Does anyone actually use the first level runway?

[AlamoVampire]

in a word? nope. then again, my planes are not what you would call small lol.

[Superfluous J]

I'm feeling verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic...

The level 1 runway is neither level, nor a runway. Discuss.

[Draco T stand-up guy]

6 minutes ago, tater said:

It need not be meshed rough, make sure the texture is a little better, and have the value be rough.

Define 'rough', specifically, define it in a program.

It's not just defining the ground as rough but defining what happens to the craft as it lands. Do you take into account what appears to be an individual rock in the texture or do you just crash the craft? Do you shake the visuals a bit to make it look like a rough landing but doing no damage or do you just crash the craft?

A craft that lands or takes off horizontally shouldn't be able to land on unprepared ground. This is the point about the first level runway being worse to use than the ground next to it. You'll notice that the first level runway is meshed and not just texture.

Basically, if there isn't a runway there then your craft should crash and you'll be looking at mounting a rescue mission with a VTOL (unless all Kerbals die).

[SpacedCowboy]

Try the abandoned KSC. (north-north-west of the desert) Oops! there's NO runway! 

[Geschosskopf]

14 hours ago, Prasiatko said:

Even with the second level one i've found it is far easier to simply turn your plane 90^o and use the miles of flat ground surrounding it. Same goes for coming into land.

On VERY rare occasions when I have airplanes early in a career, then I also fly from the grass rather than use the Level 1 runway.

10 hours ago, tater said:

The fact that people use the grass tells us a lot about what needs to happen to planetary surfaces in general. All open ground should be worse than the level 1 runway, everywhere in the solar system. Maybe rovers would work better if this was the case. For all the work on the new wheels in 1.1, have they bothered to check this? If a large, delicate spaceplane can land anywhere but a surfaced runway, something is profoundly broken.

Actually, it was roughed up several versions ago.  It's still mostly flat but not totally flat like it used to be.

But I find it easy to see essentially flat terrain around KSC.  It sure looks like a floodplain to me.  Of course, then the reason for the runway wouldn't be for flatness, it would be so planes wouldn't sink into the mud.

9 hours ago, tater said:

It's more spaceplane buffing. People land them all over, which should not be a thing. Spaceplane to Duna? It better have a lander, because any spaceplane that lands (other than VTOL) off a runway should be destroyed.

It depends on how you build them.  For Duna, you're not actually flying unless you've got STOL performance.  Otherwise, you're just rocketing instead of really getting any use out of the wings.  I design my Duna aircraft to have landing speeds of 35m/s at a maximum.  Even that speed can be a bit dangerous due to the ineffectiveness of brakes in the low gravity and the ineffectiveness of airbrakes in the thin air.  Stopping before hitting a fatal terrain bump usually requires a lot of reverse thrust.

[samstarman5]

Before there is a push for even rougher terrain in order to encourage using the runway more, perhaps there should be a push for more runways around Kerbin or at least an "off-road" landing gear/skid for those who do like to take spaceplanes out to new places to explore?

[tater]

Yeah, making off-runway landing suitably suicidal (it's not just flatness, but rocks, holes, mud, any number of hazards on the scale size of a wheel, particularly off kerbin) should come along with adding airports all around kerbin.

[tg626]

I was disappointed, the first airfields were just that, fields.  I was thinking the runway would just upgrade with the SPH, starting off as no runway (use the field luke), then a grass strip, paved, and finally the full blown one.  Each one getting LONGER and having higher Weight Limits but NOT getting smoother - they should all be smooth.

[Ser]

I use it for takeoff for super-light planes able to rotate at not much than 30 m/s. At higher speeds the chances to flip over rise exponentially.

As for landing, it's impossible. You may say it IS possible still, but the chance to survive is 50% max, and IRL if the runway doesn't let you stay alive with at near 100% chance then it's not being called the "runway".

So if you going to land on level 1 you should use parachutes or the grass planes around.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Ser

[Deddly]

Sure there are exploits you can use in the game, if you want to. In my opinion, taking off with a plane from anything other than the landing strip is no different from using the cheat menu for infinite fuel/indestructible joints etc. I've never done it myself, but I can understand people who do.

