End of Runway lights - move them

[Endersmens]

Yes I've tried SRBs and sepratrons in some designs.... that is not the problem here. The problem is that with the small size of the landing gear, I simply cannot angle the plane up much at all without the rear contacting the terrain... the terrain needs to drop away enough for the AoA to get high enough on takeoff.

If you are using Seperatrons or SRBs in general, dont aim forward. like you said that wont help your problem. Angle them up, close to the cernter of mass, maybe just a little forward of it. It will lift the whole plane instead of just the nose, if you do it right.

.. ^___________

<______*______}

............/.......<SRB

...........^

^Plane..CoM

It will take some trial and error, but it might work. (i just brainstormed this idea, havent tried it)

Edited April 17, 2014 by Endersmens

[BudgetHedgehog]

I partially agree with you with perhaps moving the lights or making them shorter or into the runway like catseyes style lights. However there would normally be obstacles at the end of the runway at 'normal' airfields like trees and pylons etc. I too have often created things that struggle to take off, but have found this to do with the landing gear being too far back of the CoM.

Could do with them fancy lights at the beginning of the runway that tell you if you're coming in too high or low. I think they're (after a quick google) Precision approach path indicators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_approach_path_indicator). You get two red and two white when you're just right. Other variations indicate you're too high or low.

I seem to remember the flying instructor having a good laugh whilst asking the tower to turn them off whilst I was coming into land once. So them turn off would be good too, but they could help no-end with having an optimal approach angle especially for new people and those who tend to struggle with depth perception in a 2d (as in the game is a 3d projection onto a 2d screen with no 'real' depth perception unless you use 3d glasses etc) game.

There's a PAPI mod floating around... I'll link it when im home.

[pxi]

So there's actually something really funny here -- if you know your "can climb" speed, you can just raise the gear once you're past that speed and applying up-force. Surely not the way a commercial jetliner would work, but a very Kerbal way to get airborne!

I used to do this all the time in a fighter sim I had on the Amiga. Have tried this a few times in KSP without success, but it's good to know someone else out there thought of it!

[LethalDose]

Are these lights an option? I've never noticed them before and certainly never crashed into them...

Also, I know this has been requested/discussed before.

[BudgetHedgehog]

There's a PAPI mod floating around... I'll link it when im home.

Here it is.

[MKI]

I think this is a very minor issue. There's multiple ways around it and it only affects a very few amount of cases. I see no problem in removing them, or at least moving them in such a way they wont affect end of runway take offs. But the severity of the issue isn't much.

If it is hindering your takeoff you should look into a way to take off earlier. There's infinite ways to fix the issue, only one of them is to remove the lights, which where just recently placed. Taking time to change something that was just put in is a waste of resources and time. You could also consider it part of the game. In the same way the Runway is above the ground in the first place.

[Dunbaratu]

I think this is a very minor issue. There's multiple ways around it and it only affects a very few amount of cases. I see no problem in removing them, or at least moving them in such a way they wont affect end of runway take offs. But the severity of the issue isn't much.

If it is hindering your takeoff you should look into a way to take off earlier. There's infinite ways to fix the issue, only one of them is to remove the lights, which where just recently placed. Taking time to change something that was just put in is a waste of resources and time. You could also consider it part of the game. In the same way the Runway is above the ground in the first place.

I agree about keeping the lights but cannot agree with the claim that it "only affects a very few amount of cases". Planes that have to run off the end of the runway to takeoff are actually very common for new players because to make that not happen requires placing the main landing gear dangerously close to the center of gravity, where loss of fuel can shift them to being in front of the CG and thus make a safe landing impossible. Putting the landing gear far enough behind CG that the plane won't tip up later on, while also putting them far enough forward that the plane can do a takeoff roll is a rather touchy finicky thing.

[MKI]

I agree about keeping the lights but cannot agree with the claim that it "only affects a very few amount of cases". Planes that have to run off the end of the runway to takeoff are actually very common for new players because to make that not happen requires placing the main landing gear dangerously close to the center of gravity, where loss of fuel can shift them to being in front of the CG and thus make a safe landing impossible. Putting the landing gear far enough behind CG that the plane won't tip up later on, while also putting them far enough forward that the plane can do a takeoff roll is a rather touchy finicky thing.

