The Wright Bros would have quit in disgust

[sneekyzeke]

Ok, I loathed airplanes in KSP before, but after following helpful hints from Scott Manley et al., I've always been able to do the (required) career flights, then go back to spaceflight. In 1.2, I can't get the darn things off the ground. And please don't take this the wrong way, it's not that I'm asking for help; I don't want help. I want airplanes in KSP (notice the middle initial; it stands for space) to die. Horribly. In flames, like mine do. Good natured (honestly ) rant over. I love this game, and I will just launch spacecraft from now on. Peace. Unless you're an airplane.

[Red Iron Crown]

You could always....not build planes. 

Many people prefer rockets to planes and mostly (or exclusively) build them. Others prefer planes to rockets and mostly (or exclusively) build them. Isn't it great that the game supports both styles of play?

[stibbons]

I am a proud member of the Level 1 Runway club. Occasionally dabble and pick up some small contracts that require flying around the continent KSC is on, but have never thought they might be required.

That said, if people feel they need to use that weirdly elongated launch pad off to the side, cool. Not sure how it's worth even a good natured rant.

[eddiew]

20 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

You could always....not build planes.

That, really...

I love making planes and spaceplanes, and don't see why they should be forced to crash and burn because someone else's opinion differs. I don't want your rockets to be made extra splodey, now do I?  

[ZooNamedGames]

[p1t1o]

Now I have the strong desire to build a rocket in the SPH and launch it horizontally with a trolley or something from the runway.

[ZooNamedGames]

Yes because pioneers in their field would have quit due to inconveniences. 

[Terwin]

42 minutes ago, stibbons said:

I am a proud member of the Level 1 Runway club.

You mean the science-rover launch site and splashed-part-testing recovery area? 

I generally upgrade that thing and the building next to it around the time I finish the tech tree, it is a completion-thing, and since I generally have missions in the bank, it is not really much of an expense.

 

Admittedly, after hearing how much easier space-planes are in 1.2, I did launch a few attempts over the weekend.  Some got over 1100m/s before the air-breathing engine died, then I switched to the NERVA and watched them slow down and start descending again before ever getting up to 35km...

Still, better than previous attempts I suppose.  

[eddiew]

5 minutes ago, Terwin said:

Admittedly, after hearing how much easier space-planes are in 1.2, I did launch a few attempts over the weekend.  Some got over 1100m/s before the air-breathing engine died, then I switched to the NERVA and watched them slow down and start descending again before ever getting up to 35km...

To be fair, it's been nearly impossible to do air-nerva-air spaceplanes since 0.90. With careful management, rapiers will get you to 1400m/s but the low thrust of nuclear engines just can't get you the next 800 in a reasonable time. Switching to LFO at some point during ascent is almost mandatory   (If it's easier in 1.2, great, I can't wait to see if I can do the old long-rangers from 0.90 again!)

[katateochi]

When I first started playing KSP I didn't go near the SPH, for ages, it was all about rockets. Now I spend most of my time in the SPH.  Once you get the spaceplane bug it becomes something of an obsession!

[Jovus]

The saddest thing about RO/RSS is that the SPH becomes basically useless...

[luizopiloto]

my planes still fly... just had to exploit drag a little bit...
http://imgur.com/a/yBvxb

 

[regex]

8 minutes ago, Jovus said:

The saddest thing about RO/RSS is that the SPH becomes basically useless...

That's not sad, that's awesome. Two more buildings to add to the "don't bother upgrading" list. More money for launches.

[Jovus]

Just now, regex said:

That's not sad, that's awesome. Two more buildings to add to the "don't bother upgrading" list. More money for launches.

No, it's sad because it reflects reality.

If reality let us have spaceplanes like KSP's spaceplanes, we'd have already found the monolith on Europa.

[eddiew]

3 minutes ago, Jovus said:

No, it's sad because it reflects reality.

If reality let us have spaceplanes like KSP's spaceplanes, we'd have already found the monolith on Europa.

True, really. A big heavy planet like Earth is good at holding it's atmosphere - and makes it much harder for a sentient species to get off of. What served us well for millions of years is starting to get in our way now :/

We must encourage the Earth to go on a diet and lose some weight.

[regex]

5 minutes ago, Jovus said:

No, it's sad because it reflects reality.

If reality let us have spaceplanes like KSP's spaceplanes, we'd have already found the monolith on Europa.

I wouldn't blame reality for humanity's lack of coherent and unified vision.

[Jovus]

2 minutes ago, regex said:

I wouldn't blame reality for humanity's lack of coherent and unified vision.

I would. Human nature is part of reality.

[Trann]

My tech tree at completion usually looks like this and I'm quite happy with that.  You can be, too 8) 

 

[RX2000]

I havent gotten very good at planes yet. There is no way in hell I could make a SSTO plane with my current abilities. I've made a couple of small planes just for flying around the KSC, but they dont control very well. I dont want to remove planes from KSP tho. I'd rather my abilities with them improve. Hopefully one day I'll be able to make a cool shuttle & land it.

[Firemetal]

I disagree.

Lots of players in Ksp just build planes. Half of Kerbalx craft are airplanes. I frown on this since Ksp is supposed to be about going to space. However if you want to build a plane, fine. Planes are fun and a nice little breather from tough scary space flight. It is also quite fun to try to build replicas of real planes in Ksp. But I think people should build mostly spaceplanes and  rockets. It is Kerbal Space Program after all. But that is just my opinion.

 You however are wrong. Just because you can't build planes and because the title says Kerbal SPACE program doesn't mean that squad should remove all the plane parts and everyone else should stop building planes. That's  just wrong.

Fire

[dangerhamster]

1 hour ago, p1t1o said:

Now I have the strong desire to build a rocket in the SPH and launch it horizontally with a trolley or something from the runway.

Well that's how the Wright brothers did it so.....

[Gaarst]

16 minutes ago, Firemetal said:

Just because you can't build planes and because the title says Kerbal SPACE program doesn't mean that squad should remove all the plane parts and everyone else should stop building planes.

I agree. But if Squad could leave plane parts aside for some time and start giving rocket parts some love, it would prevent such threads. (Seriously: Mk2 parts, Mk3 parts, at least two redesigns and recent individual parts additions (Mk3 ramp, Juno and other stuff) on one side; vs 3.75m parts and a possible redesign that may never go stock on the other)

Edit: Vector is a rocket engine designed for shuttle so I count it in neither category.

Edit2: and the whole landing gear stuff which I have yet to see the use in rovers (and rockets for that matter). Spike and Thud got redesigns though.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Gaarst

[Terwin]

47 minutes ago, Trann said:

My tech tree at completion usually looks like this and I'm quite happy with that.  You can be, too 8) 

 

I could not do that, my Scan-Sats all use Mk2 LF fuselage components to fuel their Nerva engine.

I also use Mk3 cargo bays for storing my ISRU converters and lab due to the weak node connections and lack of surface connections on the ISRU.

So I use a lot of those parts, just not for planes.

[klgraham1013]

I like planes.

[SpenSpaceCorp]

8 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

I like planes.

I like trains.