Do you like flying hot dogs?

[Roflcopterkklol]

Which SSTO style do you prefer?

the more realistic looking aerodynamic styled SSTO's which are no longer viable (This particular craft was capable of a 500km orbit reliably in 1.0)

Or the flying hot dogs which you have to build now (Flying hotdogs like this barely worked in 1.0)

Edited May 3, 2015 by Roflcopterkklol

[theonegalen]

I'd like to point out that you've made this point multiple times already, in multiple different threads.

[SkyRender]

It is getting very old, indeed. Just because you can't figure out a way to be creative within the confines of practicality does not mean that you need to harp on this fact with a new thread every 4 hours.

[r4pt0r]

I've grown weary of your constant complaining about SSTO's, friend.

[Roflcopterkklol]

I'd like to point out that you've made this point multiple times already, in multiple different threads.

Of course, everyone needs to know about this travesty and i want to know their opinions on it.

- - - Updated - - -

It is getting very old, indeed. Just because you can't figure out a way to be creative within the confines of practicality does not mean that you need to harp on this fact with a new thread every 4 hours.

I have literally made 2 threads, one is in the suggestions forum which is actually producing some good discussions and now this one, which is for giggles.

oh and the one on the exchange, which was made when 1.0 came out and i first released my 1.0 SSTO.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Roflcopterkklol

[Temeter]

That question is easily solved by another question: Can you eat an SSTO?

Thus the superiority of the hotdog has been proven.

[r4pt0r]

Real-world SSTO designs/concepts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_X-30

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_X-43

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VentureStar

All of those are lifting body designs with very minimal actual 'wing'. It stands to reason then that 'hotdog' is the more realistic.

I propose a mod edits the poll to say either "Realisic lifting body designs" or "unrealisic designs that only worked with the broken aerodynamics"

Edited May 3, 2015 by r4pt0r

[Skyentist]

Can't say that I do

[Argon]

I refuse to vote! You have already rehashed this too many times in too many different subforums.

-Argon

[Roflcopterkklol]

Real-world SSTO designs/concepts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_X-30

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_X-43

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VentureStar

All of those are lifting body designs with very minimal actual 'wing'. It stands to reason then that 'hotdog' is the more realistic.

I propose a mod edits the poll to say either "Realisic lifting body designs" or "unrealisic designs that only worked with the broken aerodynamics"

That craft works fine as it is a lifting body design..... it does 1250m/s its just the new souposphere no longer allows it to keep as much speed when in a banking turn, squad was the one that decided to up the drag for no reason at all, SSTO's are the only thing which was effected, what was so wrong with the 1.0 aerodynamic model?

It was not perfect but it was better than it is now....

[stibbons]

I couldn't rate the thread so I'm leaving a comment. This thread is terrible.

Edited May 3, 2015 by stibbons

[White Owl]

The SKYLON as planned looks very hotdog-like... frankly.

[Aanker]

Well, the SR-72 concept (by Lockheed) doesn't.

[KotDemopan]

You mean you don't?

Oooh, THOSE hot dogs...

[Brotoro]

I don't know what kind of hot dogs you people eat, but neither of OP's examples look like a hot dog.

These actual spaceplanes and spaceplane concepts, on the other hand, might go well with mustard:

[Aanker]

And then there are these. I don't see why we can't have both.

-we already have super functional x wings in 1.0.2

-the above designs are realistic

-so why can't we be allowed to build spaceplanes that mimic the above style? Why do we have to glue together tubes and a maximum of ten wing parts with no consideration for style or be punished in performance?

Edited May 3, 2015 by Aanker

[Roflcopterkklol]

Well, the SR-72 concept (by Lockheed) doesn't.

I have an SR-72 replica, a manned one admitted (i wanted it to have pilots) and i could not get a straight answer on what it should actually look like considering every second picture of it is different.

it can no longer do the desired hypersonic speeds though unfortunately.

[Aanker]

0/10 so unrealistic, not aerodynamic shape, too many wing. Clearly not fit for hypersonic flight.

Look at the airplane on the right. See those 8 tiny wing pieces merged with the fuselage to shield the two engine/fuel tank structures? There are 8 more on the bottom. Admittedly they are mostly for style. But the placement should hide them from the airflow.

Result? More than 550 m/s sea level maximum speed reduction as compared to the model on the left. 400 m/s as compared to 950+. The fuel tank centerline distance had no effect on the drag, by the way (which was the only other difference between the two planes).

Edited May 3, 2015 by Aanker

[White Owl]

All punning and bitching aside... do you know there's a physics.cfg in your game's install folder, with editable values for lift, drag, and various other things? If one certain build style is that important to you, please feel free to tweak those values until the air behaves how you like. Share it with people, even.

[JellyCubes]

♫ ♪ ♪

Hot dogs, Kerbal hot dogs

What kind of kids fly Kerbal hot dogs?

Fat kids, skinny kids

Kids who climb on rocks

Big kids, little kids

Even kids with chicken pox

Fly hot dogs, Kerbal hot dogs

The dogs kids love to fly.

♫ ♪ ♪ ♫

[r4pt0r]

♫ ♪ ♪

Hot dogs, Kerbal hot dogs

What kind of kids fly Kerbal hot dogs?

Fat kids, skinny kids

Kids who climb on rocks

Big kids, little kids

Even kids with chicken pox

Fly hot dogs, Kerbal hot dogs

The dogs kids love to fly.

♫ ♪ ♪ ♫

I wish we could have ads like that today. people get so easily offended nowadays

[Levelord]

All punning and bitching aside... do you know there's a physics.cfg in your game's install folder, with editable values for lift, drag, and various other things? If one certain build style is that important to you, please feel free to tweak those values until the air behaves how you like. Share it with people, even.

Because when you can't dispute Aanker's post which brings up valid points and facts that winged crafts actually can have real life applications, and where KSP soup-o atmosphere actually hinders this, you dismiss it all as whining/bitching.

I have no words on how the KSP community can project such willful ignorance on this problem. I mean are people are actually defending this soup-o atmosphere? Really?

Edited May 3, 2015 by Levelord

[worir4]

Don't worry guys, I'm sure SQUAD will tweak the aerodynamics some more. Or you could switch to FAR if you want.

[White Owl]

Because when you can't dispute Aanker's post which brings up valid points and facts that winged crafts actually can have real life applications, and where KSP soup-o atmosphere actually hinders this, you dismiss it all as whining/bitching.

I have no words on how the KSP community can project such willful ignorance on this problem. I mean are people are actually defending this soup-o atmosphere? Really?

You're right, I should've been more precise with my criticism. I didn't think Aanker was bitching; on the contrary, those are some valid points about the non-optimal, non-realistic way aerodynamics works in this game. (Still a whole lot better than it was for the past four years, though.)

The OP is most assuredly, indisputably, flagrantly, and in many other ways, bitching. Can't have it exactly my way so I'll throw public hissy fit in multiple threads. I was attempting to point out there's a way he/she can have the air tuned precisely to taste with a little effort and experimentation.

[RayneCloud]

This is really, really old friend. Post real bug reports already. Every single one of your posts has brought nothing of value to the discussion.