The Grand KSP 1.1 Discussion Thread

[FungusForge]

There's this, which seems to be after fixing an issue much like the one you're having.

At any rate though, the fixed gear aren't supposed to be amazing, and you're better off landing them off to the side of the T1 runway if you happen to be on a career save.

[Superfluous J]

I made a twin Juno plane that takes off fine with the 01s as primary gear and 05s to avoid tall and wing strikes. I've not tried to land it yet but that's because I suck at planes.

I've gotten it up to 70m/s on takeoff though without ever having the gear explode.

Edited April 22, 2016 by 5thHorseman

[HebaruSan]

Just now, OSUNightfall said:

This is very odd to me. I have created 3 planes in 1.1 and taken them off and landed them multiple times without having any gear break or suspension weirdness, including two emergency landings on hills. One plane used the 3 wheel landing gear and one plane used the 2 wheel landing gear with single wheel nose gear. I had noticed some sway in one design on takeoff but quickly realized it was the suspension trying to compensate for other bendy parts of the craft. A few struts fixed this right up.

Try flying the stock Albatross, and if everything seems OK at first, "revert to launch" 10 times. A few times, I saw this cause the rear gear to explode. I'd be curious if this happens for others.

[regex]

Landing gear now have weight and impact tolerances.  You need to play to those limits, which means that tiny landing gear are not going to hold up to the stresses imparted by a heavy craft.  Unfortunately there is no indication on what, exactly, the values are within the game so you're either stuck inferring them from config files or testing.  The LY-01 and LY-05 are suitable for small, 1~2 ton craft from what I can tell.

[SelectHalfling0]

Is it just me or.... did kerbin get smaller? From my LKO station I used to (1.0.5) see a wall of kerbin on one side and a wall of space on the other. Now I can see the entire planet from the station without zooming out. Has anybody else noticed something like this?

[Dixi]

Anyone tested aerobrake/aerocapture for other planets in 1.1?

It was working well before 1.0. Might be a little easy but it was fun to use.

Since 1.0 release aerobraking at Jool blows my ship almost instantly at altitude much more then 130km. As I remember around 178km. And if I flight a little higher I'm loosing very little speed. 

I dunno is it more realistic or not, but it's definitely not fun! Since KSP in whole uses various simplifications, I see no problem in fixing other planets atmosphere, to allow not so problematic aerobrakes and aerocapture.

[Yellowburn10]

I don't think aero has changed much in 1.1, but hey, what do I know?

[Kosmognome]

Aero has not changed bewteen 1.0.5 and 1.1, so all advice for 1.0.5 is still valid. Disregard all the old stuff, though.

[Fearless Son]

Aerodynamic shape also has an effect, which can fudge the optimal numbers a little (but not a lot.)  That said, I find that the visual effects are a good indicator:  if you are starting to see trails of compressed air pressure-wave off the forward surfaces of your craft, you are probably moving too fast.  Try to keep your velocity just below the threshold for triggering that at whatever altitude you are currently at, and you should be good.  

[KocLobster]

1 hour ago, Foxster said:

I wasn't even sure anyone would get it. Is "NSS" a thing?

No, I don't think so. I'm pretty surprised I got it too, honestly.

I assumed it meant no *poop* Sherlock.

[Norcalplanner]

20 minutes ago, Fearless Son said:

Aerodynamic shape also has an effect, which can fudge the optimal numbers a little (but not a lot.)  That said, I find that the visual effects are a good indicator:  if you are starting to see trails of compressed air pressure-wave off the forward surfaces of your craft, you are probably moving too fast.  Try to keep your velocity just below the threshold for triggering that at whatever altitude you are currently at, and you should be good.  

I must respectfully disagree. Gravity losses are much larger than aero losses beginning in 1.0.5, so don't worry about terminal velocity at all. Have an initial TWR of 1.5 to 1.7, do a real gravity turn starting around 20 to 50 m/s depending on the ship design, and ignore all the shockwaves and flames you see on the way up. As long as nothing explodes, you're good.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Norcalplanner
Typos

[Andem]

54 minutes ago, SelectHalfling0 said:

Is it just me or.... did kerbin get smaller? From my LKO station I used to (1.0.5) see a wall of kerbin on one side and a wall of space on the other. Now I can see the entire planet from the station without zooming out. Has anybody else noticed something like this?

