Just a couple of things that need addressing...

[RogueMason]

So, I've been having a pretty good time getting to know 1.0 (and investigating some other... aspects...), but now the time has come for me to address a couple of things. They're not overly serious, but they do need considering

The Island Runway:

I'd like to think this one is already known about, but I'm posting it anyway. The whole runway set-up is floating a bit above the island it's supposed to exist on.

If some poor sod decides to try and fly under that... I shudder to think of the consequences that would arise. Not to mention it's ugly. Dangerous and ugly, not a good combo.

Heat shield fairings:

I haven't seen mention of these anywhere, but their sheer hideousness needs looking at. I thought at first it might just have been the Mk1-2 Pod being awkward, but this happens with every heat shield.

You can clearly see that the fairings are wider than their supposed diameters, creating that ghastly, jarring un-sleekness. Why couldn't these be done in the same way as the engine fairings for a much sleeker look? Why, Squad?! WHY?!

The RAPIER:

Oh no, a controversial one! Grab the fire extinguishers! Get the civilians to the shelters! At least it's not about the aerodynamics, though... I don't think the forums could handle another thread about that.

You're going to have to bear with me on this one (), as I've decided to talk about the, um... the rather abysmal vacuum ISP of the engine that's designed to put things into orbit on a single stage. I've got little problem with the atmospheric-mode of the engine, that's fine and dandy, and I'm not massively bothered by the loss of thrust at altitudes of around 20km, but the vacuum ISP is absolutely dreadful for a rocket motor that's at the end of the tech tree. I mean, 305s maximum?? That seems to be defeating the point of having an engine for the task of putting spaceplanes into orbit, even in the name of balances with regards to the new aerodynamics. I'd have expected one of the most high-tech engines in the game (as mentioned, it's at the end of the tech tree) to at least be a little more capable in vacuum. The vacuum ISP in 0.90 was around 360s, and that was just about enough, so I think a value around 330s or 335s for 1.0 instead of 305s would be more appropriate.

I know, I know, people have made SSTO spaceplanes with RAPIERs in 1.0, but in every instance I've seen, they've barely had any fuel left for anything once in LKO, and a lot of you will no doubt come along and say 'realism, bud; get with it', and while I agree that's it probably is realistic (Skylon's proposed flight profile has the vehicle fire a solid rocket motor in the tail to make the final push into LEO, conserving what little fuel is left for after re-entry), I must say nay! Squad themselves have stated that KSP is a game first, simulator second, so why would it be beyond reason to expect the RAPIER to perform just a little better than its real-life counterpart? They've already done a similar thing with the ion engine, buffing the thrust dramatically compared to reality for gameplay purposes.

You can't deny my logic, really. I thought this out too much for you to do that. It's impossible, so don't even try

-----

That will be all for now. I've got more tests to run concerning my experiment, the results of which I hope to be able to share in a few days at most

[Bill Phil]

Yeah, the heat shield aero shells are weird. I don't get why it was done in that way, it seems obvious that a more in line one would be preferable. Heatshields are very well done, and putting this, well, weird thing on it is making Heatshields look bad from the outside.

[NathanKell]

The heatshield fairings are 2.5m wide, same as most every other "2.5m" part...except the Mk1-2 pod, which is narrower. :]

[tater]

The DRE heatshields and separators look nice and smooth.

[RogueMason]

The heatshield fairings are 2.5m wide, same as most every other "2.5m" part...except the Mk1-2 pod, which is narrower. :]

Maybe their internal diameter is 2.5m, but their external diameter is very obviously greater (as with both the 1.25m and the 3.75m shields...); compare it to the ASAS unit in that stack I've pictured. I know the Mk1-2 pod is odd, anyway, hence my initial thinking that it must have been that

If it wasn't an issue, I wouldn't be bringing it up