The K Prize - 100% reusable spaceplane to orbit and back

[pa1983]

G4Virus is me all right. And for those that have fallowed my post also know my opinion on the current intake system.

Problem with it atm is the bucket system, its quite easy to get a handle off, many intakes or not. But a bucket system is basically a buffer and you dont have that IRL. So more intakes means bigger bucket.

Second problem is that intakes supply a specified amount off air etch that the engine can use so another buffer. More intakes means more intake air. Just dont work IRL.

Using many intakes is not a bug nor exploiting the game. That was how the GAME was designed. Simple formula is that Number off intakes Equals amount of available air at a given altitude. So more intakes means more air and thats how the game works. The game dont work like reality so stacking is with in the rules of the actual games, your opinions dont mater taking the current system in to account unless is changed, changing how you build after personal preferences wont change the rules for others sens the rules are what they are in the game.

making intakes heavier wont change the rules off how intakes works just how many you can carry realistically. It would still allow for intake abuse.

All the parameters needed in the game for a proper intake system already exists. A proper intake should be altitude limited and to some extent maybe limited to speed but real intakes can adjust the amount of air taken in so they are already designed with the target speed in mind. Just have a look at SR-71 blackbird or any other Mach 2-3 or above craft like the mach 5.5 skylon.

Intake air is regulated to make sure it stays subsonic because that waht the compressor needs to be feed with in a jet engine.

Basically what you need is a formula that specifies the amount of intakes needed to saturate en engine, for example two big intakes should saturate the intake air an engine needs anything else would not add any effect. So basically you need a formula that sees that if Intakes divided by number of engines is greater then two then intake is 2 per engine no more.

Simple enough for a programmer to write, even I could do write something like that in Qbasic as a kid.

Now KSP is a bit more complex but its not rocket science for a skilled programer and all the variable exist in the game, altitude, speed etc. Secondly a jet engine is limited by temperature from the intake air, faster you go the hotter it gets from friction. So for all you how dont like stacking but fly at anything over 1100m/s, there is no engine to day that can do that so why not stop wining about it and fly at mach 3.2 at the most hey? If you dont like stacking mach 3 should be your limit to. Simple fact is that an engine would overheat and be destroyed eventually. The compressor will heat the air up a lot in a jet engine, then the combustion chamber heats it up to to so the air hitting the turbines after the combustor is many hundred C hot maybe over a 1000C. Modern jets runs at the brink of melting more or less but to avoid melting they use cold intake air to cool the sensitive parts like turbine blades that have holes in them for cooling. If you run at say Mac 5.5 like the skylon the intake air is a 1000C, enough to melt aluminum and well wont leave much for cooling hot turbine blades made of titanium or cool any oil or bearings.

Thats why the skylon will have a Precooler that basically uses the fuel, Liquid hydrogen at very low temperatures to bring the 1000C hot air down to room temperature before entering the jet engine.

A jet engine uses about 3/4 of the intake air for cooling, only 1/4 is used for burning fuel and generate trust to power the turbine and compressor. Sure the added 3/4 increases efficiency but with out it the engine would simply overheat.

So for all you non stackers and intake abusers, run mach 3 at the most thats my advice. If you dont like that why not play with the rules of the game as they are atm.

Later in the game development Im sure squad will have altitude limited intakes, saturation taken in to account so no more then two intakes per jet will give it any better altitude performance and we will hopefully have precooler parts in the 1-2 ton range offering those that wants mach 5-6 instead of 2-3 to go there.

But right now intakes work they way they work and thats it. And dont think its a walk in the park adding 120-200 intakes either.And it do not make a bad plane good. Makes a good plane better but it takes some doing still and there is no constant gain, double amounts of intakes wont get you twice the altitude or speed, gains drop off pretty quickly.

The current implementations off spaceplanes in the game is well fare behind rocket part so I would say that its better to let people play the way they want now untill its finished because as it is now spaceplanes have a 1/10 realism factor. Just so fare of reality atm that stacking or not wont change there realism that much. More a mater of taste.

Biggest problem I have with the current system is the fact that stacking if you want performance rater then having a precooler part that exist but dont work in the game is the fact that 200-400 parts that it costs to add 100-200 intakes makes the game require some of the fastest hardware out there to be able to play it.

If you dont like stacking maybe you should let squad know you want a more realistic intake system? I have advocated one for a long time but it seems mostly to go by def ears.

[Pirke]

Here is my entry for 21.1: the Shotgun Hawk, 100% stock, 100% reusable single stage to Mun and back, and below is my very first testflight!

