Circular Runway

[The_Rocketeer]

So this feels like exactly the sort of thing Kerbals would come up with, plus it would settle the 'is the runway flat' debate forever, and be awesome to actually use:

 

Edited April 10, 2017 by The_Rocketeer

[Wjolcz]

What for? The concept is meant to deal with high traffic density and unless KSP becomes an MMO game focused on airflight there's no need for circular runways. And "because it's kerbal" is not a good argument.

[IllyrianTheGreat]

2 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

What for? The concept is meant to deal with high traffic density and unless KSP becomes an MMO game focused on airflight there's no need for circular runways. And "because it's kerbal" is not a good argument.

Some people want many runways to be able to take off to many directions. This runway could be around entire base. One day KSP should have multi-player?

[Wjolcz]

6 minutes ago, IllyrianTheGreat said:

Some people want many runways to be able to take off to many directions. This runway could be around entire base. One day KSP should have multi-player?

So something like Kerbin Side would do just fine. Many runways with many directions.

Unless the game becomes fully focused on airplane flight it won't have multiplayer because it would be pointless and dull. KSP is about spaceflight and believe me you need alcubierre drives if you want to play multiplayer in KSP. Otherwise it's just a warp/syncfest with chat and very rare encounters.

Edited April 10, 2017 by Veeltch

[tater]

1. Only one craft takes off at a time in KSP, so traffic is not an issue. Traffic has nothing to do with it, since they all land and TO into the wind regardless. ATC would still have to tell them where to land, it would be more, not less confusing, even in RL.

2. There is no wind in KSP, so runway direction isn't an issue. 

3. You can land anything, anywhere in KSP, having a runway isn't an issue.

 

[IllyrianTheGreat]

27 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

So something like Kerbin Side would do just fine. Many runways with many directions.

Unless the game becomes fully focused on airplane flight it won't have multiplayer because it would be pointless and dull. KSP is about spaceflight and believe me you need alcubierre drives if you want to play multiplayer in KSP. Otherwise it's just a warp/syncfest with chat and very rare encounters.

Multiplayer is great idea for career mode if we could get official servers. MP can have contracts like in eve online, I could put contract for resupply my space station while I am offline as reward you can get money or science points and reputation. Infinite warp can be limited by draining funds and supplies from your bases/stations, kerbal monthly fee also can prevent long warp jumps. Once your money are gone and you can't pay next bill it is game over and you have to start new game. Sorry for off topic.

[The_Rocketeer]

1 hour ago, Veeltch said:

What for?

For fun of course.

Some of you guys take this game way too seriously.

[Brent Kerman]

1 hour ago, tater said:

1. Only one craft takes off at a time in KSP, so traffic is not an issue.

BDA has a great airplane autopilot that works for passenger flights as well as fighters, and handles multiple planes well. If physics distance is high enough, you can tell a airplane to fly to any location and enter holding pattern. Auto landing is a little risky.

[Wjolcz]

1 hour ago, The_Rocketeer said:

For fun of course.

Well, if you put it that way it does sound like a lot of fun.

Edited April 10, 2017 by Veeltch

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

2 hours ago, Veeltch said:

What for? The concept is meant to deal with high traffic density and unless KSP becomes an MMO game focused on airflight there's no need for circular runways. And "because it's kerbal" is not a good argument.

Isn't it?

[Scientia1423]

Seems like an interesting idea, however I think the runway might need to have an inwards slope like a bowl so it might be easier to control? idk.

EDIT: ok I'm stupid enough to not watch the video but it looks practical...

Edited April 11, 2017 by Scientia1423

[kBob]

I saw that story, but was too dumb to think how nice it would fit in with KSP, good idea, usually I end up landing on the grass or ocean, but this would be a fun target...so long as my wheels aren't too slippery.  Be really extra neat if we should ever get winds/weather.

Edited April 12, 2017 by kBob

[Alshain]

Landing a plane on a banked surface in KSP probably won't work the same way it does in real life.

[The_Rocketeer]

On 13/04/2017 at 11:12 PM, Alshain said:

Landing a plane on a banked surface in KSP probably won't work the same way it does in real life.

This argument applies to everything about KSP.

[Alshain]

6 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

This argument applies to everything about KSP.

Not everything, just landing planes.  That's why the bumpy tier 1 runway gets so much hate.  A banked runway would be the same.

[tater]

The surface of every world should be "bumpy" except for the actual runways. As it is, kerbin is a cue ball with no need for runways.

[The_Rocketeer]

@Alshain I'm not at all clear on what your point is. The tier 1 runway is hardly the standard benchmark for runways (or indeed plane landings) in KSP.

FWIW, even excluding plane landings, KSP remains rather unlike real life.

[Wjolcz]

38 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

@Alshain I'm not at all clear on what your point is. The tier 1 runway is hardly the standard benchmark for runways (or indeed plane landings) in KSP.

FWIW, even excluding plane landings, KSP remains rather unlike real life.

His point is pretty clear. Landing on a circular runway would be as infuriating as landing on the bumpy one (tier 1). It would be neither useful nor fun to deal with.

[The_Rocketeer]

@Veeltch he didn't say anything about infuriation or fun.

Edited April 17, 2017 by monstah
off-topicness removed

[Alshain]

On 16/04/2017 at 7:34 AM, The_Rocketeer said:

@Veeltch he didn't say anything about infuriation or fun.

Thats exactly what I said, I used the word 'hate' rather than 'infuriation' but thats just symantics.

[FungusForge]

Clicked this thread thinking it was about making the runway not a true flat so idle planes wouldn't roll down the runway.

Anyway, I do think this would be interesting to see, however not for KSC, partly because we have more than enough runway there to smash as it is. 

[The_Rocketeer]

7 hours ago, Alshain said:

Thats exactly what I said, I used the word 'hate' rather than 'infuriation' but thats just symantics.

Glad you cleared that one up for us before anybody got riled up about it Alshain. We can always count on you

 

[Enceos]

From the modelling point of view this kind of runway would require too many mesh faces and colliders to be even remotely smooth. It's going to be very CPU unfriendly.

[Blaarkies]

About the runway:
-The amount of polygons would certainly be a challenge...fast CPU but bumpy ride, or smooth ride and lose a few FPS? (I am unsure how much performance KSP loses due to static buildings though)
-KSP wheels are better than ever, but they may not be ready for this yet. Slight continuous turning with keyboard controls is going to flip a few planes until they reach the critical speed required to follow the bank.
-Some spaceplanes really don't like turning sharply, but 3.5km diameter should still be enough though...unless this is done to scale following the rest of KSC.

Bonus: Free NASCAR track around the KSC!!!

Edited April 17, 2017 by monstah
off-topicness removed

[monstah]

Hey, hey, people, keep it civil. It's okay to disagree about each others, but remember to attack the argument, and not the person!

Some posts have been pruned to remove off-topic content.