Using the Mk1 runway is indeed a deathtrap, especially until you invent wheels, but I consider that part of the game. Several of my favourite characters from the begining of my career valiently risked and ultimately lay down their lives as test pilots, helping to develop a safer future for their friends. Yours just cheated to stay alive - that's cool too, it's just a different way of playing.

[Tourist]

19 minutes ago, Deddly said:

Sure there are exploits you can use in the game, if you want to. In my opinion, taking off with a plane from anything other than the landing strip is no different from using the cheat menu for infinite fuel/indestructible joints etc. I've never done it myself, but I can understand people who do.

Using the Mk1 runway is indeed a deathtrap, especially until you invent wheels, but I consider that part of the game. Several of my favourite characters from the begining of my career valiently risked and ultimately lay down their lives as test pilots, helping to develop a safer future for their friends. Yours just cheated to stay alive - that's cool too, it's just a different way of playing.

I'm weary of the "X is cheating line".... so much (digital) ink has bee furiously spilled by that careless phrase. There is some basis in history for taking off and landing on grassy plains. Didn't English bombers in WWII bombers basically take off from grassy paddocks.  

In the early game, I'll always try to land on the strip, but also in the early days of a program I'm ok with landing on grass if I've messed up on approach.

Although I agree once I'm at the heavy shuttle phase. I'd never think of landing on the grass. Even if I'd made a mess of the approach I'd wave off and try again. However for true emergency landings its ok (ie, insufficient control authority or out of fuel.)  

Edited April 7, 2016 by Tourist

[Tourist]

2 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

.....

But I find it easy to see essentially flat terrain around KSC.  It sure looks like a floodplain to me.  Of course, then the reason for the runway wouldn't be for flatness, it would be so planes wouldn't sink into the mud.

.....

This reminds me of a story I read once, and which I will make not attempt to verify in case it is not true.

Chuck Yeager and Neil Armstrong, in the only time they flew together, were checking out locations for emergency landings for an experimental plane. Armstrong spotted a dried lake bed and decided to try landing. According to Yeager he told Armstrong the site was no good, but Armstrong ignored him, a wheel got stuck in the mud on landing and the pair had to get rescued. 

However, this is not the version that Armstrong told. According to him, Yeager never tried to stop him, and in fact, after a successful "touch and go" landing, suggested he try again slower, leading the them getting caught in the mud, and leading to Yeager absolutely cacking himself in laughter. Yeager denies this version vehemently.

I think I know who I believe.. (or want to believe) 

Edited April 7, 2016 by Tourist

[Deddly]

1 hour ago, Tourist said:

I'm weary of the "X is cheating line"

I agree with you on all points, and as has been said before, what you do in a single-player game is entirely up to you. I mean, you could just ALT-F12 upgrade the runway if you want to - why not?

But surely you can't deny that deliberately steering to the side and using the grass alongside what is obviously meant to be the runway is an exploit?

[Superfluous J]

5 minutes ago, Deddly said:

But surely you can't deny that deliberately steering to the side and using the grass alongside what is obviously meant to be the runway is an exploit?

I actually deny that that... THING... is a runway at all.

[Deddly]

Just now, 5thHorseman said:

I actually deny that that... THING... is a runway at all.

Come on, it's really fun to bounce down it with a solid rocket booster on skids!

In all seriousness, I do actually enjoy the MK 1 runway, but it is the first thing I upgrade. If it was any good, why upgrade?

[Tourist]

35 minutes ago, Deddly said:

I agree with you on all points, and as has been said before, what you do in a single-player game is entirely up to you. I mean, you could just ALT-F12 upgrade the runway if you want to - why not?

But surely you can't deny that deliberately steering to the side and using the grass alongside what is obviously meant to be the runway is an exploit?

Oh, absolutely.   Taking off or landing on the grass should be deadly, or at the very least carry not insignificant vehicle recovery costs.

