Public Service Announcement regarding Aero

[tater]

Re-entry heating had ZERO functionality for years. Now they finally implement it, then they tweak it, and people complain about it. Some complain that it's too deadly, some complain that it's not deadly enough. Whatever.

No one is saying it is too deadly that I have seen. You'd have to actively try to manage to burn anything up.

[sal_vager]

Most people already control their own experiences via addons, so tweaking a few variables that Squad has deliberately left accessible to every player shouldn't be a big deal.

You can fine tune the game, or are options a bad thing now?

[r4pt0r]

From the KSP website.

Fully fledged, Physics-based flight simulation ensures everything will fly (and crash) as it should.

link

thanks, I was looking for that but thought It was removed when they updated the site. On the old site that was what the very top of the 'about' page said.

So yes, KSP was first advertised(and still is advertised) as a "Fully fledged, Physics-based flight simulation"

Edited May 3, 2015 by r4pt0r

[treejoe4]

we have to open up a cheats menu to fix the game we bought? k.

[sal_vager]

You already change your resolution settings

I'm quite happily playing 1.0.2 with 1.0.0 settings, try it, you might like it.

[Frybert]

You already change your resolution settings

I'm quite happily playing 1.0.2 with 1.0.0 settings, try it, you might like it.

...*sigh*...

[Bomaye]

Maybe the game has to many new generation players who dont want to have new challanges ;-)

[panzer1b]

Im running 1.0 aero, i feel it was the most balanced, fair, and was fairly plausible in my eyes. Also, unlike 1.0.2, it was actually playtested for a long time, so im guessing things such as the ISP of various engines have been nerfed to accommodate 1.0 aero, not 1.0.2 aero. I really like how 1.0 works, rockets get less dV to orbit, but also have weaker engines so you cant quite go as crazy far now. 1.0.2 seems to have nerfed the drag, and didnt touch teh engines to compensate, therefore ill stick to time tested 1.0 (which is also way more fun imo).

And yes, im quite happy that its customizeable, and not forced values on everything. That was a very good choice from squad imo, allows some to go for realism, some to for balance, and others to whackjob constructions that would never work irl!

[m4v]

From the KSP website.

link

There's also "KSP is a game" plastered everywhere in the page, you can't say that they are putting more emphasis in simulation than in gaming. And honestly, you can only argue that KSP's physics sucks compared to Orbiter or X-Plane, ie, true simulators, compared with any other game that has airplanes or spaceplanes KSP's physics are excellent.

[dryer_lint]

You guys are over-thinking this.

Nobody ever said you have to open a cheats menu to make 1.0 "playable". If you're fine with the current aero, don't change it. If you don't like it, change it.

People are acting like SQUAD intentionally broke the game so that we would have to cheat our way through. Maybe some players like 1.0.2 aero.

[Screeno]

I've downloaded that mod for the 1.0 aerodynamics and it is so good, just like 1.0! It's fair and balanced. Most of all its fun! I was so happy when 1.0 came out cus it felt like I was almost playing FAR.. then a few days later what people are calling "the souposphere" came with 1.0.2 .... This 1.0.2 aerodynamics ain't fun really.

[Redshift OTF]

You already change your resolution settings

I'm quite happily playing 1.0.2 with 1.0.0 settings, try it, you might like it.

What if you want to build stock craft for people using stock settings?

[pslytely psycho]

What if you want to build stock craft for people using stock settings?

Maybe put a descriptor in the title? Something perhaps along the lines of "Jebs Folly SSTO aero 1.02" or something?

(I know, I really suck at descriptions)

Just a thought....:cool:

[Tiberion]

1.0 Aero was not in any way better, it was entirely undertuned in such a way that there was no challenge in launching anything from the surface. It required specifically trying to build a rocket incapable or orbit to actually fail. Any rocket with a positive TWR accelerated through 30k within the 1st 30 seconds and there was never a cause where "full throttle" was a good idea. Spaceplanes could travel Mach4+ basically at any level and there was no "barrier" at the sound barrier.

Re-entry displayed the opposite problem, since you would not encounter any drag-induced slowdown until you went below 15k altitude there was no re-entry curve, there was a gravity powered death plummet until you slammed into the atmosphere at 10k, at which point your heat-shield either saved you or it didn't. Angle didn't matter, distance didn't matter.

I'm sure this was known, but left in place to make it easy so all the people making the change wouldn't freak out.

