Do you like the new Aerodynamic system in the game?

[Wanderfound]

Stock aero has gone from horrid to tolerable, but it's still no competition for FAR. However, I'm fine with FAR staying as an optional mod, and keeping the easier/simpler option for stock.

[soulsource]

What about an option: I like it, but use FAR anyhow?

For me, the biggest benefit of the aero overhaul is that now the rocket engines are balanced in a way that doesn't make using FAR look like cheating. Previously one needed a lot less dV to get to orbit when using FAR, and now both, stock and FAR, are comparable.

[Slam_Jones]

Just popping in to say: I am so much not a fan of the new aero, that I installed FAR.

I liked the soup, darn it.

[mackadelik]

I only started playing after the new aerodynamic system was released. I love it and I totally enjoy this game! That being said. I did not vote, because I have nothing to compare the new system to.

[roosterr]

The COM/COL indicators in the VAB now mean something. It wasnt until I started using FAR that I had to actually use them (I always like to build clean rocket looking rockets). Now with the new aero system (or FAR) you actually have to follow those fundamental rules of rocket science. To me challenging == fun. Being able to build things that would not fly in real life is not interesting to me.

[steve_v]

IMO, <=0.90 was borderline unplayable without FAR. The new stock aero is ok OOTB, but nowhere near as good as the new FAR... So I really don't care, as I'll probably never play with it.

[serolrom]

I haven't really bothered about this so far, besides I had to add some tails to my rockets to avoid their new tendency to flip.

After reading all the comments, maybe I'll look at it in more depth. I always avoided 'simulating' flight in KSP, found it kind of unpredictable, maybe it's time to give it a try again.

[eddiew]

I much prefer 1.0.2 to 0.90 stock aero - however I do think it still needs tuning.

Drag is just plain too high at low altitudes, and there's far too much penalty for an AoA beyond a few degrees, which leads to lots of engines, huge wings, the inability to stall, and the inability to crash, since you can just fall vertically and flare at the last second. Not to mention I am highly disappointed with the rapier thrust curve, which is appallingly bad at getting you transonic.

[waterlubber]

I'm still playing 1.0 aero. It's a really good balance for me between soupiness and mercuriness. 1.0.2 is too draggy, and the devs made a wild change there. I vote for a bit more drag, but better occlusion. Struts should be near dragless because the majority of uses are because rockets in KSP are held together with duck tape.

[Wjolcz]

Just popping in to say: I am so much not a fan of the new aero, that I installed FAR.

I liked the soup, darn it.

What's the logic behind this?

I like the new aero. Could be tweaked a bit, though. Seems like Eve's atmosphere at 4000m/s is less deadly than Kerbin's at half of that speed.

duck tape.

I just googled that. Was expecting way more ducks.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Veeltch

[LordFjord]

I like the new aero. It might have one or another small thing that needs tweaking, but in general, its great.

[heng]

I love the new aero...

we need butt implants (nosecones behind the rapier engine) and Pinocchios (tail connectors in front) to get the best aerodynamically designed ships.

this is madness.

i love it! :-D

[Red Iron Crown]

I don't consider either of those observations "madness". The tail connector is a better shaped nose for hypersonic flight, it's only the name that is objectionable. Tapering a tail should reduce drag (it does IRL), the "nosecone on back of a RAPIER" thing only works because of the RAPIERs odd thrust transforms that permit a part to survive there. *shrug*

[Slam_Jones]

What's the logic behind this?

I like the new aero. Could be tweaked a bit, though. Seems like Eve's atmosphere at 4000m/s is less deadly than Kerbin's at half of that speed.

-snip-

I can't honestly say there was really any logic behind it, not at first. It's more that I was comfortable with it, I knew it inside and out, and I could build things that did exactly what I expected the first time.

Maybe I'm a bit of an old man, but I wasn't a fan of the idea of re-learning the aero, with all it's new weird rules.

What prompted me to switch to FAR did involve a bit of logic, due to the fact that the current aero doesn't account for occlusion zones, and (in my eyes, at least) behaves kinda unpredictably... I even wrote a thread about it.

Turns out it's the fact the girders and structural plates generate a ton of drag and provide no occlusion area behind them, meaning that if your rover is made of mainly those, then all of them are subject to drag... even if it looks like some parts should be sheltered.

So, basically, external seats and any sort of roll-cage or even minor decoration, or anything useful at all, really, is completely out of the question.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Slam_Jones

[Superfluous J]

I can't honestly say there was really any logic behind it, not at first. It's more that I was comfortable with it, I knew it inside and out, and I could build things that did exactly what I expected the first time.

Maybe I'm a bit of an old man, but I wasn't a fan of the idea of re-learning the aero, with all it's new weird rules.

What prompted me to switch to FAR did involve a bit of logic, due to the fact that the current aero doesn't account for occlusion zones, and (in my eyes, at least) behaves kinda unpredictably... I even wrote a thread about it.

