The Impact of Shifted Runway Markings

[kiwi1960]

Does that matter? The fact is we are playing to KSP rules here... its a game, not real world... one of my helicopters starts lifting off as soon as I press the space bar and before the engine is fully powered up... planes can, if designed with thought, become very good short take off planes, airborne in less than 20 metres of runway... and landing, depending on speed, just as short... these are not real world physics, and as such, the runway is perfect for most of our needs... hell... all your boats start off from the runway as well... (and have to have wheels to get them to the water or a mod to move them...) ... the runway is a guide only... its there to simulate a runway.... you can land a jet on the grass next to it if you wish, which is highly unrealistic (in the real world) because it cannot be done (easily) in real life.

While I like you guys very much... I think people here have a habit to over think things.... just play the game and accept what is... and what isn't. We get to do things in the game we cannot do in real life, visit other planets and fly virtually impossible space planes. ENJOY IT!

 

Edited August 2, 2016 by kiwi1960

[The_Rocketeer]

@kiwi1960 if the KSP runway is going to have Earth-like markings, they really should mean what they're supposed to mean. Otherwise it should have completely alien markings, not just human ones with errors.

An analog would be the use of English - Kerbals clearly don't speak English, but all the in-game text is in English to help us understand what is going on. Yet if that English was very bad grammatically and made no sense, it would be useless. Runway markings serve a functional purpose that is standardised around Earth, and are understood by pilots everywhere. Kerbals are welcome to their own equivalent system of course, but if we're going to use human markings on the runway in the same way that we use English in in-game text, let's at least make sure they're/it's used correctly.

[SpacedCowboy]

Drop in some flags ( where you think they should be) Have Jeb pace it off by meters, yards or dashes ( what ever those are ) Problem solved.

What are dashes?

[kiwi1960]

3 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

@kiwi1960 if the KSP runway is going to have Earth-like markings, they really should mean what they're supposed to mean. Otherwise it should have completely alien markings, not just human ones with errors.

An analog would be the use of English - Kerbals clearly don't speak English, but all the in-game text is in English to help us understand what is going on. Yet if that English was very bad grammatically and made no sense, it would be useless. Runway markings serve a functional purpose that is standardised around Earth, and are understood by pilots everywhere. Kerbals are welcome to their own equivalent system of course, but if we're going to use human markings on the runway in the same way that we use English in in-game text, let's at least make sure they're/it's used correctly.

But they are not earth like markings.... as stated, they are wrong.... for Earth, ergo, young Rocketeer, they must be Kerbin like markings.... as such... they make no sense to us as Humans.

 

[KerikBalm]

On 8/2/2016 at 4:56 AM, Alshain said:

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,

You mean all the things that are relevant to how long a runway needs to be? You can't just apply a blanket 1 kerbal meter = 10 "human" meters scaling to things.

That would mean that Kerbal gravity is 10 times stronger than Earth's gravity. That would mean that Kerbal LV-Ns get 8,000 "human" Isp. That would mean that the Kerbal atmosphere is over 50 times higher than Earth's atmosphere. Given the mass values for Kerbin and the 10x gravity(98 "human meters"/s^2), then we'd have to redefine kerbal kilograms as well, etc etc.

15 hours ago, Alshain said:

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.

And as their markings don't have to be the same, we also don't have to apply a uniform "rescaling" to anything expressed in meters.

The runway is 2km, not 20 km or 12 km, and thus, rather short.

As another person said "The markings on the KSC runway aren't quite as equidistant " The markings can be different, but if they are asymettric, then I can see how that could be annoying.

Also as you note about knowing what the the markings mean (runway 27 vs 9, for example), they are clearly based on real life runway markings. If they were going to be different because "aliens", then they shouldn't be so darn similar and should really look like and independently derived system.

That said... I would rate the runways markings "fix" as very very low priority

13 hours ago, Alshain said:

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.

Heck, even the "flats" of minmus are flat enough for most purposes. Its 1/10th of kerbin's radius, yet I have no problems doing horizontal landings there.

After seeing that other people did it... even with 1.1's landing gear, I did a SSTO to minmus and back that saved some dV by landing with significant horizontal velocity (about 70 m/s IIRC) and then decelerating with wheel brakes

-Didn't even need to use the RCS to push it down against the ground (of course, things like that are needed for higher groundspeeds on minmus because you can easily get going faster than orbital velocity).

