Is anyone else thinking that the buildings are not resilient enough?

[Jatwaa]

Because, while fun to do so, this is what I ran into this weekend.

http://gfycat.com/ForkedTotalFirecrest

[r_rolo1]

Definitely too weak, since the physics load alone can make the launch area or the plane strip collapse under a particularly heavy rocket/plane ( and the OP gif situation is even worse )

More ,apparently SQUAD used momentum of the impactor to decide if the impactor destroys destroys a certain building . The physics behind that are wrong , though

[O-Doc]

I couldn't say. Loaded up a rocket and the launchpad blow up. Destructible buildings was then turned off and will be staying off.

[Epthelyn]

The launchpad (and to a certain extent, the runway, although I've not personally encountered any problems with it and I've hit it at high speed more than once) needs to be stronger; currently it's vulnerable to the weirdness caused by physics loading. Launch clamps fix that 99% of the time though.

The other buildings are fine. You shouldn't be landing rockets on them anyway

...except the VAB, but that particular building is strong enough right now.

[Boris_T_Roach]

My opinion is that the launchpad (and runway) need to be a bit stronger, lets face it... if your science research building or spaceplane hanger gets hits by 40 tons of out of control rocket, its going to have a real bad day, but when you throttle up 5 mainsails on a launchpad and the launchpad explodes something is very wrong.

And yes I've adjusted all the launch clamps to hold the rockets as far off the pad as possible now so it does'nt blow up on launch

[RocketPilot573]

They need to adjust the minimum speed for destruction, a light rocket sitting on the pad should not break it.

[sal_vager]

Just be more careful guys, you know Kerbals make everything out of explosive materials, even the runway

Don't forget those launch clamps, and think about structural panels to spread the load/take the heat from the engines

[Russoft]

Maybe Kerbals are just bad engineers and all their buildings are sitting on shaky foundations?

Or all their good engineers went into aerospace engineering and all the bad engineers ended up in civil engineering.

[Mrbobmcwilly]

I agree, since I could not even launch this "rocket", well cannon, but it was using stock parts, and broke the launch pad?!!!!!

http://gfycat.com/LittleShadowyBengaltiger

[Alshain]

Just be more careful guys, you know Kerbals make everything out of explosive materials, even the runway

Don't forget those launch clamps, and think about structural panels to spread the load/take the heat from the engines

How can we be careful when the act of loading a plane destroys the runway. It's too weak, and I'm not putting launch clamps on an airplane, wouldn't do any good anyway.

[r_rolo1]

Just be more careful guys, you know Kerbals make everything out of explosive materials, even the runway

Well, , we humans actually made for a while clothes out of explosive materials, so we are not in position to point the finger to them if that is the case ...

[sal_vager]

You know Kerbals aren't real right? Anyway, this is just the state of the buildings as they stand (or not stand if you've hit them) now, they can be tweaked in future updates.

[PB666]

You can blow up a fuel tank with an inflated tire. However the VAB took and defected kerbodyne engine on an orange-64 about 4 times before exploding.

Too answer the question. some buildings need to be stronger, and others need to be weakened.

[Andrew Hansen]

I smashed a huge plane into Mission Control and it didn't explode. Honestly, just by the fact that the plane itself was larger than Mission Control, I think it should have disintegrated.

So I voted that they're too strong.

[dryer_lint]

They're way too random, although it kind of makes sense when you consider placement. The Admin Building explodes easily and goes up like it's made of dynamite, but the VAB takes several ICBMs to destroy

[Armchair Rocket Scientist]

Just be more careful guys, you know Kerbals make everything out of explosive materials, even the runway

Don't forget those launch clamps, and think about structural panels to spread the load/take the heat from the engines

If you need structural panels to prevent the launchpad from blowing up that defeats the entire purpose of having a launchpad.

[Geschosskopf]

They're way too random, although it kind of makes sense when you consider placement. The Admin Building explodes easily and goes up like it's made of dynamite, but the VAB takes several ICBMs to destroy

It's more variable than you think. I made a tank that shoots the big NASA SRBs horizontally (with some fancy fuel tweaking for them and attached Sepratrons), and it has 12 such shots. They typically hit buildings at about 350m/s. Using this tank, I've found that any given building might take from 1 to 8 or more shots to destroy, even with I shoot it in the same place on them from the place on the ground in multiple tries. This applies to all actual buildings, from VAB to various parts of the R&D complex, even to Tracking Station dishes. The only "buildings" that routinely go down from a single hit are the spherical fuel tanks, the water towers, and other things that are essentially just decoration.

I have no idea why building damage is so variable, but I'm totally cool with it because that's kinda how things are in the real world. Anyway, the plan is to NOT destroy buildings. Like Harv said, good players should never have to worry about this. So the short answer is, if you're having trouble killing your buildings, then you need to improve your KSP skilz .

Now, that's buildings. The runway I consider totally fine as-is, too. TBH, I've never broken the runway except intentionally with a VERY heavy vehicle build simply to crush the runway. I've never had it happen from a plane I intended to be an actual working vehicle.