It uses 2 jet engines, 2 RAM air, 2 scramjets (simulated by stacking RAM air), and 1 atomic liquid burner. As the name suggests, it has no command pod, but a shotgun chair

To get a kerbal in it, there is this nice rover behind it that pushes the plane onto the runway, after which the pilot steps out and walks over to the plane As a benefit, the rover is a good reminder where the runway is when you're in orbit!

http://imgur.com/a/ZfPZ7#0

I could probably have gone to Minmus as well after leaving Mun orbit with this amount of fuel left... oh well, it was a fun first testflight!

Some small issues were found during testing:

- the casing around the atomic engine doesn't come of well during flight, that was probably the cause of a fuel inbalance... I had to manually pump some fuel around. That, or my fuel lines are not setup correctly.

- landing vertically on Mun with only a rear thruster and torque is tricky (although the torque is plenty enough, after rolling wheels down it will be a hard impact)... I suggest some small RCS thrusters to ease the landing.

- a bit nose down tendency with full fuel, a bit nose up tendency with the landing amount of fuel. Perhaps empty fuel will cause too much nose up effect. More investigation needed.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Pirke
Using imgur for images now

[antbin]

feeds around 200 intakes into four turbojets

This cargo SSTO can put 36+ tons into orbit, and only stacks 36 intakes into 7 turbojets... any better? :/

Javascript is disabled. View full album

.craft file here (0.21.1)

[Captain Sierra]

I know this doesn't count but I thought it would be cool to share since it almost counts.

I proudly present the Orion crew shuttle

This does use the B9 pack (and thus invalid) but it can deliver 8 crew members to orbit and back with fuel spare. If it refuels at a space station, it can be a full service crew transport to anywhere in the kerbin system. It is a very forgiving plane to fly in atmoshere but requires some skill in vacuum. It is still in fine tuning. Even I, a novice SSTO pilot, can take this thing to orbit with enough fuel margins to rendezvous and dock with the Horizon refueling station.

[Pirke]

Some small issues were found during testing:

- the casing around the atomic engine doesn't come of well during flight, that was probably the cause of a fuel inbalance... I had to manually pump some fuel around. That, or my fuel lines are not setup correctly.

I found the cause: the fuel lines work a bit different then I expected, the system just drew uneven because of that.

[BolkoB]

Hello all talent constructors, want to ask if someone have craft file of beautifully designed SSTO VTOL spaceplane which is capable of reaching Dune - so i could refuel it there and go to Leathe. I got a lot of trying to do it by myself, but my crafts if far away from perfect. its kinda real challenge for you

[Rosarium]

There is an apparently unrivaled spaceplane expert on Youtube calls himself G4Virus. He does really gnarly shtuff, like launching an 11 tonne base to the surface of Laythe and returning his spaceplane to Kerbin (Ascent Island's tiny runway!) in a single stage without refuelling:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMOzbtZAfWM

His mere "SSTO" two months earlier can put up a 36t chunk of space station on 350km LKO without breaking a sweat:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzT0X6lFdNk

This is the infinity glide bug to its maximum expression. my good opinion is: that true, that can be done, thats cool but This is not my battlefield for a challenge so he can keep its primate forever. (800 wings can lift anything) so sorry but i can't see in his creation nothing of that extraordinary but just a physic engine abuse.

[pa1983]

Theres no infinitglide there. Stop your dam LIES. Dont know anything apparently. It would take thousands of control surfaces to infinitglide 210+ tons to LKO. Jesus Christ can people actually build there own stuff and play the game and stop thinking they know what there talking about?

Im realy tired off all the people that havent even done it and think they know what there talking about. Check out an infinite glide craft and you see the numbers of surfaces required just to get a few tons up.

Only thing my crafts do is wobble a bit due to the old ASAS and the controll surfaces have always moved all teh way but people can understand that animations in a game and forces applied in a game dont reflect reality. It realy anoyes me how people playing KSP and claims to know dont understand that a program is intended to give the illusion of reality. But it docent do that just an approximation. I have relatively few control surfaces, a lot less then most spacepleanse per ton just to keep wobble down. Its hard enough to turn 200 tons as it is, infinitglide is so fare away it would need a 1000x times more control surfaces to even have a change in hell to infinitglide.

So no theres noi Physics engine abuse, its scaled up version based on the same parts as any other craft, just bigger just like a A380 is bigger then a Cessna.