You all of course freaked out anyway, so it was all for naught. A quick bump to a more sane setting has been rewarded with more freaking out and negativity (and far more snarky images than actual feedback sent to the proper places)

I'm not saying its perfect. It'll receive more changes at some point i am sure. But I wouldn't expect a massive rollback and frankly you should all move forward and begin adapting.

[Wallygator]

Imagine a parallel universe where there is no early access and KSP is released for the first time as it is in 1.0.2.

Who would be complaining? Who would love it?

Some of the responses we all exhibit are behavioral resistance to change. It's natural. But every aspect of change can be either a learning experience or a platform for dissent. The individual makes their choice.

I choose the learn new skills and master this new aero model, which is more fun imho than protesting.

tL;DR I like it! More to learn and do.

[Robotengineer]

There's also "KSP is a game" plastered everywhere in the page, you can't say that they are putting more emphasis in simulation than in gaming. And honestly, you can only argue that KSP's physics sucks compared to Orbiter or X-Plane, ie, true simulators, compared with any other game that has airplanes or spaceplanes KSP's physics are excellent.

I don't have an issue with KSP's physics not being on par with Orbiter or X-plane, I take issue with the fact that if Squad claims that the physics system 'ensures that everything will fly (and crash) as it should' Squad should do their best to get as close real physics as possible.

[Tiberion]

I don't have an issue with KSP's physics not being on par with Orbiter or X-plane, I take issue with the fact that if Squad claims that the physics system 'ensures that everything will fly (and crash) as it should' Squad should do their best to get as close real physics as possible.

Well turning down drag again is certainly not going to achieve that; it would only satisfy the "build things out of wings" contingent.

There ARE things to balance going forward (heating rate, and probably engine balance, but it would be a fractional change, not drastic) but no one can objectively say 1.0 was more realistic, only easier.

[Robotengineer]

Well turning down drag again is certainly not going to achieve that; it would only satisfy the "build things out of wings" contingent.

There ARE things to balance going forward (heating rate, and probably engine balance, but it would be a fractional change, not drastic) but no one can objectively say 1.0 was more realistic, only easier.

In another thread I stated that both 1.0 and 1.0.2 aero were unrealistic. It boils down to the fact that most of us don't want our stall speed to be below 50m/s on most planes, but we also don't want to be able to go mach 3-4 ASL. So we should probably stop arguing and start fiddling with settings.

[Tiberion]

The stall speed thing isn't really a setting thing, more of a simplification for gameplay's sake. All wings behave as hybrids, where they adapt to be very glidy when needed while still allowing fast speeds. Put more simply, there aren't 'glider wings' and 'high aero wings' there are just wings which pull some shenanigans to function reasonably in most cases. If you went to one extreme you couldn't have a high altitude glider, at the other nothing breaks the sound barrier. One side effect is the wonkiness at landing, though in a lot of cases that is still being caused by too many wings (and thus too much lift)

Perhaps more granular wing function is something to request going forward. There's a right way to do that. Do keep in mind that there going to be a limit to how much fidelity the flightsim aspects can contain before the game becomes too complex for most people (and thus should be left to a specialized mod... if only we knew someone who does that sort of thing..) and more complex wing simming might very well lie beyond that line.

[Linear]

All my this. There's an xkcd referencing how KSP is not supposed to be a simulator...somewhere...*frantically searches archives*.

There are a lot more, this was the easiest to find. It was of months ago.

Going back to 2011/2012 there were many posts about the game being directed toward a simulation.

Fully fledged physics simulation, i have you.

..Ish..Kinda...Ugh..

- - - Updated - - -

In another thread I stated that both 1.0 and 1.0.2 aero were unrealistic. It boils down to the fact that most of us don't want our stall speed to be below 50m/s on most planes, but we also don't want to be able to go mach 3-4 ASL. So we should probably stop arguing and start fiddling with settings.

I thought that as what the testing team was for. I've beta tested the game for 3 years, it was released. It's annoying as hell.

[godemperorzack]

1.0 Aero was not in any way better, it was entirely undertuned in such a way that there was no challenge in launching anything from the surface. It required specifically trying to build a rocket incapable or orbit to actually fail. Any rocket with a positive TWR accelerated through 30k within the 1st 30 seconds and there was never a cause where "full throttle" was a good idea. Spaceplanes could travel Mach4+ basically at any level and there was no "barrier" at the sound barrier.