[Alshain]

@KerikBalm  I'm not entirely clear what you are ranting about here, so I'll just say again... it's a game, not a simulator, so don't expect it to be a perfect representation of the real world.  I wouldn't have high expectations of this "fix" being a low priority issue, I would fully expect it to be considered a non-issue.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Alshain

[Docsprock]

Perhaps someone could mod an overlay? Or a series of overlays depicting actual human markings, and some alien markings for 'immersion'.

[KerikBalm]

12 hours ago, Alshain said:

@KerikBalm  I'm not entirely clear what you are ranting about here, so I'll just say again... it's a game, not a simulator, so don't expect it to be a perfect representation of the real world.  I wouldn't have high expectations of this "fix" being a low priority issue, I would fully expect it to be considered a non-issue.

I hardly think that amounts to a rant.

I'm just addressing 3 points:

1) I don't think its proper to consider the runway as anything otherthan a 2km runway, even if kerbin has a small radius.

2) I think I didn't see The_Rocketeer's post before making mine, but he said it pretty well: "if the KSP runway is going to have Earth-like markings, they really should mean what they're supposed to mean. Otherwise it should have completely alien markings, not just human ones with errors."

3) The third point, I am agreeing with you, certainly not ranting against you. I was trying to support your statement: " Kerbin may be small but it's still [big] enough that the curvature of the planet would have very little impact. "

[The_Rocketeer]

On 03/08/2016 at 3:33 AM, kiwi1960 said:

But they are not earth like markings.... as stated, they are wrong.... for Earth, ergo, young Rocketeer, they must be Kerbin like markings.... as such... they make no sense to us as Humans.

Hence 'Earth-like'. They are not Earth markings, they're a bad copy of Earth markings. It's not that they make no sense to us as humans - the problem is that they do make sense, but they don't subscribe to the standard rules. As I said, there's plenty of scope for literally alien and totally incomprehensible markings on the runway, but that isn't what we've got - what we've got is a misleading knock-off.

Edited August 4, 2016 by The_Rocketeer

[kiwi1960]

11 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Hence 'Earth-like'. They are not Earth markings, they're a bad copy of Earth markings. It's not that they make no sense to us as humans - the problem is that they do make sense, but they don't subscribe to the standard rules. As I said, there's plenty of scope for literally alien and totally incomprehensible markings on the runway, but that isn't what we've got - what we've got is a misleading knock-off.

But on Kerbin, they make perfect sense.

[The_Rocketeer]

4 minutes ago, kiwi1960 said:

But on Kerbin, they make perfect sense.

To who?

I get it - Kerbals can have their own made up system - that's fine. The issue remains that the runway doesn't look like it does because Kerbal runways always look like that and use the same Kerbal variation of the human system (which they don't), it looks like that because the dev who created the runway texture used conventional human runway markings incorrectly. Fair enough, not everybody knows what runway markings mean, but misusing a human standard system is not the same thing as deliberately making up a Kerbal equivalent. Yes I could convince myself that it's just an alien system, but that wouldn't be much comfort to a pilot about to land who reads the markings for what they're supposed to mean and ends up running out of runway as a result.

Let me put it like this: if your aircraft gave you a 'Terrain - Pull Up' warning in KSP you would probably assume that meant 'terrain, pull up'. You wouldn't, for example, think it meant you were in a stable orbit. Do you get me yet?

[magnemoe]

12 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Hence 'Earth-like'. They are not Earth markings, they're a bad copy of Earth markings. It's not that they make no sense to us as humans - the problem is that they do make sense, but they don't subscribe to the standard rules. As I said, there's plenty of scope for literally alien and totally incomprehensible markings on the runway, but that isn't what we've got - what we've got is a misleading knock-off.

This is an common issues with other cultures in real world, perhaps worse with pretty closely associated countries as most is pretty much the same but some stuff stands out. 

Still I think the runway marking should be changed, I don't know but plenty of people know and will be confused. Still using flags to mark start and end is smart to get the angle and glide correct. 
plenty of people can fly at least on simulator. I know two who fly small planes, one own a seaplane. 

[kiwi1960]

I'm having a lot of fun in this thread....

I mean.... "realistic"..... its a game for crying out loud.

If the runway was fixed, you'd want the grass to be real... and the water... and the sky... the buildings....

If you want real.... turn off your computer and go outside.

If we were all real qualified pilots.... I might agree with you... but what does it really matter ...in the game..... IN THE ... **GAME**...