But if you think its so easy why dont you put together a craft with 800 stock wing parts as you say with out it collapsing on the runway with a tonnage off 200-240 that can go to laythe and duna and back nonstop and take 45 ton to duna and 11 tin to laythe minimum on stock parts why dont you do it to prove how much you know? Lets see how you do sens its so EASY, so easy every one is doing it.....

All my crafts exists for download so theres no need to even speculate then people can try them them selfs and theres video of them in 1080p so every one can see what I see. Ever sense I put that on youtube in has not stopped to supprize me how little people actually pick up, I get asked stuff all the time that is clearly showed in the videos. But there are people that are aware and point this out so I dont need to moderate to much. But its annoying as hell when you have to state the obvious.

Annoys me even more that people feel that they are entitled to answers and help when I do it for free. I dont make a dime on this. Everything is put under Creative Commons and no advertising.

Edited August 4, 2013 by sjwt

[Pirke]

Theres no infinitglide there. Stop your dam LIES. Dont know anything apparently. It would take thousands of control surfaces to infinitglide 210+ tons to LKO. Jesus Christ can people actually build there own stuff and play the game and stop thinking they know what there talking about?

Im realy tired off all the bull**** from people that havent even done it and think they know what there talking about. Check out an infinite glide craft and you see the numbers of surfaces required just to get a few tons up.

Only thing my crafts do is wobble a bit due to the old ASAS but that will all crafts do if any size worth mentioning. I have relatively few control surfaces, a lot less then most spacepleanse per ton just to keep wobble down. Its hard enough to turn 200 tons as it is, infinitglide is so fare away it would need a 1000x times more control surfaces to even have a change in hell to infinitglide.

So no theres noi Physics engine abuse, its scaled up version based on the same parts as any other craft, just bigger just like a A380 is bigger then a Cessna.

But if you think its so easy why dont you put together a craft with 800 stock wing parts as you say with out it collapsing on the runway with a tonnage off 200-240 that can go to laythe and duna and back nonstop and take 45 ton to duna and 11 tin to laythe minimum on stock parts why dont you do it to prove how much you know? Lets see how you do sens its so EASY, so easy every one is doing it.....

I agree on the difficulty of having a lot of mass

For the High Altitude Payload Delivery Challenge I created a modular design to take big loads up in the sky using jets only. Fly higher and add a liquid engine to actually use the payload and you get a similar craft. Due to part count limitations (I may have overused the struts a bit...), I couldn't get more than 4 orange tanks up, but the runway is wide enough for 10 to 12 orange tanks payload SSTO. See this post. It doesn't look as fancy as your craft though, but it gets the job done. The first 1000m up is wobbly, then steady as a rock.

[Sean Mirrsen]

At six times the mass, your 200 intakes would suddenly explode from 20 to 120 mass units weighing down your plane. Extra 100 mass units of dead weight to rob you of acceleration, lift, and delta-V all the way through. Good luck getting the same mileage out of that design with such a change.

It really wouldn't be sufficient to stop intake spam, but it'd do very well to at least curb it. For every intake you stack on to give yourself a boost off the surface, you rob your craft of rocket dV that you could have actually used.

[pa1983]

At six times the mass, your 200 intakes would suddenly explode from 20 to 120 mass units weighing down your plane. Extra 100 mass units of dead weight to rob you of acceleration, lift, and delta-V all the way through. Good luck getting the same mileage out of that design with such a change.

It really wouldn't be sufficient to stop intake spam, but it'd do very well to at least curb it. For every intake you stack on to give yourself a boost off the surface, you rob your craft of rocket dV that you could have actually used.

Or you just redesign the howl dam intake system? Why are people here having such a problem understanding that KSP intake system is broken from the go and creating a new one should not be that hard sense all the variables are there in the game to make a realistic model any way.

making them heavier wont fix the stupid bucket system any way. Why try to hide a broken system whit heavy parts? Why not make a proper system, a proper system would require heavier part as a result any way. I have done many posts on precoolers and new intakes and how they should work. And it should satisfy most I think sens it will reduce part count and increase flexibility.

Only thing you would have to do to stop intake spaming would be to state something like "IF Intakes/Engines => 2 Then intake is 2 per engine. That whay you can never have more then two units per engine of air. Then you would add in altitude as a factor to to the units of air so eventually the unit of air would be less then whats needed to sustain combustion and it would flame out. Speed would governed temperature and thereby overheating. A precooler would increase the temperature tolerance as another variable to the formula.

