a RCS system that can do both. And in all cases you have nozzles that are wasting RCS fuel since they are all firing if they think they can apply even a little momentum in even vaguely the direction you're turning/translating towards.

Plus, if you have really tiny probes, even the weakest RCS nozzles in precision mode will still spin it at a billion RPM at the slightest touch. (This makes the reaction wheel-less probe cores almost unusable, because anything you'd want to use them in to save weight, you can't, because RCS would be too twitchy to actually be able to control them, so you need to add reaction wheels, and then you may as well use the next heavier core with proportionally sized wheels built-in!)

[Temeter]

That shuttle is old and busted. New hotness: returning to KSP in a naked Mk2 cockpit. It acts as a lifting body, which is kinda-sorta alrightish (shape's not quite right, but wth) -- what bothers me is that it can land slow enough to glide to a halt on the runway.

LOL, that's crazy. Never underestimate the function of a lifting body, tho:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33

What you have here looks like a fuselage section, but it basically acts as a flying wing. This is, as said, part caused by unrealistic reaction wheels (do not dare to criticise them :< ), and otherwise the toughness of cockpit sections, which is generally quite a bit stronger than the fuselage. If you can get a horizontal touchdown with minimal vertical speed and avoid tumbling, which is again stabilized by our wonderful hercules level reaction wheels, then you can land at very high speeds on the even runway without dying.

Think about the countless planes we all crashed during starts, and how often the crew sections would miraculously survive. That's basically what happens here.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Temeter

[X-SR71]

RCS is pretty bad in KSP... I often have horrible oscillation when using it with SAS or MechJeb. Plus, it's really hard to design a good RCS system onto a spacecraft because you can't designate nozzles to do only one thing or adjust their relative powers. Easiest way to get RCS working well with translation is to put linear ports inline with the CoM, which makes them useless for rotations (except for wasting fuel), but if you add more ports with longer moment arms for rotation, that screws up your linear setup because you can't usually get them exactly balanced around the CoM. So in almost all cases you have unwanted translations when rotating and unwanted rotations when translating when you try to have a RCS system that can do both. And in all cases you have nozzles that are wasting RCS fuel since they are all firing if they think they can apply even a little momentum in even vaguely the direction you're turning/translating towards.

Plus, if you have really tiny probes, even the weakest RCS nozzles in precision mode will still spin it at a billion RPM at the slightest touch. (This makes the reaction wheel-less probe cores almost unusable, because anything you'd want to use them in to save weight, you can't, because RCS would be too twitchy to actually be able to control them, so you need to add reaction wheels, and then you may as well use the next heavier core with proportionally sized wheels built-in!)

I really REALLY liked a tiny little mod named 'RCS Build Aid' that shows thrust and torque forces for RCS controls when building your craft. It worked great for correct positioning of controls minimizing the resulting spin from translation and knowing resulting force for given direction. Unfortunately it was for 0.90 and I don't think it's been updated..

[White Owl]

I believe everybody who have been griping about the drag in 1.02 are misunderstanding the problem. They see aircraft flying unreasonably slowly, and naturally blame the drag settings. Naturally... but wrongly.

The drag is fine. Capsules slow down in reentry just right. (Heat does need fixed.) Airplanes in lower atmosphere slow down for landing just fine. No problem with the drag, IMO.

The problem in 1.02 is the lift is too high. Not the drag.

In the 1.0 physics.cfg, liftMultiplier = 0.038

In the 1.02 physics.cfg, liftMultiplier = 0.055

That's a pretty big change. The values for liftDragMultiplier and bodyLiftMultiplier both changed as well.

As a very easy experiment, I designed and flew a small, simple airplane in 1.02 aero, noted that it landed at a very slow EAS. Next I changed liftMultiplier to 0.038 and flew that same airplane. It took off and landed at faster airspeeds, subjectively felt like more of hot rod, and was overall more fun to fly. I'll leave the number crunching to smarter heads, and only say that changing that one lift value while leaving the drag at 1.02's setting just plain felt right; it felt like how a little jet airplane is supposed to fly.

