The Impact of Shifted Runway Markings

[something]

So today I landed my spaceplane at the KSC runway once again and came in for a neat landing, almost hitting the aiming point. Stopping slightly behind the Mission Control building, I wondered why I already passed the first two stripe marker of the eastern end of the runway.

Now, as above image shows, that marker had to be 2000ft away from the runway threshold. But it seemed that most of the runway was still ahead of my landed space plane - so I had a look at the KSC runway markings:

https://postimg.org/image/jb67q2x75/

And well yes, my feeling was right. The markings on the KSC runway aren't quite as equidistant as I thought they were. Good to know. Next time I hit the aiming point I don't have to worry if my plane stops just 2000ft in front of the threshold - because - those 2000ft are very long 2000ft ....

 

That explains a lot. Especially when taking off the 2-stripe marker seemed to appear way too early...no need to worry, half of the runway is still ahead. Is there a mod fixing that "problem"?

 

[Alshain]

KSP's runway is considered incredibly long.  Assuming it accurately painted (which it probably isn't because it's a game, not a simulator) and assuming that KSP standards are the same as the image you posted (which is a big stretch given Kerbin is ~1/6th the size of Earth) then the white stripes would seem closer to the threshold simply because of it's relative length.

[Xavven]

Do Kerbals obey Earthling's standards, though?

[LordFerret]

2 hours ago, something said:

aiming point

That would be where the end of the runway (either end) meets the turf. Except for your flair just before touchdown, your last inbound 150m or so should be nothing more than a 10-degree descending coast in... already lined up start to end with the runway. Works for me.

[kiwi1960]

The Kurgeon General has issued this warning to all kerbal kind.

"Using the KSP runway may be hazardous to your health"

and...

"When landing, objects may look closer, or further away than normal. Use at your own risk!"

 

[cantab]

2 hours ago, Alshain said:

KSP's runway is considered incredibly long.

Since when? It's 2000 metres, which is on the short side for real world major airports, let alone spaceplane landing facilities.

[Alshain]

22 minutes ago, cantab said:

Since when? It's 2000 metres, which is on the short side for real world major airports, let alone spaceplane landing facilities.

Which makes it comparatively sized to a 12,000 meter Earth Runway (or approx. 39,500 feet).

[The_Rocketeer]

11 minutes ago, Alshain said:

Which makes it comparatively sized to a 12,000 meter Earth Runway (or approx. 39,500 feet).

Based on what, the universal Earth:Kerbin scale? That would be what exactly...?

Kerbin is 1/10th the diameter of Earth. (1:10)
Kerbin has 1 Earth gravity and 1 atmosphere of pressure asl. (1:1)
Kerbals are (nearly) half the height of humans. (1:2)
Kerbin's atmosphere is about 1/18th as deep as Earth's (1:18).
etc

In any case, a meter in KSP is still a meter. How many 2.5m parts u need to line the runway? I strongly doubt it's 4800.

[cantab]

1 hour ago, Alshain said:

Which makes it comparatively sized to a 12,000 meter Earth Runway (or approx. 39,500 feet).

I'd say that when it comes to a runway being used for takeoff and landing of atmospheric aircraft that's not an appropriate comparison. Flight speeds are not ten times slower in KSP than in reality, they're about the same. Aircraft TWRs in KSP tend to run a little higher than IRL, but I would argue that's partly because the runway is short. Brake effectiveness ... I dunno, I gave up trying to make wheels behave in KSP 1.1

[Alshain]

11 minutes ago, cantab said:

I'd say that when it comes to a runway being used for takeoff and landing of atmospheric aircraft that's not an appropriate comparison. Flight speeds are not ten times slower in KSP than in reality, they're about the same. Aircraft TWRs in KSP tend to run a little higher than IRL, but I would argue that's partly because the runway is short. Brake effectiveness ... I dunno, I gave up trying to make wheels behave in KSP 1.1

Yes, but we aren't talking about flight speeds, takeoffs, or landings.  We are talking about runway markings and the distance between them.  It's an inaccurate simulation because of the scaling, but a believable one if you don't think too much into it.  I'm betting a relatively few number of KSP players even know what the numbers on the runway mean, let alone the other markings.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Alshain

[foamyesque]

20 minutes ago, cantab said:

I'd say that when it comes to a runway being used for takeoff and landing of atmospheric aircraft that's not an appropriate comparison. Flight speeds are not ten times slower in KSP than in reality, they're about the same. Aircraft TWRs in KSP tend to run a little higher than IRL, but I would argue that's partly because the runway is short. Brake effectiveness ... I dunno, I gave up trying to make wheels behave in KSP 1.1

 

Most issues with wheels are from design, particularly with landing gear. Wheels are a lot more sensitive to how they're loaded than people are used to.

[W. Kerman]

Runways are bad, use the launchpad, unless of course, you are one of those arcane SSTO voodoo masters...

[Alshain]

18 minutes ago, W. Kerman said:

Runways are bad, use the launchpad, unless of course, you are one of those arcane SSTO voodoo masters...

ROFL, It's not voodoo, it's just obsession and a lot of practice.

[Brownhair2]

3 hours ago, foamyesque said:

 

Most issues with wheels are from design, particularly with landing gear. Wheels are a lot more sensitive to how they're loaded than people are used to.