The current bucket intake system was probably a result of how the resource system worked back then and was the fastest way to add it as a stop gap messure. Im sure SQUADE will eventualy replace it with a proper one. But untill then I can live with the way it is. But a simple set of rules for jets should not be that hard for the devs to add. Altitude, speed for air temprature etc.

I personally am a bit tiered of all the bad ideas to patch rather then fix a system that is broken especially when people that advocates this "fixes" are the once claiming to play realistically.

They also ignores all the obvious things like the fact that they still fly faster then real jets with out overheating the engine, but apparently having few intakes is the only realism that count.

And then they have not even taken in to account that Kerbin is like 1/10 the size and has a density many times the earth so even then any SSTO is to efficient in KSP. So thats for your realism.

But all you complainers, build you own, see how easy/hard it is before you wine. Having an opinion is fine but all this "play KSP like I do wine" is annoying. Its a dam sandbox game.

Edited August 4, 2013 by pa1983

[tavert]

I agree wholeheartedly with pa1983, enjoy the game in its current state in whatever way you feel like.

Anyway, I have a new minimalist entry for 0.21! MinK 1a (I don't care much for names...) weighs in at 1.33 tons, and does away with jets altogether. The new inline Rockomax 48-7S engine makes rocket-only horizontal-launch SSTO's quite doable:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edit: now that I think about it, I seem to remember Stochasty had a working nuke-plane a while ago, but that was a fair bit heavier than this.

Edited August 4, 2013 by tavert

[Sean Mirrsen]

Eh, the issue isn't in how many intakes there are per engine, and not in the realism of how many intakes an engine could actually use, or in how ram intakes don't work that way - it's just plain placing an air intake where it can't actually be used to take in air. Namely, right behind another air intake. Or right inside another intake, or any other part.

Last I checked, FAR had no effect on this, despite nominally detecting when a control surface is obscured from the airstream.

The huge monstrous arrays of intakes blooming outward like some kind of vacuum scoop of death are quite fine by me - they function exactly the way they look they should. But stacking intakes into compact long barrels or arrays where they barely peek out from behind one another (like Pirke's design up there), especially if they're completely obscured by fuselage, just don't look like they should work. It's a problem with KSP that they do, and like I said they are all legitimate designs - I just very much dislike that approach. And clipping abuse, among other things.

My SSTOs are heavy, can't break 20K/1200 on airbreathers, and more often than not can't get anywhere beyond orbit on their own power without refueling. But if one day the air intake behavior is fixed, they will keep on working.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Sean Mirrsen

[Eric S]

Or you just redesign the howl dam intake system? Why are people here having such a problem understanding that KSP intake system is broken from the go and creating a new one should not be that hard sense all the variables are there in the game to make a realistic model any way.

And likely to happen, during the live stream weekend just prior to the 0.21 release, one of the devs mentioned that he wanted to redo the air intake system.

[pa1983]

And likely to happen, during the live stream weekend just prior to the 0.21 release, one of the devs mentioned that he wanted to redo the air intake system.

Yea seems likely. I think it was a stop gap measure the old system.

Eh, the issue isn't in how many intakes there are per engine, and not in the realism of how many intakes an engine could actually use, or in how ram intakes don't work that way - it's just plain placing an air intake where it can't actually be used to take in air. Namely, right behind another air intake. Or right inside another intake, or any other part.

Last I checked, FAR had no effect on this, despite nominally detecting when a control surface is obscured from the airstream.

The huge monstrous arrays of intakes blooming outward like some kind of vacuum scoop of death are quite fine by me - they function exactly the way they look they should. But stacking intakes into compact long barrels or arrays where they barely peek out from behind one another (like Pirke's design up there), especially if they're completely obscured by fuselage, just don't look like they should work. It's a problem with KSP that they do, and like I said they are all legitimate designs - I just very much dislike that approach. And clipping abuse, among other things.

My SSTOs are heavy, can't break 20K/1200 on airbreathers, and more often than not can't get anywhere beyond orbit on their own power without refueling. But if one day the air intake behavior is fixed, they will keep on working.

I do think intakes should check for interference. But thats just one problem and I think it has to do more with the current aerodynamics sysgem then the resource system and they are going to redo that some day but Im pretty sure its a ton more work then the changes I suggested. Actually no part takes interference in to account. Good and bad. With few parts making a thick wing whit more lift this is good but in ghe future whit better parts and a new aerodynamic system that migth change.

