Stick to vertical rockets, KSP

[strider3]

I would suggest that KSP either figures out how aircraft (read "planes") actually work in an atmosphere...or give it up altogether. Trying to fly a "plane" in Kerbin atmosphere is ridiculous, Nothing works as it really would, control inputs are hilarious and "planes" are not anywhere near real world controllable. I personally feel you should abandon your attempts at atmospheric planes, and their availability. KSP is totally unprepared to render any kind of accurate atmospheric aircraft flight dynamics and it is obvious that this was just an afterthought. Stick with what you know...vertical launch...and leave the atmospheric aircraft to the experts. I have flown MS Flight Simulator since 1995, through all versions until the last...FSX...and trying to fly a "plane", in atmosphere, in KSP is a gigantic exercise in futility. It becomes apparent that the KSP people know "rocket science"...of that I have no doubt and enjoy that part of the simulation immensely...but they have no clue about atmospheric aircraft...read "planes".

Give up on the "planes"...or figure out how they really work and control.

[DunaRocketeer]

Expecting Flight Simulator levels of realism is not realistic.

KSP does some things superbly, many things well, and a few things not so well (where there's probably some mod to help out...)

Besides, yanking out the aero elements of the game will just annoy the vast majority of players.

Edited December 5, 2016 by DunaRocketeer

[septemberWaves]

Planes experience significantly more complex forces in flight than rockets do, and since KSP doesn't simulate the engineering complexity of real rockets, that means that planes are far more complicated to code accurately - especially for the highly-customizable system of construction in KSP. The game is about space; planes are an added bonus that are fun to play around with, and that you're under no obligation to use if you don't like the fact that Squad prioritizes coding for the main things that KSP is about.

[Gaarst]

Yeah, planes are too complicated or whatever... Just give us decent rocket parts already!

[Xavven]

I fly in DCS and X-Plane, and took a few IRL flight lessons too, and while I agree KSP doesn't feel right at all, I don't think telling the devs to give up is the right answer to the problem. Would I like more realistic flight dynamics? Sure! But if the devs can't prioritize that right now, are you actually suggesting they remove all the plane parts? No thanks -- I still have some tweaking to do on my Lathe spaceplane and it's fun.

[Azimech]

If you're going to sit on a high horse, I've been flying sims since 1983. Yes, it's true the current aero system isn't the best, it is a big improvement over Errordynamics of the past. I couldn't fly the first planes I built. Now I can build and fly anything, I just needed to learn it. I enjoy building and flying and so does the majority. Because you don't like it, doesn't mean you should decide it for others. And Squad isn't going to listen to you anyway.

MS flight simulator, FSX ... advanced?

Nah.

[Red Iron Crown]

Seriously people, stop having fun with planes in KSP. It's bad and you should feel bad for enjoying it.

[SpenSpaceCorp]

But if you are in a horizontal rocket (plane) for long enough, it will eventually be going vertical (at least enough to escape the atmosphere) 

[worir4]

I fly planes in real life and KSP is not THAT bad. I like flying planes in KSP, sometimes i do it more than building rockets. If you don't like the stock atmosphere i recommend you get FAR once it is updated.  

 

 

Also i wouldn't expect any plane in KSP to fly like one in real life. IRL people spend years designing planes for specific purposes but in KSP you build a plane in under and hour out of pre-made parts. While the aerodynamics are not the best, surely you can't expect such an experience as in FSX which uses planes that have been designed and made IRL.

[Raptor9]

43 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Seriously people, stop having fun with planes in KSP. It's bad and you should feel bad for enjoying it.

I think RIC is approaching Salt Factor 10 as he approaches 10K rep points, ha ha. 

[Overland]

You did turn off torque in the cockpit didnt you? 

Ive made alot or GA aircraft between trains..my favorate being either a PA38 inspired T tail or a strikemaster looking twin jet

They both fly lovely

Control response grows sluggish at lower airspeed as it should..stalls drop the nose and can be quite hairy to regain control

They fly at around 40 to 60 ms

 

With the default torque wheels left on..

Too responsive..dont lose control in stall..1:1 control inputs whatever your doing

Its a holdover from when KSP was just a space simulator and cockpits needed gyro controls

Without it you nicely lose axis control as you disable a control surface group

 

Squad stick to rockets Because you cant build nice planes?

 

Thats a bit of the old skyrocket in flight without the afternoon delight right there mate

 

Id rather they stick to trains

Edited December 5, 2016 by Overland

[Slam_Jones]

57 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Seriously people, stop having fun with planes in KSP. It's bad and you should feel bad for enjoying it.

 

Having FUN??  In a VIDEO GAME?!?!

Who do these people think they are!

[V7 Aerospace]

1 hour ago, Victor3 said:

I would suggest that KSP either figures out how aircraft (read "planes") actually work in an atmosphere...or give it up altogether. Trying to fly a "plane" in Kerbin atmosphere is ridiculous, Nothing works as it really would, control inputs are hilarious and "planes" are not anywhere near real world controllable. I personally feel you should abandon your attempts at atmospheric planes, and their availability. KSP is totally unprepared to render any kind of accurate atmospheric aircraft flight dynamics and it is obvious that this was just an afterthought. Stick with what you know...vertical launch...and leave the atmospheric aircraft to the experts. I have flown MS Flight Simulator since 1995, through all versions until the last...FSX...and trying to fly a "plane", in atmosphere, in KSP is a gigantic exercise in futility. It becomes apparent that the KSP people know "rocket science"...of that I have no doubt and enjoy that part of the simulation immensely...but they have no clue about atmospheric aircraft...read "planes".

