Why was adding aerodynamic stability removed?

[Starwhip]

Right, and here's my simple design. It's also pretty sleek... ah, but it does look pretty much the same as yours. I have another one that is... well... pretty much exactly the same as yours. It's A Mk2 pod with 3 Mk2 fuselages, and exactly the same double-intake, bicoupler, tank, bicoupler, double engine outriggers.

And that's the OP's point, which you're missing. You can't get as creative with the *look* of your aircraft anymore, because using wing pieces as hull is extremely punishing. Again, adinfinitum is on point here when he says that perhaps what we need are structural "hull" pieces to replace that capability (or as regex suggets, keep using wing parts but provide a tweakable to switch them into structural mode, disabling their lift but also greatly decreasing their drag).

That is quite a nice spaceplane you have there.

The opposition is becoming superior...

[Roflcopterkklol]

Right, and here's my simple design. It's also pretty sleek... ah, but it does look pretty much the same as yours. I have another one that is... well... pretty much exactly the same as yours. It's A Mk2 pod with 3 Mk2 fuselages, and exactly the same double-intake, bicoupler, tank, bicoupler, double engine outriggers.

And that's the OP's point, which you're missing. You can't get as creative with the *look* of your aircraft anymore, because using wing pieces as hull is extremely punishing. Again, adinfinitum is on point here when he says that perhaps what we need are structural "hull" pieces to replace that capability (or as regex suggets, keep using wing parts but provide a tweakable to switch them into structural mode, disabling their lift but also greatly decreasing their drag).

it is not only the look of your craft that suffers it is the engine design also, you can no longer make combination engine SSTO's it is Rapiers all the way or go back to kerbin, which is no fun, Rapiers will only ever take you to LKO. not only that you need to put more engines and fuel in a craft to make it get into orbit, The mk5 which used to go to the mun weighs 38.3 tons and is only 217 parts, the mk7 which only makes it to LKO weight 72 tons and is over 300 parts.

White lightning mk5 engine layout (2 turbo jets for hypersonic flight, 4 rockomax engines for help getting into space and a nuke for in vaccume.)

White lighting mk7 rapier spam.. so fun.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Roflcopterkklol

[Wjolcz]

I get what OP is trying to say but I don't quite agree. I'll say that some "boxy" designs I saw were pretty good, but I found the additional wings to be useless and cheaty in terms of lift. Never bothered to build one. Pretty OK for the looks. Not all of them, but some (especially the Exothermos' ones).

Edit after seeing the post above ^^^: Rapiers are for SSTOs, not jets. That's why Skylon isn't going to use jets only. Hybrids are the way to go.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Veeltch

[Frozen_Heart]

Still hoping a "Mk-2.5" line comes along. I've never been able to remake my favourite SSTO due to the old Mk-3 going.

[Alshain]

(personally I find the boxed-fuselage to just look ... bad, if we're being diplomatic).

I tend to agree, planes that have wings wrapped around them to make them look boxy... just look awful.

[Aanker]

So if I make a relatively sleek looking design protected by an aerodynamic shell, I cannot make orbit. See below.

However, if I remove parts, and make a more realisticâ„¢, clearly real world inspiredâ„¢ and less exploitativeâ„¢ design, I can easily achieve orbit by just aiming at 45 degrees. See below. Enjoy the boundless simulator-esque nature of the X-W1 NG:

[BudgetHedgehog]

"what I used to do in the old aero model doesn't work any more, they broke it!"

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Maybe you should stop complaining and change the values to what you see fit or learn the new model.

Also, wings=box fuselage looked ugly as sin. Wings aren't structural pieces, you're trying to emulate specially molded and curved metal sheets that either do not or cannot exist in KSP. Even the curve at a normal wing root into the fuselage is impossible to recreate in KSP and have it perform the same way.

Edited May 2, 2015 by ObsessedWithKSP

[Roflcopterkklol]

I tend to agree, planes that have wings wrapped around them to make them look boxy... just look awful.

A lot look terrible ill agree, but when they look good, my god do they look good.

My favourites out of all the ones i have built are these (the ones i have shared on the exchange)

The first single stage to mun i built, back when i had a better graphics card, white lightning mk4

The SR 72 white bird where the inspiration for white lightning mk5 came from

White lightning mk5

And white lighting mk6, as much as im disappointed in it, god damn is it pretty.

[allmhuran]

it is not only the look of your craft that suffers it is the engine design also, you can no longer make combination engine SSTO's it is Rapiers all the way or go back to kerbin, which is no fun

Ah, well that will only be true if you do use wing-hulls due to the additional drag. Here's three jets at 1215m/s at 23-24k altitude with over 900 units of fuel still on board, so jets can definitely still get you up to pretty high speed. Replace one jet with a rocket and replace some liquid fuel with LOX and this makes LKO.