 

[MaxPeck]

Seems okay to me.  This is representative of a "configuration A" precision instrument approach runway.  Runway touchdown zone markings identify the touchdown zone for landings.  Runway touchdown zone markings consist of pairs of three, then two, and then one rectangular bar(s) on each side of the runway centerline, 500 feet apart.  It's not perfect, but it's close enough.

[something]

Yeah sure, but those pairs should be equidistant. I don't really care whether they are 500ft apart or not, but they should at least have the same distances. As it is now, the pairs of two stripes on the eastern "end" of the runway cover almost half the runway (17/42 center line stripes iirc) while the distance on the western end is just 7/42 markings.

Edited August 5, 2016 by something

[pandaman]

I can't comment on how 'realistic' or not the runway markings may or may not be, because I simply don't know and hadn't thought about it. 

But I would like them to be symmetrical, with a mid point mnarker too, so it's the same whichever end I approach from (apart from the numbers of course).

[something]

The numbers are the runway designation. They might be extended by a L, C or R (left, center, right) to uniquely identify two or more parallel runways. So 27L would be 09R if approached from the other end. No idea what happens if there are four parallel runways, though. All I know is that LAX gave them diffetent designations (6/24 and 7/25) although those runways look pretty parallel.

Anyways,  looking at the runway again, I realized the interrupted side markings close to the western designation. That interruption is the same as the ine used at the SPH. Right now I am wondering if there are/were plans to add a second runway, probably a 18/36 which would be great for launches into polar orbits.

[cantab]

5 hours ago, something said:

No idea what happens if there are four parallel runways, though. All I know is that LAX gave them diffetent designations (6/24 and 7/25) although those runways look pretty parallel.

Yeah, that's the precedent, "fudge" one or more of the runway numbers. Indeed there are a few such fudges with only three runways to avoid redesignating the old runway. /offtopic

I do agree that the runway markings in KSP ought to be brought broadly in line with real ones. It's something that players coming from a flight sim background might well notice.

[AlamoVampire]

Someone mentioned curvature of kerbin and runways, well if you think the runways bowlness is off check out the Birmingham Airport runway  

[Alshain]

6 hours ago, something said:

Anyways,  looking at the runway again, I realized the interrupted side markings close to the western designation. That interruption is the same as the ine used at the SPH. Right now I am wondering if there are/were plans to add a second runway, probably a 18/36 which would be great for launches into polar orbits.

It's certainly possible, it could have also been a potential taxiway access that got dropped.  Or perhaps @bac9 just wanted to leave that possibility open for future expansion.  There is a blog post detailing his work on the project, sadly he stopped before detailing the runway and SPH.  Maybe he will be kind enough to stop by and tell us himself, though he hasn't been online in a month.

Edited August 6, 2016 by Alshain

[something]

Certainly an interesting read. Always wondered how they came up with the new buildings,that do in fact look way better than the old constructions...

[MedwedianPresident]

My personal opinion on this distance inequality is that the runway has been built with launches and landings only in the west-east direction, e.g. heading 90. When you launch your new spaceplane, you go east, and you also go east and land at the western end of the runway when landing your spaceplane. There are only few occasions on which you land from the east, e.g. at the eastern end - namely returning from that direction or from a retrograde orbit.

[KerikBalm]

On 8/6/2016 at 2:34 AM, AlamoVampire said:

Someone mentioned curvature of kerbin and runways, well if you think the runways bowlness is off check out the Birmingham Airport runway  

Is this what your are referring to?

Spoiler

 

[suicidejunkie]

On Sunday, August 07, 2016 at 3:30 PM, MedwedianPresident said:

My personal opinion on this distance inequality is that the runway has been built with launches and landings only in the west-east direction, e.g. heading 90. When you launch your new spaceplane, you go east, and you also go east and land at the western end of the runway when landing your spaceplane. There are only few occasions on which you land from the east, e.g. at the eastern end - namely returning from that direction or from a retrograde orbit.

Most of my spaceplanes have landed from the east, because they make a U-turn over booster bay to bleed off speed and altitude after giving Mt. Whoopstooshort a lot of clearance.

The one time I landed from the west was early on when I had to do a go-around, and that was the fourth approach that flight.

[pandaman]

Actually, even though I think they should be symmetrical, I don't use the runway markings as a distance measuring aid.

I find the ones at the ends make a good 'aiming point', but apart from that I know  that if I land reasonably close to the nearest end I have loads of room to stop anyway.  Usually well before the turn off for the SPH.