[carazvan]

The 20t version turned into a 25t payload SSTO but here it is the Bee pSSTO (25t) with 34.2% payload fraction:

Sample dropoff to LKO and back to KSC here: link to Bee pSSTO presentation

Jeb has made it in his Ant SSTO to Mars orbit but keeps having dreams of touching down on a bumpy Duna surface and crashing when going over a hill ... all these nightmares are making him debate a vertical landing on Duna but we shall see ...

[Pirke]

(like Pirke's design up there)

If there was a scramjet available I would have put that on, until that time we work with the tools we have

[pa1983]

The 20t version turned into a 25t payload SSTO but here it is the Bee pSSTO (25t) with 34.2% payload fraction:

Sample dropoff to LKO and back to KSC here: link to Bee pSSTO presentation

Jeb has made it in his Ant SSTO to Mars orbit but keeps having dreams of touching down on a bumpy Duna surface and crashing when going over a hill ... all these nightmares are making him debate a vertical landing on Duna but we shall see ...

Yea I have similar problems. Im experimenting with STOL crafts for duna. No real luck yet tough.

[Rosarium]

Theres no infinitglide there. Stop your dam LIES. Dont know anything apparently. It would take thousands of control surfaces to infinitglide 210+ tons to LKO. Jesus Christ can people actually build there own stuff and play the game and stop thinking they know what there talking about?

Im realy tired off all the people that havent even done it and think they know what there talking about. Check out an infinite glide craft and you see the numbers of surfaces required just to get a few tons up.

Only thing my crafts do is wobble a bit due to the old ASAS and the controll surfaces have always moved all teh way but people can understand that animations in a game and forces applied in a game dont reflect reality. It realy anoyes me how people playing KSP and claims to know dont understand that a program is intended to give the illusion of reality. But it docent do that just an approximation. I have relatively few control surfaces, a lot less then most spacepleanse per ton just to keep wobble down. Its hard enough to turn 200 tons as it is, infinitglide is so fare away it would need a 1000x times more control surfaces to even have a change in hell to infinitglide.

So no theres noi Physics engine abuse, its scaled up version based on the same parts as any other craft, just bigger just like a A380 is bigger then a Cessna.

But if you think its so easy why dont you put together a craft with 800 stock wing parts as you say with out it collapsing on the runway with a tonnage off 200-240 that can go to laythe and duna and back nonstop and take 45 ton to duna and 11 tin to laythe minimum on stock parts why dont you do it to prove how much you know? Lets see how you do sens its so EASY, so easy every one is doing it.....

All my crafts exists for download so theres no need to even speculate then people can try them them selfs and theres video of them in 1080p so every one can see what I see. Ever sense I put that on youtube in has not stopped to supprize me how little people actually pick up, I get asked stuff all the time that is clearly showed in the videos. But there are people that are aware and point this out so I dont need to moderate to much. But its annoying as hell when you have to state the obvious.

Annoys me even more that people feel that they are entitled to answers and help when I do it for free. I dont make a dime on this. Everything is put under Creative Commons and no advertising.

ASAAAA.

here take a look to this TEST flight:

as you can see from this test it need a better fuel flow, a EVAable cockpit "d'oh" but nothing more.

x3m3 cargo space. And i don't anything more to say the screens speak themselves. but if you are blind i can tell you it can for sure do a x2 72t LKO cargo without refuel ( a proof will be posted soon ), can deliver 72t of cargo to the edge of kerbin soi ( where it is really needed), and i have more and more plans for this killer app.

thank you very much.

and i forget here the mass

Edited August 7, 2013 by Rosarium

[pa1983]

What is your problem now? First you accuse me of being the best example of infinite glide whit an SSTO off 110 tons and around 15-20 control surfaces witch is about a 1/10 what a 2 ton infinite glider would need to work.

Then you build your own 200+ tons SSTO's and for some reason haven't noticed that they CANT infinite glide. Force the control surfaces apply is just to little. And any one playing KSP for a long time would know that pitch, yaw and roll in the left bottom corner do not correspond with the animation of the surfaces and one would also know that the old asas tends to overcompensate all the time causing wobble.

And if we are going to compare tonnage my record is around 242 tons before girders where reduced in weight. I think my Jumbo had a peak tonnage for 230+ at some point. Any way thats not important.

Most important thing is what it can do.

But if you want my respect for your ssto's dont call me a lier by telling others what my crafts are with out actually knowing. I dont go around calling people here liers. My craft are free for download so I dont realy need to prove anything. If some one doubts my craft they can find out for them selfs. That easy.