- - - Updated - - -

I tend to agree, planes that have wings wrapped around them to make them look boxy... just look awful.

Hmm...

Hmmmmmmmm.....

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

Edited May 2, 2015 by allmhuran

[regex]

However, if I remove parts, and make a more realisticâ„¢, clearly real world inspiredâ„¢ and less exploitativeâ„¢ design, I can easily achieve orbit by just aiming at 45 degrees. See below. Enjoy the boundless simulator-esque nature of the X-W1 NG:

Well, considering it's a basically a rocket with way too much engine, yeah, you did get to orbit at 45 degrees. You could probably remove the wings entirely and still get to orbit.

Also, pro-tip: KSP treats wings differently at different speeds to make things easier for you, as I understand it. At low speeds they're treated as straight wings and at high speeds swept wings. Be glad we don't have to be aerodynamicists to make something fly...

[Aanker]

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Maybe you should stop complaining and change the values to what you see fit or learn the new model.

You mean, build more ultra realistic X-, Y- and B-wings?

Also, wings=box fuselage looked ugly as sin. Wings aren't structural pieces, you're trying to emulate specially molded and curved metal sheets that either do not or cannot exist in KSP. Even the curve at a normal wing root into the fuselage is impossible to recreate in KSP and have it perform the same way.

That's your subjective opinion. See, what I suggest is that we should be able to build successfully like that - if we like it - but that maybe yes, the marginally or clearly optimal solution should be a more clean design as demonstrated by a multitude of builders at this point (basically a bunch of Mk2 fuselage sections and two wings). I advocate increased creativity, I advocate more choice in design and I believe that the player should have more liberty in deciding what their spaceplane looks like, not just "follow the shape of the parts". By doing things the way I suggest, we can have both what you like and what I like. Isn't that better?

EDIT: to truly see the effects of wing drag on an airframe, I decided to slightly modify one of my standard atmospheric (non-spaceplane) aircraft and compare the new version against the old one with respect to sea level speed. The two aircraft can be seen below, the differences between the (new) FA-2B on the left and the original FA-2 on the right being a reduced wing piece count on the former (16 smaller wing pieces were used, above and below, on the FA-2 to hide the cleavage between the two engine and fuel sections, whereas these were removed on the B version) and that the two engine-fuel fuselage sections were moved closer to the centerline on the FA-2B (with only cosmetic effects, this did not impact sea level speed). In both images, the aircraft have payload, but this was dropped immediately after takeoff for the speed test.

The result? The FA-2B, with its 16 fewer small wing pieces (which overall do not cover a very large area and have been put in such a way that they are not hit by the airflow) has a sea level top speed at least 550 m/s higher than the FA-2. Why do I say 'at least'? The reason is that the B version eventually burns up as it accelerates beyond 950 m/s. The FA-2 struggles to hit a speed above 400 m/s. So, that is the difference that 16 small wing pieces can make - now imagine if we try to build with larger wing pieces... to achieve larger wings...

Edited May 3, 2015 by Aanker

[Tiberion]

So we've successfully drilled down to the heart of the matter; planes actually work fine and its still pretty trivial to make a plane that will get into orbit.

What HAS been eliminated is the ability to freeform construct things out of piles of wings without giving any thought to how it would fly. You can't have 20 air intakes and 100+ wing segments because they add a HUGE amount of drag; This is entirely realistic, and ANY sane aerodynamic system would have caused this. Quite frankly you were exploiting the extremely limited flight system before and I am sorry to say that time of your life is over (with stock settings anyway)

Three things to do:

Explore the new system and learn more about aircraft. Learn how to build again, challenge yourself to work within the (now sane) limits you have. There are now real actual engineering challenges to experiences. It's like graduating from Legos to model rockets. Welcome to KSP!

Create a new install and then set up sandbox via settings, the alt+F12 debug menu settings, and what you can change in the Physics config file in the KSP directory; with that you can probably set it up where your zany planes with 400 parts will fly again. You can finally deliver that VCR-shaped plane to Bob on Eeloo. (Does anyone even know what VCRs are anymore?)

Create or add CONSTRUCTIVE feedback to an appropriate thread asking for a feature to use wing parts as structural pieces again. Leave out the hyperbole, don't claim that Squad hates you or what you want to do. You might also find a mod that enables this as well.

It's not going to go back to the way you want it, but it's not the end of the world.

[Roflcopterkklol]

Ah, well that will only be true if you do use wing-hulls due to the additional drag. Here's three jets at 1215m/s at 23-24k altitude with over 900 units of fuel still on board, so jets can definitely still get you up to pretty high speed. Replace one jet with a rocket and replace some liquid fuel with LOX and this makes LKO.

http://i.imgur.com/dDcSTqW.png

- - - Updated - - -

Hmm...

http://i.imgur.com/e0n0pBQ.png?1

Hmmmmmmmm.....

