Anyone else ever find themselves trying to solve engineering issues KSP doesn't model

[InfinityArch]

Earlier today, I was designing a SSTO based around the B9 aerospace pack's recently released SABRE engines. Everything was going reasonably well, but then I noticed something: The craft's canards would be in the path of the air intakes.

In real life, I don't know how much of an issue this would be, but to me, it just didn't look right, and as such, I went ballistic altering the design to keep the canards out of the way of the intakes.

Another thing that's always bothered me despite having no gameplay ramifications is RCS thrusters that would be blocked at certain angles in a real life spacecraft, which always seems to flare up when I'm designing landers.

Has anyone else had interesting experiences like these when designing rockets/spaceplanes in KSP?

[mushroomman]

Yeah I always try to keep RCS ports open too. I kind of hope they make it so RCS can be blocked.

[softweir]

I like to "solve" non-existent engineering issues. Your example of RCS obstruction is one, though I don't remember any of my canards being inline with air intakes; I must watch out for that! When it comes to space stations I make sure mine have some form of thruster to combat non-existent drag, and connect all pressurised areas with other pressurised areas to ensure "realistic" crew access.

[RawChicken]

Of course! Its part of the fun!

[Vanamonde]

I don't put my jet exhausts in places where the airflow from the intakes could not reach them. All my rover designs allow the driver a view of where he/she is going. In addition to a command capsule, every station or ship in which a kerbal is going to be stationed for days or more has at least one hitchhiker module to simulate living quarters. Yeah, I do a lot of that sort of thing.

[NeoMorph]

When I started out I spent ages looking for the Lagrange points so I could stick my space station there.... until I found out that KSP doesn't model them lol.

Kind of a metaphor for life that... looking for something that isn't there. Kind of like the "We didn't land on the moon" conspiracy theorists. Those guys really ARE looking for things that aren't there.

Edited June 9, 2013 by NeoMorph
I removed stuf regarding conspiricy theories as it is against forum rules for some reason... I think it's a conspi...*MUTED*

[SkyRender]

If it weren't for addressing currently nonexistent engineering issues, all of my spacecraft would be far simpler.

[AmpsterMan]

That's like, the name of the game XD.

[astropapi1]

Well, a huge part in sandbox games is the roleplay. I always try to make my ships look realistic, that's exactly why I downloaded KW Rocketry. I use it's fairings on every single lifter, even if they're useless!

[WhiteWeasel]

Have 'closed' fuel tanks be saved when you load something up. Shut fuel valves in RL don't open back up when you leave them unattended.

Edited June 9, 2013 by WhiteWeasel

[KSK]

Oh absolutely. RCS placement, Hitchhikers as crew compartments and 'joined up' space stations are my main engineering add-ons. Its not really an engineering issue but I also like to rotate my space station crews or crew of any long distance vessel parked in Kerbin orbit.

[Supernovy]

I tried to get a probe into orbit without restarting any liquid engines, without throttling, and using only sepratrons for the orbital insertion.

It's not that hard as it turns out.

[rhoark]

Absolutely. That's why I started using Ferram, Deadly Reentry, Ioncross, and AmpYear.

[ApocSurvivor713]

Not necessarily engineering issues, but definitely life support/comfort/safety issues. For example, every long range (out of Kerbin's orbit) has room for at least 2 Kerbals. So that they don't get lonely. Every large space station gets a gravity ring at some point. There are provisions to return every short range craft to Kerbin, and every long range craft to LKO. If I ever strand a crew (I've been lucky so far) then I'll get them back to Kerbin, if possible, or give them some comfort if not.

[GluttonyReaper]

Aerodynamic nosecones. I know they don't do anything, but it feels so right...

[ComradeGoat]

I like adding nosecones that jettison using sepatrons at around 30,000 metres. It just looks cool :-)

[Eric S]

Not necessarily engineering issues, but definitely life support/comfort/safety issues. For example, every long range (out of Kerbin's orbit) has room for at least 2 Kerbals. So that they don't get lonely. Every large space station gets a gravity ring at some point. There are provisions to return every short range craft to Kerbin, and every long range craft to LKO. If I ever strand a crew (I've been lucky so far) then I'll get them back to Kerbin, if possible, or give them some comfort if not.

I tend to do the same. My first mothership had a crew of 12, but I could have actually fit about twice that many kerbals on the ship because I had added living space and such.

[Sapphire]

Guilty as charged! I always connect living sections in space stations, make lots of living space in long-distance craft, I try not to block RCS ports and intakes, I put batteries and RTGs on everything (even craft that don't use electricity), make rockets aerodynamic, and I add ladders and docking ports on my unmanned probes, in case they ever get stumbled upon in the distant future.

[Cdr_Zeta]

Hi,

Sapphire summed it up alot for me as well as the other about roleplay; visuals = try-to-be-real etc.

I was hoping more for orbiting but I think some people try to go too far (as in those lagrange points simulaiton etc)...

My problem yet to solve is a calculus problem regarding fuel useage vs weight over time; TWR's an all that good stuff...I would say it would be fun to try and figure these things out and do comparisons.

So I am a physics/astronomer nut so ya I will be at my computer doin some of this stuff whenever my missions get rolling; I got some personal problems this week which will tend to doll off for 3 weeks then I dunno the next month I need to be home alot so I will have time to 'hit the books' as they say with KSP.

It doent matter whehter KSP doesnt model things at all; what you do is figure the simulation out for your own gameplay, then you can play more efficiently later on...sweet isnt it !

Cdr Zeta

[rodion_herrera]

Sometimes I think some of the tweaks we do are due to the urge to be aesthetically pleasing much as so with being engineeringly sound.

[Brotoro]

I try to be 'accurate' in places, such as using mock-ups of heat shields even though they do nothing yet. Then again, there are times when I don't bother (such as with aerodynamic nose comes on boosters) just to keep the part count lower.

[Fel]

I've put parachutes on large launcher sections, and even tested it going down... just to make certain it COULD survive the fall... even though it gets deleted after 2.5km >:|

[0jam3290]

I've put parachutes on large launcher sections, and even tested it going down... just to make certain it COULD survive the fall... even though it gets deleted after 2.5km >:|

I've done the same, sometimes even put landing legs and a probe core on it to emulate SpaceX's planned F9 reuseability. I've also been sure to put communication equipment on virtually all my flights and some commsats around the Kerbin system to ensure communication links with all craft(I don't even use RemoteTech).

[AlternNocturn]

I try not to have RCS blasting onto anything, like engines, canards, solar panels, etc. I spend inordinate amounts of time finagling all of my craft's outside bits into sensible places.

[MarkusA380]

Sometimes i use aerodynamic nosecones, too... but making useless things is somehow... useless.