Give up on the "planes"...or figure out how they really work and control.

Yeah! 

Horizontal stuff sucks SQUAD!

I don't want to see anything horizontal in my rocket game. As soon as anyone dares to go horizontal and circularise an orbit in their vertical rocket, implement a feature that auto-deletes the spacecraft.

We simply cannot go on with this blasphemy!

[Magzimum]

I think submarines are a bigger problem. 

[MaxL_1023]

Real world aircraft have highly optimized designs, advanced control systems and are also much, much larger (and therefore have slower time constants for control input) than your:

duct-taped collection of stuff found along the side of the road carrying a pyromaniac pilot which may or may not have any idea how to actually control something flying in a non-vertical direction. 

It is also somewhat funny that you are using your experience from another flight simulator as if it was real-life aerodynamics. 

[Fluburtur]

@Magzimum true, the submarines mechanics are not good enough and I reclaim a full submarine update!

For real tho, sometimes peoples forget that KSP is a game. If every new player needed to take a year to get a aerodynamics and design degree to play with games it wouldn't be fun.

KSP is one of the most wonderful game I know and it has come a long way, I remember the souposphere and the infiniglide glitch and let me tell you, current aero is great compared to that!

 

(I was serious about the submarine part, subs are cool)

[razark]

2 hours ago, worir4 said:

I fly planes in real life and KSP is not THAT bad. ... If you don't like the stock atmosphere i recommend you get FAR once it is updated.

Curiosity prompts me to ask: As a real world pilot, do you use FAR in KSP?

[The Optimist]

3 hours ago, Victor3 said:

 I have flown MS Flight Simulator since 1995

That hardly makes you an expert, does it.

[Wjolcz]

The only thing that bugs me about planes in KSP is the lack of control stiffening and the lack of procedural wings. Apart from that I enjoy them very much and I don't get the whole "stop having fun with planes!" part of OP. I guess we get mad from time to time on the game (I do a lot when thinking about career mode), but why force others to play the game "the right way"?

[MachTurtle]

1 hour ago, razark said:

Curiosity prompts me to ask: As a real world pilot, do you use FAR in KSP?

I certainly won't speak for worir4, but as another rl pilot, I've enjoyed using FAR from 1.0.4 through 1.1.3. I'm anxious to see the update for 1.2.1 because flying  stock aerodynamics for the last few weeks has been soul crushing challenging. Even with FAR, the aerodynamic modelling isn't everything one might hope for, but it's still a hangar-load of fun! I can whip together a plane in an hour or less and spend many more hours fine-tuning it using (mostly) common sense changes. I have an SSTO in my 1.1.3 save that I had flying so well that I could fly it through takeoff, transonic, orbit, re-entry, and landing by hand -- no autopilot or SAS.  Boy, do I miss that craft!  In regard to the OP, all sims are approximations of real world dynamics -- some better, some worse. If it's not fun, don't run it.

[Matuchkin]

5 hours ago, Victor3 said:

*snip*

Essentially, you seem to be bragging about your extensive experience with flight simulators, then putting the exact same expectations on KSP.

1) You are not the only person who plays this game. It is impossible to take everything and boost it up to your standards. This is also governed by the physical limitations of the people working at SQUAD.

2) This is the same logic as me coming up to a CoD forum and saying "this is not how guns work, I've been playing [insert an actual simulator that doesn't mirror real life 100%] since [insert date], and I want to see every detail programmed into this game or else just give up.

Stock KSP is not a simulator at all. In fact, the only realistic part about it is the orbital mechanics, and even those are absolutely inaccurate. If you want this to be more realistic, download realism overhaul and try to make a plane- I dare you, go ahead and see how it goes. And even RO is unrealistic compared to actually sophisticated simulations like DCS, X-Plane, Orbiter, etc.

[RX2000]

I personally almost never make planes in KSP, because frankly they are boring to me. Its just not nearly as much fun for me to build a plane & try to fight the horrible controls just to fly around Kerbin for a while doing nothing. Now if I were able to make a space plane that might be kind of cool, but I dont think my KSP-Fu is up to that level yet.

Although as much as I dislike planes in KSP, I like the fact that they are in the game, & that I COULD play around with them if I so choose.

[Overland]

Ill just put this here

She flys alot like realworld tomahawks ive flown..torque wheels OFF 

[The_Rocketeer]

@Victor3 beneath the vitriol, I suspect what you're really trying to say is 'my planes are baaaaad, help me please!'. Ask nicely and the community will reward you.

[Matuchkin]

34 minutes ago, RX2000 said:

I personally almost never make planes in KSP, because frankly they are boring to me.

Aw man, when you get BDA and start paying attention to some of those challenges, you're gonna have a blast.