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

And here we can see my SSTO going 1250m/s in the atmosphere using jet engines, just saying.. i never said it could not.

the problem is you lost all of that speed when you pitch because the atmosphere is soup then all of a sudden non existent.

- - - Updated - - -

So we've successfully drilled down to the heart of the matter; planes actually work fine and its still pretty trivial to make a plane that will get into orbit.

What HAS been eliminated is the ability to freeform construct things out of piles of wings without giving any thought to how it would fly. You can't have 20 air intakes and 100+ wing segments because they add a HUGE amount of drag; This is entirely realistic, and ANY sane aerodynamic system would have caused this. Quite frankly you were exploiting the extremely limited flight system before and I am sorry to say that time of your life is over (with stock settings anyway)

Three things to do:

Explore the new system and learn more about aircraft. Learn how to build again, challenge yourself to work within the (now sane) limits you have. There are now real actual engineering challenges to experiences. It's like graduating from Legos to model rockets. Welcome to KSP!

Create a new install and then set up sandbox via settings, the alt+F12 debug menu settings, and what you can change in the Physics config file in the KSP directory; with that you can probably set it up where your zany planes with 400 parts will fly again. You can finally deliver that VCR-shaped plane to Bob on Eeloo. (Does anyone even know what VCRs are anymore?)

Create or add CONSTRUCTIVE feedback to an appropriate thread asking for a feature to use wing parts as structural pieces again. Leave out the hyperbole, don't claim that Squad hates you or what you want to do. You might also find a mod that enables this as well.

It's not going to go back to the way you want it, but it's not the end of the world.

I hate when people assume i have given no thought to how my craft will fly with the added wings... white lightning for an example is desinged like that for stability, which it achieves through the design.... it also has a very stable flight path in level flight and is easily controlled at over 1000m/s......

the big problem is as soon as you pitch you lose all of that speed.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Roflcopterkklol

[Alias72]

Hey guys look what I made!

Oh wait... No rapiers.... Did I break some sort of rule?

I hope I don't get in trouble....

[Aanker]

So we've successfully drilled down to the heart of the matter; planes actually work fine and its still pretty trivial to make a plane that will get into orbit.

... Buuuut they all look the same and creativity has been severely limited. Your point again?

What HAS been eliminated is the ability to freeform construct things out of piles of wings without giving any thought to how it would fly.

Seriously? This argument again? How many times must I re-write the statement that the very reason I design planes the way I do is because I want them to look more aerodynamic and more realistic. Airliners look like tubes with wings. High speed aircraft don't (f.e. the F-22, or Lockheed's proposed SR-72).

You can't have 20 air intakes

Wherever did I say I wanted 20 air intakes, lol. That was one of the major weaknesses of the previous aero model (0.90) and I don't want to go all the way back to that. The 1.0 model was managable, but the drag changes in 1.0.1 just managed to ruin what foothold we still had.

and 100+ wing segments because they add a HUGE amount of drag;

If you put them together, they should realistically be regarded as one wing - so why do individual wing segments add so much drag? If I create a structural shell of wings, the leading pieces should stand for the most drag and the rest of the structure shouldn't be as much of an airbrake. 16 pieces of small wings put along the fuselage shouldn't mean a 500 m/s difference of speed at sea level.

This is entirely realistic,

No.

and ANY sane aerodynamic system would have caused this.

Any sane aerodynamic system in a game would take into consideration creativity and that people would use different pieces in novel fashions. We have already established that KSP isn't, cannot be and shouldn't be a simulation. Therefore the drag model has to be more lenient, especially towards wings and fuselage sections.

Quite frankly you were exploiting the extremely limited flight system before and I am sorry to say that time of your life is over (with stock settings anyway)

Quite frankly you are being too presumptive. I simply don't want to be limited to the shapes provided in the part selection screen, I want to be able to build things beyond that.

Three things to do:

Explore the new system and learn more about aircraft. Learn how to build again, challenge yourself to work within the (now sane) limits you have. There are now real actual engineering challenges to experiences. It's like graduating from Legos to model rockets. Welcome to KSP!

Yeah, I'm learning more about aircraft and especially realistic spaceplanes by the hour.

Create a new install and then set up sandbox via settings, the alt+F12 debug menu settings, and what you can change in the Physics config file in the KSP directory; with that you can probably set it up where your zany planes with 400 parts will fly again. You can finally deliver that VCR-shaped plane to Bob on Eeloo. (Does anyone even know what VCRs are anymore?)

Create or add CONSTRUCTIVE feedback to an appropriate thread asking for a feature to use wing parts as structural pieces again. Leave out the hyperbole, don't claim that Squad hates you or what you want to do. You might also find a mod that enables this as well.

