rodion_herrera

I would only agree with this statement if my old designs from pre-1.0 won't make it to LKO (with a few alternations that would consider the changes in aero/heat). But they did work, and the lessons I got from the changes, I applied to my new creations and since then I never have problems getting to LKO using an SSTO spaceplane. So I find it difficult to agree with that statement.

Lots of parallels with this remark. I won't be surprised if someone replied... "YES! Because it's much more FUN to be able to see in the dark!" See where I'm getting at?

Maybe there's already been a topic about this, and also, some will say perhaps there are mods for this, but if there was something I really wished for when v1.0 was released, was a functional life support system for Kerbals. Can anyone enlighten me why such a system can pose problems for KSP? And if adding such a system is a non-issue, why is it that I notice that users don't seem that interested in such an idea (my point being that if it was interesting enough there'd be many threads on the issue already).

My points exactly.

Testing out the medium heatshield. Different highly elliptical orbits (high err, apokee?) to see extent of ablation effects. Pretty scary now, considering if you don't do it at the right moment, you can easily burn off your chutes.

I'm with you guys about flexibility but I don't know. As someone who grew up in the latter part of the 60's "space race", I really shook my head when, back in 2013 (when I first got KSP), I saw guys using purely turbojets (plus radials like the twitch or thud just to circularize) to get to LKO. I know, fun yes, but, somehow, there are also those types of individuals who don't see the fun in that.

Again, this tone is speaking towards a bias of "seasoned" KSP players who just want to get the "oomph" or the most bang for the buck out of every part. What about those who just want to test out jets in atmosphere? Case in point. While I really don't know the real reason behind it, and most say it's because he didn't have the academic pedigree to qualify for it, Chuck Yeager, the test pilot who broke the sound barrier in the Bell X-1 (an atmospheric rocket plane) but never became an astronaut, did say once, that he wasn't interested in space flight and wanted to keep testing aircraft in-atmosphere (the most probable reason was because he didn't have the engineering background to work with complex spacecraft). My point being, there is a great variety in KSP users, and much more now, that more people are coming in because of the media exposure now that v1.0 is out. True that eventually, some of these users would "evolve" to the point wherein probably they would also join the "most bang for the buck" crowd, but again, lots of different people out there, who may have their own definition of what is "useful", or "fun" in KSP.

Same with joystick controls.

When I said "exception rather than the rule" I meant that for once, maybe PC Gamer actually did an honest review, instead of basing their review on revenue collected.

Which actually turns your original argument upside-down LOL but I guess this is an exception rather than the rule.

I had no intent to appear as if I "gain satisfaction" out of seeing others fail at adapting to the new way of building things. I was merely offering an attempt at encouragement to keep trying designs which follow more real-world design parameters. And my post was actually asking the question if it DOES kill creativity, and I have merely expressed my side of this question. Maybe I'm also on the side of those who want to keep telling SQUAD to keep hammering on it, but not necessarily saying stuff like "I want my money back."

And we don't have to probably wonder why Ferram did this. - - - Updated - - - The heartstone of science is experimentation. Do experiments. For me now, this alone gives KSP a "career mode" without having to start a true KSP career.

They will keep hammering it, I'm confident about it.

Since v1.0 was released, people have been introduced (and somewhat rudely for others) into the new aerodynamics and heating system. Those who have been using the FAR mod before 1.0 was released have already been baptized into this kind of aerodynamics and are not that affected by the change. And there are some (like myself) who are NOT FAR users, yet I totally understand and appreciate the changes and have quickly adapted to the new system and have absolutely no problems modifying my existing designs and making new ones, and they all fly well. Then of course, on the negative side of things, tons of threads have cropped up about how this new aerodynamics have "ruined" fun for them. Then later, some of these people got confused at why Squad kept changing the rules on aerodynamics and heating after releasing the 1.0.1 patch. This definition of ruined fun seems to come mainly from people who had existing aircraft or SSTO-spaceplane designs, and found that their designs no longer work in the new system, or that new designs they create don't seem to fly well in the new methodology in modelling Kerbin's atmosphere. Let's see this from the perspective of SQUAD aiming for more "realism", which I know is a touchy subject, but I believe we all agree that the basic premise of a game like KSP is that, while there really are no Kerbals and there is really no such planetary system as Kerbol's, the laws of Physics SHOULD work in ANY part of the universe (well hopefully Kerbol System doesn't reside in some other universe with it's own set of physics laws). This means, even if Kerbin is not Earth, proportionally, what SHOULD work on Earth's atmosphere should be mimicked by Kerbin's atmosphere, albeit on a smaller scale. So this is what I have observed in most of the rant threads expressing disappointment and even disgust at the new aerodynamics. Although not many share screenshots of their creations, I've noticed this pattern--the more their crafts deviate from proven, real-world designs (I.e. outrageous craft with tons of stuff that would induce drag etc.), the more it is not going to work well in the new Kerbin atmosphere. I kept saying that my previous edited/tweaked craft works well now in 1.x.x, and the new creations I've made also work well. And I can see the difference why. In the case of my new creations, what I've been designing/making so far, are close approximations of high speed, high altitude real-world aircraft, such as the XB-70, or the X-15, or the SR-71. Which means, chances are, in a simulated atmosphere trying to replicate reality, these designs would indeed work as expected, and they will perform predictably. Now, as to my pre-1.0 designs, esp. my SSTO-spaceplanes, I have to admit that they didn't work when I tried them immediately after the 1.0 update, and thus had to modify them, and these modifcations involved removing every part on the craft that defied realism (i.e. lots of protruding items like batteries, RCS blocks, antennae, etc. and unbalanced fuel tanks). These changes basically forced me to see my craft more as something that would mimic a real-world design. So after my changes, they too flew well and could finally reach LKO. Now, after establishing this rule, that it seems, if you copy a working, tried and true real-world design (with all parts logically assembled), chances are, your aircraft or SSTO-spaceplane will work in 1.0, the big question now is, did it just kill creativity and fun in designing? Perhaps in a way yes, but only if your mind is inflexible to the changes. Real world aircraft designers are also creative people, and perhaps they initially designed their aircraft with some creative biases in mind, but later found out (after wind tunnel tests or simulations) that their designs don't work well given the rules of real-world aerodynamics. Thus this didn't take away from their creativity--they simply had to adapt and use that creativity to modify their designs and eventually come up with the design that DOES work. In other words, there is really no such thing as pure unbridled creativity when it comes to designing real world stuff--you have to bow down to the rules of physics, but take note that it doesn't kill creativity, it just makes you work harder at coming up with a good design. I believe that if these disgruntled individuals take a step back and see the whole design process in this light, they will appreciate the new aerodynamic system (yes, it's not perfect, but I have faith that SQUAD will keep hammering it until we are satisfied with the definition of a "realistic" atmosphere) more and bring back the "fun" that they supposedly lost when 1.x.x was introduced. And this is also why the fun never left my KSP--I accepted the change and wrapped my own creativity around the new rules. That's how you adapt.