That leaves the launchpad. I have had this break on me a couple of times. First time I had an insanely huge rocket that just broke it under its own weight immediately on physics load. But I fixed that with the simple expedient of jacking the rocket up a short distance with launch clamps. The other time was testing the landing legs of a 3.75m lander weighing only about 20 tons, so I flew it up about 20m and then cut the engines and let it fall, and it killed the pad on impact (although the legs worked fine ). So lesson learned there is to not do drop tests on the launchpad but hover the thing off to the side a bit first. And in the meantime, launch rockets from the runway until I feel like spending the money to fix the launchpad .

Anyway, I'm happy with things the way they are. There's no real excuse for damaging your buildings accidentally, the runway seems reasonably durable, and even if the launchpad is flimsey, there are very simple workarounds to protect it. And having buildings reasonably likely to die from mishaps is a good incentive to become a better player.

[Tripzter]

Buildings are great however the runway and the launch platform should not be breakable.

[juanml82]

Buildings are great however the runway and the launch platform should not be breakable.

But... realism! Launchpads can and do get damaged and destroyed in real space launches and not all runways can deal with 200 ton planes. The initial physics loading should be fixed, not only because of the buildings but because it stresses the joints of some vehicles more than merely standing would do. But I do think certain things should break them.

[samstarman5]

The buildings being fragile as they are is fine. We would have to seriously screw up a mission to actually hit them. But I do agree the runway and landing pad should be reinforced. Otherwise that does limit what we can build, and takes away a chunk of the sandbox aspect.

Buildings are great however the runway and the launch platform should not be breakable.

Oh, they should still be able to be damaged, just not as easily as by merely the weight of the ship alone. If you screw up a launch, and have your craft actually come crashing down, there should be possible consequences to that. I rather like the idea of losing the launchpad and having to use the runway for a few missions to build up the funds to rebuild the launchpad. It helps enforce resourcefulness in the game.

Edited October 14, 2014 by samstarman5

[juanml82]

The buildings being fragile as they are is fine. We would have to seriously screw up a mission to actually hit them. But I do agree the runway and landing pad should be reinforced. Otherwise that does limit what we can build, and takes away a chunk of the sandbox aspect.

Oh, they should still be able to be damaged, just not as easily as by merely the weight of the ship alone. If you screw up a launch, and have your craft actually come crashing down, there should be possible consequences to that. I rather like the idea of losing the launchpad and having to use the runway for a few missions to build up the funds to rebuild the launchpad. It helps enforce resourcefulness in the game.

Come to think of it, I think other things should damage the launchpad: say, igniting too many boosters at once (stage them, don't start them at full throttle or just assume the repair costs) and the shockwave damage caused by a rocket falling near it

[Laie]

Launchpad & Runway giving in under heavy loads would be a nice touch if there were upgrades. In it's current form, it's just broken.

Also, that sudden physics onset has been a kinda-sorta-problem since forever. Usually not that bad, except when it's nasty.

[bsalis]

Also, that sudden physics onset has been a kinda-sorta-problem since forever. Usually not that bad, except when it's nasty.

Yeah - that's what I am thinking. Not so much that the pad and runway are too weak, but that they are vulnerable during the less than graceful physics engine startup. So a bug IMHO.

[Boris_T_Roach]

Come to think of it, I think other things should damage the launchpad: say, igniting too many boosters at once (stage them, don't start them at full throttle or just assume the repair costs) and the shockwave damage caused by a rocket falling near it

I never start on full throttle.... always start at 50% or less and throttle upto 100% before releasing the clamps/starting the SRBs

[Geschosskopf]

Yeah - that's what I am thinking. Not so much that the pad and runway are too weak, but that they are vulnerable during the less than graceful physics engine startup. So a bug IMHO.

It's not so much a bug as the normal and expected result of what is effectively suddenly dropping a huge mass on the underlying Launchpad. And launch clamps totally solve this problem, at least if you remember to put them in the same stage as the 1st batch of engines . If you leave the launch clamps in the default position under the 1st batch of engines, then they'll save the Launchpad from physics but then destroy it themselves when they release the rocket . But that goes back to being a good player.

As to runways, you'd think they'd be pretty tough. And they are, in terms of being resistive to being totally blown to bits. However, even in real life they're actually quite vulnerable to minor damage. Concrete spalls and chips, sometimes cracks and tilts slightly, and airplanes are constantly having small parts fall off. All these things can put a runway out of commission.

The issue is that planes move so fast that even a slight imperfection in the surface can trip them up, blow tires, or kick up debris that damages the plane. Remember what happened to the Concorde? That sort of thing, although, without such a disastrous outcome, happens all the time, and the potential for disaster is always there. So runways have to be inspected almost constantly for damage and FOD, and are frequently taken out of service for minor repairs.

And that's just from normal use. Now imagine if you crash some large plane on it. Sure, the plane will splat like a bug on the concrete surface but its sturdier bits will gouge up the surface. Then when the firemen spray water on the lake of burning fuel, the hot concrete underneath will spall, the rebar in it will lose its strength from exposure to heat, etc. All of this will make the surface unsafe and require extensive repairs, maybe lasting months due to having to rebuild large sections. Now, after the wreckage gets carted away and the soot hosed off, you might not be able to notice any damage from a distance--the runway still looks like the strip if concrete it was before. But it's messed up bad in detail and thus the need for repairs.

So, keeping all this in mind, I don't think the KSP runway is too fragile.