It's not going to go back to the way you want it, but it's not the end of the world.

Mods and changing physics.cfg files are not the answer to improving the stock game, and this argument needs to find some rest.

And I am providing suggestions for solutions - revert the drag changes generally, introduce aesthetic structural parts which do not generate lift but in turn have considerably less drag and mass than wings, reduce the drag of the wings and fuselage sections specifically, reduce the drag of stacked wing parts along the angle of attack etc. etc. But it's just impossible to have a constructive discussion when one is being accused of using exploits from one direction and wanting to fly X-wings from the other (which is currently possible anyway so I truly don't get the point).

Edited May 3, 2015 by Aanker

[Chronosheep]

Let me introduce the future of spaceplane SSTOs:

Seriously. I built this as a joke, but it turned out to be one of my most successful designs in 1.0.2.

There is absolutely no need for wings anymore.

You might think that this thing would drop like a stone when landing, but nope; it floats slowly through the air like a blimp.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Let me introduce the future of spaceplane SSTOs:

http://i.imgur.com/C07xxmPl.jpg

Seriously. I built this as a joke, but it turned out to be one of my most successful designs in 1.0.2.

There is absolutely no need for wings anymore.

You might think that this thing would drop like a stone when landing, but nope; it floats slowly through the air like a blimp.

There was never any need for wings in 0.90 + FAR either. Welcome to lifting bodies.

I look forward to seeing how this flies in 1.0 stock and nuFAR.

[Alias72]

That's bodylift for you. the MK II parts in particular are designed as lifting surfaces and will glide nicely.

[Tiberion]

@Aanker

You can keep repeating that stuff all you want, it does not align with the reality of the situation. You will not be made whole again, so I suggest moving on or be prepared to remain unhappy. You may think something "Looks more aerodynamic" but that doesn't mean it IS within the DESIGN OF THE GAME. if you thought that was the case before this update you were fooling yourself, you were using broken mechanics to make something that looked cool because the limits were not in place.

People have already demonstrated several times now what IS possible, including some reasonable uses of the old techniques. Your extreme, overbuilt edge cases are dead. Keep raging, or not, but that is reality.

I've had more than enough of this by now, so good luck with the crusade.

[allmhuran]

You may think something "Looks more aerodynamic" but that doesn't mean it IS within the DESIGN OF THE GAME. if you thought that was the case before this update you were fooling yourself, you were using broken mechanics to make something that looked cool because the limits were not in place.

By saying the old mechanics were "broken", you must surely mean that they weren't realistic. But in the previous sentence you take the opposite stance and say that what counts as aerodynamic is only relative to the design of the game, not reality as such.

[Aanker]

Let me introduce the future of spaceplane SSTOs:

http://i.imgur.com/C07xxmPl.jpg

Seriously. I built this as a joke, but it turned out to be one of my most successful designs in 1.0.2.

There is absolutely no need for wings anymore.

You might think that this thing would drop like a stone when landing, but nope; it floats slowly through the air like a blimp.

[Roflcopterkklol]

By the way guys because people keep saying my SSTO design is bad for using fairings and i have not considered the design when building i decided to make you all eat your words.

here we have White lightning mk7 in a 78km orbit

And here we have white lightning mk8 at the same orbit, notice anything?

To be clear i am complaining about what they have done to SSTO building in general.

Admitted i do like white lightning, even if it is a disappointment.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Roflcopterkklol

[PotatoOverdose]

I dunno, I think this plane looks kind of like the first image in the original post.

Gets 1365 dV in LKO with a 3 ton payload in tow. And the nerva can last ~15 minutes without exploding things.

Edited May 3, 2015 by PotatoOverdose

[Roflcopterkklol]

I dunno, I think this plane looks kind of like the first image in the original post.

http://i.imgur.com/yo4L3jW.png?1

Gets 1365 dV in LKO with a 3 ton payload in tow. And the nerva can last ~15 minutes without exploding things.

My problem is your craft would go to a 150ishkm orbit if you deleted the nuclear engine and added 2000LF/O and 3 more rapiers. and thats about the best you can do without making a craft bigger than the spaceplane hanger.

[PotatoOverdose]

My problem is your craft would go to a 150ishkm orbit if you deleted the nuclear engine and added 2000LF/O and 3 more rapiers. and thats about the best you can do without making a craft bigger than the spaceplane hanger.

I can get much farther than a 150ish km orbit with the leftover 1365 dv. Like duna. And that's all with a 3 ton payload in the cargohold. If I ditch the payload, ascent will be more efficient and could maybe do laythe with some clever gravity assist at jool.

Since when are duna and laythe "bad" for an SSTO?

Edited May 3, 2015 by PotatoOverdose