stay in flight when not player controled

[knoss]

how would it work

you have say an atmospheric vessel that says aloft

large plane or even airborne carrier launching other craft form it while it stays aloft instead of just falling to the ground

or midair refuleing could be nice meet up with a large lingering aircraft on set flight path fule up than continue to orbit ect ( easy to get into orbit i know but i like the idea of it as a challenge )

what i have been able to do is set my engeons in a delicate balance of hover then eva and grab some science while hovering ( you do get a special lil note when you do it by the way )

have created a large plane also to carry a second high enough to reach orbit with plenty of fule but my first place uncontrolled always crashes

now if career mode has money that diminishes and recovery of craft to recap expenses

the lost large plane would be a huge finance loss

behavior settings could be nice ( linger, land, crash if possable does not even need to see the land or crash maybe it flys for a bit till it gets out of range and delete and recap losses form recovery)

how would it be implemented?

perhaps a behavior system could be implmented

[boomerdog2000]

With the current system I don't believe this is possible. This would require the physics system to have the craft loaded and running at all times, to keep track of aerodynamics and fuel level, which is not something you generally want to do since it would cause all other flights to lag.

[knoss]

i know the physics are still calculated as debris for a fall or if you detach a thruster while active it stays on and keeps going

is why i suggested a behavior selection

crash - just crashes

linger - will keep going till it runs out of fuel or you change its behavior (circling in the area)

return and recover - changes corse to try to reach the space center ( does not need to actually land but will delete and auto recover

i do understand some of the limitations and love to build bases rovers and beacuse of my large bases on mun and minus some of my structures i have almost a km apart

my main focus is my mock of up a large assisted take off airplane that can take off and land with the other ship strapped to its back just crashes after i separate even with kerbals on board or a flight computer (probe core)

have been also thinking of the usability aspect love my space station with rocket racks to reload my shuttle with an rcs space rover to do the rearm when docked

but back on topic the recovery or ditching especially since money may be an issue of finances in the future

the ability to do midair refueling would just be a fun challenge

[vexx32]

Nope, not true. Physics is calculated for all objects in a 2.5km sphere around the currently focused object. Anything further away no longer has phsyics calculated on it. It is on-rails. Any on-rails object in the atmosphere below 30km altitude is instantly destroyed, assumed impacted on Kerbin.

[knoss]

have watched things aloft crash when i switch to a rover on the ground over the space center it did not spontaneously explode

[vexx32]

Like I said, 2.5km sphere. However, some mods extend the limit. As such, you cannot really expect Squad to account for changes made by mods.

[knoss]

perhaps after optimization who knows

when if they have certain types of crafts as once piece and appear for missions only

example meet up with the k130 (like the c130) refuel and continue to orbit or land than it would unlock the craft for player defined missions ( never actually having control of the craft and deletes after the mission is accomplished)

am sticking with a behavior apron undocking and maybe it deletes and is recovered say after a 5k distance if set to recover and assumes it was able to do it ( crew safe cost of remaining fuel and equipment refunded)

unlock able prebuilt stations of other kerbal nations (or the ability to download player made creations all ready in orbit for a built in menu

example

some one has a stock space station in orbit an option to export it ( saves the altitude space ect ect and it is installed already in orbit in your world maybe even see there flag plastered on the object )

[Dunbaratu]

As an aside, I really dislike the terminology that everyone uses about KSP where they refer to a vessel that's following along the time-parameter equation for an ellipse (i.e on-rails) as as having "no physics" being calculated. It doesn't have NO physics. it just isn't using UNITY's physics, and it has significantly LESS aspects of physics being taken into account. But it doesn't have "no" physics at all being taken into account.

As long as that time-parameter ellipse formula that the on-rails movement is following was calculated based on the fact that position is the second integral of acceleration, and that the acceleration follows the inverse square law of gravitation, then the ellipse itself should still be referred to as at least SOME crude form of following physics.

This is also why I don't buy the argument that going on rails requires killing all rotation. If you can calculate the linear position using a time parameter equation based on initial position and initial velocity when the object went on rails, then surely you can also calculate the angular position using a time parameter equation based on initial orientation and initial rotational velocity when the object went on rails. In fact the rotational position should be a simpler calculation than the linear position because the rotational velocity is staying constant. It's just angle at time T = initial angle + T*(rotational velocity). Now granted, if you wanted to calculate tidal effects on rotation it gets more complex, but at least constant rotation is still a huge step up from no rotation, in terms of realism.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Steven Mading

[vexx32]

While I completely understand your objection there, unless you are intimately familiar with KSP's source code, you have absolutely no way of making that kind of assertion with any level of accuracy, my friend

[Dunbaratu]

While I completely understand your objection there, unless you are intimately familiar with KSP's source code, you have absolutely no way of making that kind of assertion with any level of accuracy, my friend

That is false. It requires no knowledge of the source code to know that items following ellipses that were precalculated using the laws of physics does in fact constitute using physics. All that requires is knowing what the English words "using" and "physics" means, and realizing that if physics wasn't taken into account, you wouldn't even have known to make the shape of the path be an ellipse. If you were ignoring physics you could have made it a rectangle, or a line, or a triangle.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Steven Mading