[klgraham1013]

Until you run out.

Plan better.

- - - Updated - - -

RCS is pretty bad in KSP... I often have horrible oscillation when using it with SAS or MechJeb. Plus, it's really hard to design a good RCS system onto a spacecraft because you can't designate nozzles to do only one thing or adjust their relative powers. Easiest way to get RCS working well with translation is to put linear ports inline with the CoM, which makes them useless for rotations (except for wasting fuel), but if you add more ports with longer moment arms for rotation, that screws up your linear setup because you can't usually get them exactly balanced around the CoM. So in almost all cases you have unwanted translations when rotating and unwanted rotations when translating when you try to have a RCS system that can do both. And in all cases you have nozzles that are wasting RCS fuel since they are all firing if they think they can apply even a little momentum in even vaguely the direction you're turning/translating towards.

Plus, if you have really tiny probes, even the weakest RCS nozzles in precision mode will still spin it at a billion RPM at the slightest touch. (This makes the reaction wheel-less probe cores almost unusable, because anything you'd want to use them in to save weight, you can't, because RCS would be too twitchy to actually be able to control them, so you need to add reaction wheels, and then you may as well use the next heavier core with proportionally sized wheels built-in!)

Indeed. Why isn't RCS tweakable? That needs to happen.

[magnemoe]

Plus, if you have really tiny probes, even the weakest RCS nozzles in precision mode will still spin it at a billion RPM at the slightest touch. (This makes the reaction wheel-less probe cores almost unusable, because anything you'd want to use them in to save weight, you can't, because RCS would be too twitchy to actually be able to control them, so you need to add reaction wheels, and then you may as well use the next heavier core with proportionally sized wheels built-in!)

The reactionless probe cores especially the octo2 is obviously designed to use on ships who has pods / reaction wheels. Here the tiny effect from the probe totally wasted.

[Wjolcz]

I believe everybody who have been griping about the drag in 1.02 are misunderstanding the problem. They see aircraft flying unreasonably slowly, and naturally blame the drag settings. Naturally... but wrongly.

The drag is fine. Capsules slow down in reentry just right. (Heat does need fixed.) Airplanes in lower atmosphere slow down for landing just fine. No problem with the drag, IMO.

The problem in 1.02 is the lift is too high. Not the drag.

In the 1.0 physics.cfg, liftMultiplier = 0.038

In the 1.02 physics.cfg, liftMultiplier = 0.055

That's a pretty big change. The values for liftDragMultiplier and bodyLiftMultiplier both changed as well.

As a very easy experiment, I designed and flew a small, simple airplane in 1.02 aero, noted that it landed at a very slow EAS. Next I changed liftMultiplier to 0.038 and flew that same airplane. It took off and landed at faster airspeeds, subjectively felt like more of hot rod, and was overall more fun to fly. I'll leave the number crunching to smarter heads, and only say that changing that one lift value while leaving the drag at 1.02's setting just plain felt right; it felt like how a little jet airplane is supposed to fly.

Ooooooh, so that's what felt wrong about flying spaceplanes! That explains a lot.

[Jouni]

The drag is fine. Capsules slow down in reentry just right. (Heat does need fixed.)

The heat problem is in part configs, not in reentry heat. A couple of illuminating quotes from the Wikipedia:

The Space Shuttle thermal protection system (TPS) is the barrier that protected the Space Shuttle Orbiter during the searing 1,650 °C (3,000 °F) heat of atmospheric reentry.

The orbiter's aluminum structure could not withstand temperatures over 175 °C (347 °F) without structural failure.

If a part can withstand temperatures up to 2000 °C (°K?), then it's already shielded well enough to survive reentry from LEO. The heat tolerance of unshielded parts should be more like 200 °C than 2000 °C.

[Superfluous J]

Plan better.

No

[Rocketfeline]

It felt very odd that my science stuff were blowing up but not my kerbals in death-capsules.