Lower the large lights at the ends of the runway

[ratrace24]

ok, let me clear some things up. the kerbal space port is a jet aircraft and rocket spacecraft testing facility, the key word being "testing" if you look at the runway on such a place in real life (an aircraft testing facility) the runway is nearly twice as wide and three times as long as it would usually need to be. just look at area 51 on Google maps if you dont believe me, therefore as the kerbal space port is a testing facility it could feasibly have a very long/wide runway, much more so than it currently has.

[Wahgineer]

^agreed

I'm behind the OP on this one. The AoA, thrust and lift aren't the problem if it flies once it gets off the runway. The problem is (1): Lack of run up distance. Some don't seem to realize that the bigger the plane gets, the more runway it will need to get up to speed. The reason the plane flies once it leaves the runway is because the little boost it gets from falling of the edge helps it gain that tiny amount of lift it could have gotten itself if the runway was 500-1000 meters longer. (2): obstructions. Runway lights aren't meant to get in a planes way, no matter how big the plane is. Its as simple as that.

[Murph]

Yeah, the runway length is a problem as well, it's remarkably short for the type of facility, at approx 2000–2500m. It's also built as a shallow ski-jump, since it's planar vs the curvature of the planet's surface. Something else for the nay-sayers to consider  is there anything fundamentally wrong with wanting to use it as a ski-jump type runway, since that's how it's built? For comparison, the Shuttle Landing Facility at Kennedy is 4572m x 91m, with additional 300m overruns at each end.

The lights are a problem as built in 0.22, limiting the full usability of the runway. The design of my plane is irrelevant to that. The plane is quite capable of controlled flight, but needs a superior runway for reliable takeoff. The lights are currently a bad and limiting design, and a major problem for large aircraft in KSP.

[Traches]

You could talk me into a longer runway-- it's on the short side of real world runways, and the ones the shuttle used were the longest in the world. That said, all of Kerbin is scaled down from real life and our jet engines have way too much thrust for their weight anyway, so I can see a few reasons why it's balanced as-is. Honestly, I think the problem here is stock landing gear, not the landing lights.

I really hate when people come to my favorite games, complain that they're too hard, assert that they're doing everything right, and expect the game to change to accommodate them. There may be reasons to change the landing lights, but "they make it too hard" is a terrible one. They're just one of the many (and more literal) obstacles between your spaceplane and space.

[Dunbaratu]

The airplane that the OP has built, or if you like a conceivable airplane, could be a viable design except for the fact that the the geometry of the landing lights makes it impossible to launch.

You're deliberately ignoring the opposite side of this argument: The airplane could NOT be a viable design EXCEPT for the fact that the geometry of the runway makes it POSSIBLE to launch. Most runways don't run off the edge of a hill with a dropoff. THAT particular oddity of the KSP runway geometry is the only reason the plane works in the first place. So it's NOT a design that would have worked if not for the runway geometry. It only worked at all because of one runway fluke, and it only fails part of the time because of another runway fluke. A design that didn't rely on flukes of the runway geometry and would have worked on any normal runway would be able to take off from the flat, and wouldn't then encounter the lights problem.

[Smidge204]

Yep, I haven't seen and don't expect to see any argument that can counter this point of view.

The launch tower is made obsolete by the use of launch clamps... even thought the tower never had a functional use AFAIK. The lights do have a functional use (marking the runway at night) for which there is no real substitute.

If the plane didn't get off the ground at all, would that be a fault of the game's design? "I was trying to launch from the surface of Mun and hit the rim of a crater. Clearly the rims of the craters are too high and should be lowered, because my craft is certainly powerful enough to reorbit if it wasn't for those ridges!"

No, sorry, I have to agree that the plane design needs some tweaking.

=Smidge=

[allmhuran]

You're deliberately ignoring the opposite side of this argument: The airplane could NOT be a viable design EXCEPT for the fact that the geometry of the runway makes it POSSIBLE to launch. Most runways don't run off the edge of a hill with a dropoff. THAT particular oddity of the KSP runway geometry is the only reason the plane works in the first place. So it's NOT a design that would have worked if not for the runway geometry. It only worked at all because of one runway fluke, and it only fails part of the time because of another runway fluke. A design that didn't rely on flukes of the runway geometry and would have worked on any normal runway would be able to take off from the flat, and wouldn't then encounter the lights problem.