Also it's not like it's that expensive to upgrade.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Tourist

[Frank_G]

Sure, its fun and challenging. And i dont spend money in KSP until i need to. Besides that, if you can land and launch a plane in the wilderness of Kerbin, you can do so on the tier zero runway as well.

[KerbMav]

Interesting idea, roughen the terrain on planets, but add places level enough to land on all over the planet.

These do not have to be actual runways, just salt flats in the dessert, even areas of arctic ice, dirt patches in the grasslands - just represented by differently colored ground simply.

I do not know (and cannot check right now) whether the tier 1 runway is actually physically bumpy or just programmed to be?

[Tourist]

17 minutes ago, KerbMav said:

Interesting idea, roughen the terrain on planets, but add places level enough to land on all over the planet.

These do not have to be actual runways, just salt flats in the dessert, even areas of arctic ice, dirt patches in the grasslands - just represented by differently colored ground simply.

I do not know (and cannot check right now) whether the tier 1 runway is actually physically bumpy or just programmed to be?

I really like this idea. Maybe add tools, like the resource scanner to find appropriate areas, rovers to survey them/ place beacons.

[Ser]

15 hours ago, Coeus said:

All of the terrain (except the KSC) should really get roughened up. And the friction should greatly increase. The same goes for other bodies. The Mun shouldn't be as smooth as it is now. If you look at any photo of the moon or mars for that matter, you see rocks everywhere, and small hills and bumps. Now everything is just one smooth surface.

I join to say my "Yes". Now you can land an airplane anywhere except for mountains and 1st level runway

Edited April 7, 2016 by Ser

[Navy2k]

I'm playing RSS at the moment, so no I never used that deathtrap, even the second one hast a nasty little bump exactly there my supersonic prototype was getting just not enough lift to liftoff but is super flippy, it led to many kerbals return to the big cycle of life. 

[tater]

7 hours ago, Tourist said:

I'm weary of the "X is cheating line".... so much (digital) ink has bee furiously spilled by that careless phrase. There is some basis in history for taking off and landing on grassy plains. Didn't English bombers in WWII bombers basically take off from grassy paddocks.  

Many ww2 aircraft took off from grass strips.

Those strips were none the less prepared, they were not random fields. Even in the early days of flight where barnstormers would land on farms... those areas had been cleared. Where I live in NM looks flat, but if you tried to land even a small prop plane in most areas, the wheels would certainly hit a hole or deep, soft dust and break the gear off.

Would the Space Shuttle be able to land on a random flat spot on earth? A few. Not the "virtually anywhere" situation we have in KSP.

 

I was unaware the landing strip was actually a mesh, so my comments about making it rough I guess don't apply :/ .

I think that all the worlds need a change in terrain such that landing anything horizontally is nearly impossible except on landing strips... perhaps the new system in 1.1 can look at pressure on wheels, and have a cutoff, put balloon tires on your craft, and maybe it can land rough field. I would also like to see craters (and bumps for places that craters would be odd on) on the scale size of a lander. Maybe at scatter density, but you hit them, and you tip/crash. This would make landing less trivial.

4 hours ago, KerbMav said:

Interesting idea, roughen the terrain on planets, but add places level enough to land on all over the planet.

These do not have to be actual runways, just salt flats in the dessert, even areas of arctic ice, dirt patches in the grasslands - just represented by differently colored ground simply.

I do not know (and cannot check right now) whether the tier 1 runway is actually physically bumpy or just programmed to be?

Yeah, I'm fine with some areas being things like salt flats. On worlds other than kerbin... not so much. I'd be fine if they were random, then the player would have to discover them, but generally speaking, you'd not land a fragile spaceplane in the dirt on some other world unless it had VTOL capability. 

Edited April 7, 2016 by tater

[Jhawk1099]

23 hours ago, luizopiloto said:

the grass is more flat...

More flat? I may be a grammar bad person or an idiot but wouldn't it be flatter?

[Yemo]

Works fine for take-Off. For landing i can hardly be bothered to align with any Runway so Even if i have the upgraded One and i Happen to land around KSC, i do Not Ami for it.

[nosirrbro]

No, I don't even use the second level runway! But only because I play sandbox only