I meant by saying it "only affects a few mount of cases" as in cases that can't be fixed another way. For instance you made a boat that cant' fly or afford to turn, that would get hung up on the runway lights.(even this could be fixed multiple ways,but is much more difficult than making a plane fly)

It might be a tough to figure out where and how to place landing gear, but as i said there's a multitude of ways to fix this. No one ever said building a plane is "easy", being unable to take off is probably one of the most common issues with planes in stock ksp. The addition of the lights at the end does make it harder, especially for those trying to learn. That doesn't mean its nearly game breaking or something beyond a detail that must be checked.

Truthfully the addition of the lights forces players to learn how to build their planes better. It is a challenge, but it is not a hard challenge to overcome.

[MarvinKitFox]

So there's actually something really funny here -- if you know your "can climb" speed, you can just raise the gear once you're past that speed and applying up-force. Surely not the way a commercial jetliner would work, but a very Kerbal way to get airborne!

I use a variant on this, for difficult-to-get-started planes.

When taking off, once I am at/near takeoff speed, I raise the REAR landing gear only.

This will almost certainly result in the back of you plane dipping a bit, thus increasing angle-of-attack, thus increasing lift enough to actually raise the whole thing.

Only once truly airborne do i raise the front gear.

[Remkeau]

I sometimes put an extra landing gear bay higher up on the tail where it might strike the runway, allowing for a higher AoA (only might not be very aesthetically pleasing in some cases)

[pizzaoverhead]

Planes that have to run off the end of the runway to takeoff are actually very common for new players

In this sense, the runway lights could be argued as a positive gameplay hint that the player's design needs to be improved.

Lights at runway ends are not there for any kind of challenge. They're there for aesthetic purposes. KSC would look dull if there were not all kinds of tiny details that make up the atmosphere. And some kind of lights (KSP ones are on the very unobtrusive side) are part of it.

From this point of view, an expanded runway area would make sense for improving the feel of KSC as a major research and testing area. The last time this conversation arose, it was suggested that an aerospace test site would have multiple runways of different types, and feature extremely long runways to help deal with landing experimental aircraft. Edwards Air Force Base is a good example of this, having been used for landing Space Shuttles:

The main runway could be fully lit for night time approach and landing, with others used for aircraft that require a longer take-off roll. It was also suggested in the past that one of the runways could have a ski-ramp for particularly stubborn aircraft.

An interesting potential feature for career mode is purchasing upgrades for buildings. Constructing multiple runways would fit in well there, as would adding the lighting system to allow night landings as the career progressed, forcing players to up their game.

Edited April 18, 2014 by pizzaoverhead

[UberFuber]

It was also suggested in the past that one of the runways could have a ski-ramp for particularly stubborn aircraft.

That sounds very Kerbal.

"We got a plane, and a problem."

"What problem?"

"It flies fine, but have trouble leaving ground. What can we do?"

"Ramp it?"

[juvilado]

Agree with you in both ways: Larger runaway(s), but only after you invest in them. Maybe you dont need them if you dont advance in aeronautics so much with the career mode and contract system.

[Madrias]

I've built my share of planes and hit my share of landing lights. However, I don't believe the landing lights should go. If you're having that much trouble avoiding the lights, it's time for a re-design. Yes, I know, it sucks having to rebuild an 85-ton SSTO craft because your rear gear isn't raised high enough to allow lifting the nose. It sucks having to strut the living crap out of the landing gear to hold them straight, only to need to go back later and double-up your gear so the suspension doesn't squish too much.

If the plane can't take off before the end of the runway, you need to come up with some solution to raise the nose of the plane so the wings gain lift.

[Kasuha]

Another thing is, it looks like those lights have already been moved out. At least in these images they seem to be in a much more obtrusive position. No idea from which KSP release it is, though.

[Wahgineer]

I think that the best way to handle this is with a compromise: keep the lights, but sink them into the runway. This way, we can see the lights, but they aren't in the way.

The aerospace testing grounds sound like a good idea*, as does multiple/longer runways.

*I just had a picture in my mind of Jeb driving an SRB-powered general lee off the ramp on the end of a runway, which also has a aircraft carrier style catapult for those really stubborn aircraft.