This doesn't make any sense. The runway is the runway, and has always been as it is. The lights are not the runway, and are a recent addition. If you are suggesting that the runway not have the dropoff at the end, I would say you would need to start your own suggestion thread that is utterly distinct from this one.

The launch tower is made obsolete by the use of launch clamps... even thought the tower never had a functional use AFAIK.

The second half of this sentence is correct (the launch tower never had any functional use), and also completely contradicts the first half, which is incorrect.

Further, your argument relies on the premise that the landing lights must be as they are in order to be functional. This is false.

[Kilmeister]

It doesn't matter if the runway was 20 miles long. If your design can't lift up off the runway it will just hit it's maximum velocity and plow along till the end of the 20 mile long runway.... and if there's a cliff it will be able to take off. (Or hit the "20 miles to KSC" sign conveniently located at the end of the runway) If you can fly your craft after the cliff then most likely all you need to do is rebalance it. Even if you see your wings stay nearly level after going over the cliff and say it's not an AoA issue, remember, that as you're trying to pull up on the runway you are just smashing your rear landing gear into the pavement. Once you get off the cliff, just relaxing the gear stress can be enough to actually achieve flight. If you really are opposed to moving or raising your landing gear, strap on a few sepratrons at the front of the craft. Arguing to remove the lights is the same as saying :"hey, my rocket won't go into space today, let's reduce gravity!".

[allmhuran]

Arguing to remove the lights is the same as saying :"hey, my rocket won't go into space today, let's reduce gravity!".

Those two are not alike.

[Vostok]

For a nice easy workaround, put some takeoff sepratrons, or small rockets for the kick off the ground. Action group them, so you only use them when horizontal velocty is optimal. See: Operation Credible Sport

[Murph]

Ok, let me explain it again. The plane design is entirely viable, flies just fine, ascends well on max weight, reaches 100km circular orbit with large usable payload, handles re-entry and dry weight flight back to KSC, lands without drama, all with pleasant handling characteristics. The first problem is the terrible design of the runway lights on the corners, which is something which would never be allowed anywhere near the threshold of a real runway (giant, absurdly large, absurdly positioned boxy lights, extending well above typical wing height). The second problem is that the runway is much too short.

The plane is fine, the runway is highly inadequate and badly designed. If the runway was a reasonable length, it would be airborne long before the end of the runway.

So, please stop telling me how to "fix" the plane, I'm entirely disinterested in fixing it when it is not actually broken, just doesn't have a suitable runway to use. I did not start this thread looking for advice on plane design, I started it to criticise the terrible lights, and suggest that they be improved in future versions.

[Smidge204]

The second half of this sentence is correct (the launch tower never had any functional use), and also completely contradicts the first half, which is incorrect.

Speaking conceptually, the launch tower is obstinately there to represent the structure that would keep the rocket stable until launch. So there is no contradiction there because the launch clamps take over that function conceptually as well as functionally.

Further, your argument relies on the premise that the landing lights must be as they are in order to be functional. This is false.

And your argument relies on the premise that the plane must be as it is to be functional. That, too, is false.

=Smidge=

[allmhuran]

Speaking conceptually, the launch tower is obstinately there to represent the structure that would keep the rocket stable until launch. So there is no contradiction there because the launch clamps take over that function conceptually as well as functionally.

What? The old launch tower did nothing, it was purely cosmetic. The new launch clamps do something. The thing that the new launch clamps do has nothing to do with the aesthetic provided by the old launch tower.

The reason that the old launch tower was removed has nothing to do with the introduction of launch clamps, and everything to do with the fact that it was an impediment. We had both the launch tower and the launch clamps for many versions.

The word you are looking for, by the way, is "ostensibly", not "obstinately", but that would still not be an appropriate use of the word.

And your argument relies on the premise that the plane must be as it is to be functional. That, too, is false.

=Smidge=

Are you saying my argument relies on the premise that the plane we are talking about is the plane we are talking about, and not some other plane that we are not talking about? Then I would say yes, that is true, and it is necessarily true, so again, what?

Edited December 4, 2013 by allmhuran

[sjwt]

This suggestion has been noted, and some good workarounds suggested which at the end of the day are the most likely resolution, but it is unfortunately degenerating quickly..

If you still require help, Might I suggest posting in http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/forums/15-Gameplay-Questions-and-Tutorials with your craft file as I'm sure someone coudl help you improve your designe.

But as it hasn't been said yet...

"MOAR BOOSTERS" (sepratrons don't count) <G>