Re-entry displayed the opposite problem, since you would not encounter any drag-induced slowdown until you went below 15k altitude there was no re-entry curve, there was a gravity powered death plummet until you slammed into the atmosphere at 10k, at which point your heat-shield either saved you or it didn't. Angle didn't matter, distance didn't matter.

I'm sure this was known, but left in place to make it easy so all the people making the change wouldn't freak out.

You all of course freaked out anyway, so it was all for naught. A quick bump to a more sane setting has been rewarded with more freaking out and negativity (and far more snarky images than actual feedback sent to the proper places)

I'm not saying its perfect. It'll receive more changes at some point i am sure. But I wouldn't expect a massive rollback and frankly you should all move forward and begin adapting.

This. Exactly this. Thanks for being a voice of reason.

[regex]

So I tried A Thing, and was left wanting.

What else do I need to do in 1.0.2 to get more heat other than increasing the aerodynamic heating multiplier?

[Archgeek]

Re-entry displayed the opposite problem, since you would not encounter any drag-induced slowdown until you went below 15k altitude there was no re-entry curve, there was a gravity powered death plummet until you slammed into the atmosphere at 10k, at which point your heat-shield either saved you or it didn't. Angle didn't matter, distance didn't matter.

Now that's not entirely true -- just after release I dorked around with the stock planes a bunch, and managed to get the LVT-45 having one upstairs, then back down in one piece via holding a very high angle of attack to hit what atmosphere there was like a sail. If there had been no drag up there, Jeb wouldn't've made it back down, much less landed up a slope on some sand dunes.

Also, I've never had a heat-shield fail me, and have developed the habit of turning the ablator down to save mass. The 1.02 settings have made even that bit kinda superfluous. (They do however, fail exposed kerbals in lawn chairs -- massive convection flux that only the kerbal feels. 'Not sure what's up with that.)

Further, I miss my near-perfect gravity turns I was getting in 1.0 -- I'd derp over slightly at launch, kill SAS, and watch it steadilly droop 'till my apo was where I wanted, and looking at the map I was already half-circularized. Now my fins provide too much restoring force and my rotation just stops.

Though you're quite right, people have been freaking out way too much over each change.

[regex]

Following the video above, I asked around and got some more help with the settings. Last night I tried the following, which resulted in a 1.25m heatshield under a Mk1 pod + parachute with almost 0 ablator left over after reentry from a 75 x 75km orbit using an 18.5km perisapsis. The pod without shield can survive it but it gets pretty toasty, which should be fine for early career. It needs further testing, most especially with spaceplanes, but using a drag multiplier of 7 is a good compromise between pods and aircraft (8 is right for blunt bodies, 6 is right for aircraft.)

dragMultiplier = 7 // 8
dragCubeMultiplier = 0.1
angularDragMultiplier = 2
liftMultiplier = 0.055
liftDragMultiplier = 0.025
bodyLiftMultiplier = 10.7
aeroFXStartThermalFX = 2
aeroFXFullThermalFX = 3.5
aeroFXExponent = 3
thermalMaxIntegrationWarp = 100
spaceTemperature = 4
solarLuminosityAtHome = 1360
solarInsolationAtHome = 0.150000005960464
convectionDensityExponent = 1
convectionVelocityExponent = 3.25 // 3
newtonianConvectionFactorBase = 2
newtonianConvectionFactorTotal = 3
newtonianVelocityExponent = 0
convectionFactorSplashed = 300
fullConvectionAreaMin = -0.2 // 0.2
fullToCrossSectionLerpStart = 0.8
fullToCrossSectionLerpEnd = 1.5
machConvectionStart = 2
machConvectionEnd = 3 // 4
machConvectionExponent = 2 // 3
partEmissivityExponent = 4
radiationFactor = 1
convectionFactor = 40
conductionFactor = 10
internalHeatProductionFactor = 0.03
aerodynamicHeatProductionFactor = 1.0
standardSpecificHeatCapacity = 800

You will get heating on ascent. Spaceplanes be warned. I also have yet to test this on Eve.

[FleshJeb]

It sets a bad precedent to have everyone control their own atmosphere settings.

That's a thought I've been having for a while.

One of the great things about KSP is being a member of a community--Being able to share crafts, diagnose each other's problems, etc. If everyone is operating in universes with slightly different physical constants, the community gets fragmented. It was manageable when we only had Stock vs. FAR, but further fragmentation is, as you said, is a bad precedent.