All of the aircraft (atmospheric, and SSTO) I made in v1.0, flew mostly the same with v1.0.1 and v1.0.2, so I have no idea what some of you are suggesting or implying that your craft behave differently per version.

Try to download and install this (it's totally free) simulator. There's a winged-SSTO in this program called the "DeltaGlider". If you can reach LEO with it, you'd have no trouble at all bringing almost any winged-SSTO in KSP v1.x.x to LKO. This only means everything you knew about pre-1.0 aerodynamics, you have to throw out of the window, and learn a new one, that might not be so forgiving, but is actually closer to real-world aerodynamics. http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/

For one thing, I used to play Orbiter (and I still play it from time to time) before I discovered KSP in 2013. And with Orbiter, the original pre-1.0 flight ascent profile was totally different when you were ascending from a simulated earth atmosphere. Sure enough, I did eventually learn how to reach LKO, but sometimes I kept reverting back to what I know about ascents in Orbiter. But now that the ascent profile in 1.x mimics that of the Orbiter ascent profile for spaceplanes to LEO. I find it easier now, esp. when switching between programs, because they are both kind of similar now.

I think they should change the algorithm for the cam-float/shake though. Right now, what seems to be happening is, that the camera is pointed at a specific spot on your craft, and the wobble algorithm is applied and thus the shaking occurs with this fixed point as axis/fulcrum. This doesn't make it realistic like a camcorder shot. Camcorder shots are hand-held, thus the person shooting the scene always follows the subject, and there is a DELAY in trying to center the subject. Thus, a good algorithm change would be to have this fixed axis point a moving one, and it will be followed by another point which is the axis of the camera, and there should be lag, so that it would simulate someone's hand/eye lagging behind trying to film a craft and following it so it stays in-frame. I think this is how the XPlane external camera shake is done.

Also, canting the fins at several different angles to impart a spin on the rocket on ascent, the rates of spin really vary now and with predictable RPMs based on the angle you set the fins on.

Cockpit parts are now are more heat-tolerant. Also, those terrible tail connector that were so prone to overheating have been fixed (note tail connector near the engines in the rear)...

You beat me to it. Shock waves.

Even a little 5 year old boy knows that rockets don't fly straight without them fins... When the OP first posted, this was my initial reaction--no fins? It was almost instinctive. Throw everything you know about earlier versions of KSP's virtually non-existent aerodynamics model--the new model "tries" to be realistic. Although it's not yet even perhaps 75% realistic, it would be a good suggestion to think more in real-world terms now, when designing stuff. Also, MAX-Q and throt up/down. Should also be something instinctive.

Ok I did this test right after patching to v1.0.1, and yes, it's a little easier now. Notice zero heat buildup upon reaching orbit. Using the same launch/flight profile (that I've used over 20 times), with v1.0.1 I even have more than enough fuel left for orbital ops. Nice patch

Although I did say in several posts after 1.0 came out, that drogue chutes can be used for braking, I actually still use regular chutes for my aircraft...

Question: In real life, name one aircraft flown via a keyboard. Well, yes, modern airliners have stuff like an FMC/FD or what we all commonly refer to as an "autopilot", but hey, if I love flying, I actually FLY the aircraft and not relegate control to some box with buttons. I fly KSP aircraft with a joystick. Issues like trim etc, can all be configured in a joystick. If this thread is at all about the love for aircraft in KSP, I'm curious at why no one even bothered to mention any controllers like sticks, yokes, throttle quads and rudder pedals.