The Wright Bros would have quit in disgust

[eddiew]

On 18/10/2016 at 2:28 PM, Ty Tan Tu said:

Until now, I have just built rockets. Now I WANT to try a plane. I am wondering if you could use the Vernor engines to give you two separately controlled vectors of thrust...

Yes, but they burn fuel like the dickens, and at Kerbin sea level they really don't produce much thrust. You certainly won't VTOL with them in the way I suspect you're hoping  

Quite good for ventral thrusters if you want to bring your spaceplane down flat on Minmus though.

And honestly, anyone who thinks planes are hard; I suspect that means you haven't had it properly explained/demonstrated to you yet and just need to be shown the light  

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, eddiew said:

And honestly, anyone who thinks planes are hard; I suspect that means you haven't had it properly explained/demonstrated to you yet and just need to be shown the light  

Oh come now. Planes are hard. Getting my first plane to orbit was harder than my first Mun return trip.

What's more, they stay hard. Yeah after a while you can slap together a small plane easily enough, but as you push the limits in payload capacity and range, things keep getting harder at a much tougher rate than with rockets. There are just so many more things to consider -- CoM/CoL empty vs full, since 1.2, the difference in hypersonic vs subsonic aerodynamics, launch profile, re-entry profile, proper balance of fuel and oxidant, proper mix of engines, landing gear positioning (has to work for both take-off when full and landing when empty), handling characteristics (when full/when empty), and so on and so forth. Not only is a plane a lot more complicated than a rocket to start with, the reusability aspect adds a whole new dimension to it.

(I love all of it BTW.)

[p1t1o]

Some people are naturally good at picking up languages, some people have innate talent for musical instruments, some people are great with numbers and some people "get" how aerodynamics delineates what a plane should look like. So even when KSP "makes it easy", its still naturally that some people will not find it intuitive.

[rdwulfe]

I'll just put this here.

[Vaporized Steel]

@the topic title

They would come to the KSP forum and ask: What is a jet engine?

[Overland]

Im mad because docking ports dont flex anymore! 

But im un-mad because i found the magnettic effect makes good couplings

(and theres an infernal robotics 1.2 beta)

 

We all change how we do things for a while before settling back to awesome better than before

 

Happens to alot of people.. You just have to re-learn or maybe in my case with docking ports as railway couplings..I was using a bug that squad fixed

If your having trouble getting planes off the ground before 1.2 id suggest your skills need to be brushed up..i find aero to be great in 1.2 

I dont mean it in an insulting way..

Ditch the how to videos and read up on how and why planes fly..apply that to ksp

And the wright brothers craft barely flew. KSP deserves a better comparison

Edited October 21, 2016 by Overland

[p1t1o]

5 hours ago, Vaporized Steel said:

@the topic title

They would come to the KSP forum and ask: What is a jet engine?

And "what is that moving picture box!! What are you *wearing* seriously whats IS thisAAAAAAAAAAAGHDONTTOUCHMEDEMONAAAAAAAGH!"

3 hours ago, Overland said:

And the wright brothers craft barely flew. KSP deserves a better comparison

Yes but it was almost *entirely* made of struts! Match that!

[Overland]

Indeed how kerbal!  

[Sharpy]

On 21/10/2016 at 8:28 AM, Overland said:

Im mad because docking ports dont flex anymore!

Docking ports flex as always, but autostrut on wheels makes everything more stiff.

[Palaceviking]

On 17/10/2016 at 4:49 PM, stibbons said:

that weirdly elongated launch pad off to the side

Exactly 

[JetJaguar]

Though I personally don't use airplanes much past the early-game science grinding missions, I view KSP as an analog of NASA, and people forget that the first "A" in NASA stands for Aeronautics.  It may not be as high-profile as the space mission, but aeronautics research is a major function of the agency.

[cantab]

The Wright Brothers balanced their plane on a line of two by fours to take off. They would not be (expletive)ing about Kerbal wheels.

[W. Kerman]

On 10/20/2016 at 8:19 AM, Brikoleur said:

Oh come now. Planes are hard. Getting my first plane to orbit was harder than my first Mun return trip.

What's more, they stay hard. Yeah after a while you can slap together a small plane easily enough, but as you push the limits in payload capacity and range, things keep getting harder at a much tougher rate than with rockets. There are just so many more things to consider -- CoM/CoL empty vs full, since 1.2, the difference in hypersonic vs subsonic aerodynamics, launch profile, re-entry profile, proper balance of fuel and oxidant, proper mix of engines, landing gear positioning (has to work for both take-off when full and landing when empty), handling characteristics (when full/when empty), and so on and so forth. Not only is a plane a lot more complicated than a rocket to start with, the reusability aspect adds a whole new dimension to it.

(I love all of it BTW.)

Wow, my first ssto that could land was after a Duna return mission.

[TopHeavy11]

On 10/17/2016 at 9:16 AM, sneekyzeke said:

In flames, like mine do.

You could always download craft off the Spacecraft (or in this case, Aircraft) Exchange. Your plane-making skills might just be rusty. But that's none of my business.

 

I little extra something before i go: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Have fun with your rage!