Edited August 7, 2013 by pa1983

[Scott_H]

Just dropping by to say something, I have managed to get a 200+ ton craft to be an infiglider, though it took around 320 control surfaces, both of you are in the clear in that regard for it so I don't see the issue, if you decide to hold tight to what you know to be true then if anyone were to be an idiot then you don't need to bash them, if they don't know what they are talking about then everyone with common sense will know that they are spitting out bs,

Just don't worry about it and focus on making more massive and amazing ssto's. All of them are quite amazing and way out of the realm of possibility of what I have the attention span to make, so hats off to you all xD

[pa1983]

I have shut engines of many times and none of my crafts come close to infinite gliding. They drop speed very fast fully loaded and starts to descend rapidly. Most of them just have enough trust to get the job done no more no less to keep part count and efficiency up in space.

Most of my crafts this days uses very few surfaces for there tonnage because I realized if its well balanced and there placed properly one wont need that many and it reduces wobble a lot. I can spend 3-4 days just tuning control surfaces then one wont need that many.

Even with the old ASAS my 230 ton jumbo with a max payload hardly used 10% authority on the control surfaces according to the indicators but the animations shows the fluttering like mad. So it didn't take long to figure out that they did not imitate what was realy happening. My latest uses 4 big control surfaces for ailerons and thats for 184ton take of weight. An I usually add my pitch surfaces fare back and fare front to get the most out of them, that way I dont need that many. But it do require a mix of maybe 10 small and big once to get a 150-230 ton SSTO to rotate on the runway at take off but still thats not much in comparison to what a small plane has in authority control in comparison.

If you have to few you simply cant control a big craft and you often lose it when doing a 180 or something. I put all my SSTO spaceplanes trough manual and asas assisted acrobatics. Even loops some times but mostly 180 at a 45-90 degree bank. Its a good way to know it can be controlled with relative safety during reentry and landing. Last thing you want is to lose it and spin out.

And I have never built nor tested infinite glide crafts. I didn't even know about it until a few weeks ago sens its realy nothing I would consider.

EDIT: 320 control surfaces sounds little but I believe you. I haven't tried it but I figured that it would take a lot more from the few youtube vids I have seen.

Still thats at least 10 times more then I have for the same tonnage and my control surfaces hardly moves most of the time sens I try to trim my crafts for a perfect CG at all times.

I usually ignore people complaining about control surface flutter sense the actual force applied is what matters and its visible in the left bottom corner.

Edited August 7, 2013 by pa1983

[Rysq]

SSTO-Phoenix (v0.21)

Spaceport: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/ssto-phoenix-stock/

Edited August 7, 2013 by Rysq

[Rysq]

SSTO-KX1 (v0.21)

Spaceport: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/stock-ssto-kx1/

[Rosarium]

i don't want and i don't need your respect. Your ego it still so hight even when someone present in front of you something better than your construction you still don't recognize it. you don't have a x3m3 cargo bay able to transport winged craft first of all, the almost 116tons of useful fuel once in 120/100 km orbit for second and the absolute absence of glitch while as third, and careful it's still under tests. and after i've build this to proof you were wrong accusing my lack of skill ( you choose the wrong one and you should pay more attention ) i can confirm and subscribe there nothing extraordinary in building those .craft just an abuse for the CPU and for the physic engine. I confirm and subscribe there's an excessive abuse of the physic engine riding the infinite glide bug. that plane can land with the engine turned off and can fly at 40m/s without any problem once the cargo is empty.

What you haven't understand is this: i don't care a bug about how your craft fly because they are full stock and the physic engine permit to do so. You just needed a kick in the aSSAs due to your arrogance ego. As you can see i've made that craft in a 1 day and it is superior to any of your craft. if you can't admit that you are really blind, look at the numbers (at the right-top of the screen the green ones).

Now you will say you haven't brought nothing around, you cannot say that, well the numbers speak themselves and that craft have a bullet for any your task, i just need time to plan mission around.

the real problem of your crafts and why you don't have competitors is NOT because are hard to build and you are better than the other, but is YOUR COMPUTER better than the others ones. Realize it.

Personally i had to lower all the settings to have 1/5 frame and it's really boring to play like that.

p.s.

i can't see no real challenge in those lifters because you can always make a better one by just adding more engines and more wings and more intakes. i find really more harder and interesting and FUN building smaller SSTO craft, the fact is that i can transport a couple of my SSTO in the cargo of that one melting my CPU.

ASAAAA

Edited August 7, 2013 by Rosarium