I think the weirdness of the original statement was more "I loved the old aero, so when the new aero came out I switched to FAR" is akin to "I prefer smaller cars, so when my wife sold my subcompact to buy an SUV, I went out and bought a 18-wheel truck."

[Slam_Jones]

I think the weirdness of the original statement was more "I loved the old aero, so when the new aero came out I switched to FAR" is akin to "I prefer smaller cars, so when my wife sold my subcompact to buy an SUV, I went out and bought a 18-wheel truck."

Well, yes and no. It's more like "I'm used to driving trucks, but my truck got replaced with a smart car. So instead, I scrapped that and bought a van, which I've driven before. It's more familiar and logical to my particular senses."

Or, "my car is suddenly slowed to a crawl by the air, so let's replace that air with better air."

Or, "I dislike this new system so very much, that I'll take an established and respected alternative."

Or, "This system does not respond how I expect it to, so let's use a system that does."

Or, "I'm experiencing issues that were never issues before, so let's use a system that doesn't give me those issues."

Or, "I enjoyed the game before, but the new system has made it less fun for me. So, I'll use a system that brings that fun back."

I could go on, so take your pick, or wait for more

Edited May 29, 2015 by Slam_Jones

[Superfluous J]

"my car is suddenly slowed to a crawl by the air, so let's replace that air with better air."

Old aero was more soupy than new areo.

Or, "I dislike this new system so very much, that I'll take an established and respected alternative."

Or, "This system does not respond how I expect it to, so let's use a system that does."

Or, "I'm experiencing issues that were never issues before, so let's use a system that doesn't give me those issues."

Or, "I enjoyed the game before, and the new system has made it less fun for me. So, I'll use a system that brings that fun back."

All fair. But the point still stands, FAR is much closer to the new aero than the old aero, so without these caveats (which I didn't have access to at the time) the statement is (I hope) understandably confusing.

[Slam_Jones]

Old aero was more soupy than new areo.

All fair. But the point still stands, FAR is much closer to the new aero than the old aero, so without these caveats (which I didn't have access to at the time) the statement is (I hope) understandably confusing.

I can totally understand the confusion. From outside looking in, it may seem I'm griping about nothing. I guess what I object to is just sudden, irreversible changes. I spent a lot of time putting together designs that work in the old system, and I'm probably the weird one here, but it's a bit disappointing when something you truly enjoyed is suddenly very much different... especially when there's no feasible way to change it back (yet).

Then again, I'm probably the weird one. When Rust changed systems, I still preferred their old version, despite it being "inferior" or "old" or "no longer updated" or whatever. I guess it's just a personal thing: I find something I like, but it gets changed.

Yes, one should always build in the path of progress, but sometimes I like standing on my figurative, unchanged dirt road. I know and love every bump of that road, so when someone comes in and paves it over, I'm gonna be a little upset. Sure, it's technically the same road, but now the biggest elements I loved about it are gone. If there were, say, an option to switch from the new tarmac to the old dirt, that'd be a lot nicer. The folks wanting a smooth ride can get their smooth ride, and those wanting to kick up some dirt can kick up some dirt.

But maybe I'm crazy

Edit: As for old aero being soupier, well, my gripe is more about the drag applying to literally every piece of the rover, effectively putting it in much thicker soup. A "plane-without-wings" rover will go faster in the new system, sure, but not a "dune buggy"-style rover.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Slam_Jones

[Hodo]

Not a huge fan of it. It was ok, and a step in the right direction but I dropped it as soon as FAR updated to the NuFAR, and I wont go back.

My problems with stock are as follows.

-Still to simple allows for stupidly high G turns without any real consequence.

- Still feels "soupy" at lower altitudes and then at higher altitudes, like magic its just not there.

- From a pilots perspective it still feels wrong, very wrong, things that should never fly, fly, and things that should dont.

[foxkill2342]

Define "new." 1.0, yes. 1.02, no.

[Dspan_000]

Define "new." 1.0, yes. 1.02, no.

New as in 1.02

[steve_v]

...rockets in KSP are held together with duck tape.

ARRGH, it's duct tape. Designed for sealing ducts, not taping ducks (which wouldn't work too well because... feathers)

If it were still made of duck cloth, that would be different

Duck is however used as a brand name... I give up.

It does have a valid place in spaceflight though.

Don't take me too seriously, quack quack.

Edited May 30, 2015 by steve_v
too many r

[herbal space program]

I think the air itself is pretty well balanced, although it does seem to disappear pretty abruptly around 22km for no obvious reason. The engines OTOH need some tweaking. I like the idea of a real transition in performance at the sound barrier, but the thrust curves on the RAPIER engine are a little extreme. It seems really hard to go transonic with any ship that might arrive in orbit with any fuel left. At least for me. The best I've managed so far is maybe 700 m/s dV left in a 100km orbit. If the RAPIER had just a little more oomph around 300 m/s, it seems like a lot more SSTO designs would become feasible.

[Bev7787]

It's way easier for my rockets to go to space. And stay there.