It's more then that though. The wheels in 1.1 are buggy in general. Like how taking weight off of the landing gear will over-stress the wheel. And lots more. But that's a bit off topic

[foamyesque]

10 hours ago, Brownhair2 said:

It's more then that though. The wheels in 1.1 are buggy in general. Like how taking weight off of the landing gear will over-stress the wheel. And lots more. But that's a bit off topic

 

There are some glitches, but almost all of people's common issues, especially with planes, are traceable to interaction between dynamic (aero-, particularly) stresses and the wheels, and can be mitigated or removed entirely through re-design work. Pretty fiddly redesign work, I grant you -- lots of use of the offset slider -- but if you understand the basic principles you can generally diagnose and fix the issue quickly.

Edited August 2, 2016 by foamyesque

[something]

17 hours ago, Alshain said:

KSP's runway is considered incredibly long.  Assuming it accurately painted (which it probably isn't because it's a game, not a simulator) and assuming that KSP standards are the same as the image you posted (which is a big stretch given Kerbin is ~1/6th the size of Earth) then the white stripes would seem closer to the threshold simply because of it's relative length.

Fair argument. But even if the distances between the markers were 1/6 of 500ft (didn't measure it), then they had to be placed at equidistant positions. If you, however, have a look at the screenshot I posted in the OP, then you will realize that it is 3 dashes from the western three stripe marker to the aiming point; 4 dashes from the aiming point to the first western two stripe marker then 7 dashes between the western two stripe markers and again 4 dashes to the one stripe marker. These distances should be the same, but obviously aren't. Furthermore, the distance between the eastern two stripe markers is 17 dashes of the center line (which is quite a lot considering the runway to be of 42 dashes length).

Considering, that at least the distances between the two-stripe markers should be equal, we have to realize that the difference between 7 and 17 is more than a factor of two...

[polytechnique]

10 hours ago, Alshain said:

ROFL, It's not voodoo, it's just obsession and a lot of practice.

Obsession, practice, and selling a small part of your soul to the aerodynamics demons...

[Alshain]

35 minutes ago, something said:

Fair argument. But even if the distances between the markers were 1/6 of 500ft (didn't measure it), then they had to be placed at equidistant positions. If you, however, have a look at the screenshot I posted in the OP, then you will realize that it is 3 dashes from the western three stripe marker to the aiming point; 4 dashes from the aiming point to the first western two stripe marker then 7 dashes between the western two stripe markers and again 4 dashes to the one stripe marker. These distances should be the same, but obviously aren't. Furthermore, the distance between the eastern two stripe markers is 17 dashes of the center line (which is quite a lot considering the runway to be of 42 dashes length).

Considering, that at least the distances between the two-stripe markers should be equal, we have to realize that the difference between 7 and 17 is more than a factor of two...

As I said, it's a game not a simulator.  It's also a game on an alien planet, so their markings don't have to be the same as ours.

[Guest]

If KSP had a longer runway the effects of gravity due to planet scaling, and the subsequent rolling, would be even more pronounced.  Extending the runway means the curvature of Kerbin matters even more than it does now.  A 3km runway would look noticeably like a lever perched on a fulcrum; extending it further would be ... hilarious to say the least.

[monstah]

18 minutes ago, regex said:

If KSP had a longer runway the effects of gravity due to planet scaling, and the subsequent rolling, would be even more pronounced.  Extending the runway means the curvature of Kerbin matters even more than it does now.  A 3km runway would look noticeably like a lever perched on a fulcrum; extending it further would be ... hilarious to say the least.

All, come and see! Jeb's Mystery Spot, where the laws of physics aren't obeyed, even more than everywhere else!

[AlexisBV]

55 minutes ago, regex said:

If KSP had a longer runway the effects of gravity due to planet scaling, and the subsequent rolling, would be even more pronounced.  Extending the runway means the curvature of Kerbin matters even more than it does now.  A 3km runway would look noticeably like a lever perched on a fulcrum; extending it further would be ... hilarious to say the least.

Why should the runway need to be straight? In fact it should follow the curvature of the surface, if anything. Otherwise, when sitting at the end of the runway without brakes you'd actually roll down back to the middle!

[Red Iron Crown]

21 minutes ago, AlexisBV said:

Why should the runway need to be straight? In fact it should follow the curvature of the surface, if anything. Otherwise, when sitting at the end of the runway without brakes you'd actually roll down back to the middle!

That already happens. Ever notice that planes start to slowly roll after spawning? Each end of the runway is higher than the middle, stuff will roll toward the center.

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, AlexisBV said:

Why should the runway need to be straight? In fact it should follow the curvature of the surface, if anything. Otherwise, when sitting at the end of the runway without brakes you'd actually roll down back to the middle!

 vOv

Someone else might have to explain the ramifications of a curved runway during landing and takeoff.  I don't think it'll work out nearly as nicely as you'd think, though.

[bewing]

6 minutes ago, regex said:

 vOv

Someone else might have to explain the ramifications of a curved runway during landing and takeoff.  I don't think it'll work out nearly as nicely as you'd think, though.

All you have to do is go to the poles to try it. It works great.

[Alshain]

32 minutes ago, regex said:

 vOv

Someone else might have to explain the ramifications of a curved runway during landing and takeoff.  I don't think it'll work out nearly as nicely as you'd think, though.

It wouldn't be much different than landing in the grasslands, it would be even less of a hill though.  Or as bewing says, the poles are essentially a long flat runway that goes in all directions.  Kerbin may be small but it's still be enough that the curvature of the planet would have very little impact.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Alshain