I think that's just the new FOV thing, it's almost fisheye, it's weird and I don't know why SQUAD did it.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Andem

[SelectHalfling0]

2 minutes ago, Andem said:

I think that's just the new FOV thing, it's almost fisheye, it's weird and I don't know why SQUAD did it.

That would definitely explain it.

[bewing]

@Johnny Wishbone: during beta, another tester was having a problem with SciJrs on reentry, and claiming it was impossible even from suborbital. I asked for a list of specs, and he gave me some. So I made him a ship that can easily reenter from a 200km Ap. I put the .craft file online. It is an encouragement to think outside the box -- don't just slap a heatshield on things. Here is the thread and the craft and the launch instructions. Think about it. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Dixi said:

Anyone tested aerobrake/aerocapture for other planets in 1.1?

We did a lot of testing during beta pre-release of the inflatable heatshield and aerocapture. It works great. Lots of fun! At Jool, At Eve. You just need to be careful about decoupling the silly thing -- don't run into it and don't use "jettison".

Edited April 22, 2016 by bewing

[Bluejay]

Anyone have a working plane with only the first tier of aviation parts since 1.1? I haven't been able to make a plane with those parts since the patch that will even get off the runway. They always uncontrollable veer off once they reach speeds of 30m/s or so and crash.

Suggestions would be appreciated.

 

If it's relevant I have the T2 runway. I didn't even want to try to take off from the gravel path that is T1.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Bluejay

[Bluejay]

I had similar problems. The 'cone of protection' provided by the basic heat shield seems more narrow than before? I had to move my goo canister and parachutes higher up on the nose of the command module for them to not over heat, and closing bay doors seems mandatory now. I've also had to leave extra fuel so that I can burn to slow my ship down before trying re-entry as it seems to enter faster than I am used to.

[Angelus2141]

im not sure if its just me so is anyone else having issues with air intakes in SPH in 1.1. I cant bring up the menu for them to close them while in the SPH. Basically I have a craft with whiplash engines but its an SSTO so I want the option to open and close the intakes at the same time as toggling the whiplash engines but I cant access the menu for this while in the SPH. So if i use actions groups for the intakes it closes them while turning the whiplash on. Or does closing the air intakes not make a difference anymore?

 

thanks

[Jeb-head-mug kerman]

At last!

[Motokid600]

Honestly... I don't use gear on low tier planes. I launch them vertically with a booster rocket if need be then stall the plane at a decent altitude and come down on parachutes.

[Alshain]

I've gotten them off the ground.  The LY landing gear are seriously messed up though.  However once in the air, planes that worked fine in 1.0.5 now seem to over control.  Even the slightest touch on my flight stick (or the keyboard button, so it isn't the settings) sends the thing rolling out of control and don't you dare touch the yaw.  Something has changed about the Mk1 plane parts themselves and not for the better.  I haven't tried the higher ones yet.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Alshain

[bewing]

You mean like this? (The rear fuel tank is half full. You can replace the girders with an empty fuel tank, or SciJrs.)

[LameLefty]

5 hours ago, mrclucks said:

BTW, I have always thought that RV was short for recreation vehicle and used in this forum to designate a craft which had very bad aerodynamics and therefore high drag.  It was not untill Bwing's post that I realized it was just short for return vehicle. 

Take it from this hones-to-$DEITY aerospace engineer - it's "re-entry vehicle."  

5 hours ago, Alshain said:

Whether or not it is a bug, 40km is an awful shallow re-entry.   If you come in that shallow you spend and extended amount of time under extreme heat.  If you come in a little steeper, you will enter the thick atmosphere and slow down a lot faster.  In this case you get a lot more heat, for a shorter duration.  Set your Pe to 5-10km.

Yep. This. Tho' I use a heat shield on everything for my version of "realistic" and aim for a Pe of about 32 - 33 km for capsule entries. Haven't had a problem yet, even with many dozens of entries through all the pre-release Betas and the release version.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

2 hours ago, SelectHalfling0 said:

Is it just me or.... did kerbin get smaller? From my LKO station I used to (1.0.5) see a wall of kerbin on one side and a wall of space on the other. Now I can see the entire planet from the station without zooming out. Has anybody else noticed something like this?

ALT-Mousewheel can change it.

[bewing]

I'll say up to 4 tons. The hotpatch (when it comes) will let us know what Squad intends. In the meantime, it's an incentive to do the LY10 tech upgrade.

[bewing]

I highly recommend to actually do all the experiments and try it both ways, but once you do, I think you will find that Norcalplanner is right.