Stop messing with Physics Please

[steve_v]

Probs because, you know, real life aircraft design requires attention to the the details? Besides, you've got numbers and pretty graphs to tell you what to change. IMO FAR is easier than stock, because you have data to work with rather than guesses.

"Slap some wings on, somewhere about there" doesn't work IRL, so it doesn't work in FAR. This makes me happy.

[Tankman101]

Probs because, you know, real life aircraft design requires attention to the the details?

k

If you feel like adjusting various angles by a single degree is fun then go ahead, but it is definitely not easier.

[PDCWolf]

k

If you feel like adjusting various angles by a single degree is fun then go ahead, but it is definitely not easier.

Stop adding more myths to FAR, create planes that look like planes, balance them right, and they'd mostly fly. Recreate a cessna, recreate the oblique-wing nasa prototype, recreate a box with correctly placed wings and it'll fly. Even a cylinder with no wings will fly if piloted correctly and if given enough speed.

You do not need to adjust stuff degree by degree nor do you even need to look at the graphics.

Here, have another thread proving you wrong, I'll even give you the pleasure to throw any logical fallacy you can think of at this thread because you'll only end up making a fool of yourself.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/113324-FAR-from-impossible-2-Less-rules-more-fun-Open-indefinitely

[thereaverofdarkness]

I love everything that is happening to KSP thus far. The new aerodynamics overhaul for stock that came with the full release was overdue but extremely welcome in my opinion. It comes with its issues, however, and those will just have to be worked out with time, trial, and error.

[Tankman101]

Stop adding more myths to FAR...

TIL: My entire experience with FAR is a complete lie and myth.

I'm tapping out here, there's no reasoning with people that blanket entire experiences as myths.

[Ryds]

TIL: My entire experience with FAR is a complete lie and myth.

I'm tapping out here, there's no reasoning with people that blanket entire experiences as myths.

Good, you brought nothing useful to this discussion except untruths.

[Kaos]

About the first post

...

No-one is suggesting Chess have new pieces 2000 years after it was invented...

Well, chess was invented 2200-2500 years ago and the last rule change dates back 800 years, so it was indeed changed nearly 2000 years after its invention.

For KSP: I like the new aerodynamic, the old one was a bit boring in my opinion. Interplanetary reentry straight down with no problems does not feel interesting. If you dislike it, you can still play an old version of KSP or use a mod. Indeed, I myself keeped sometimes an old version when I did not find the changes interesting and did not want the mechanics to be changed for my curent versions.

And for the rant part

...

People who want realistic physics can go into their back freaking yard and build their own darn rockets!

I would really love to build my own rockets for a mars mission, but unfortunately I do not earn that much that I can afford it. Unitl I do, I play KSP a bit and enjoy the enhanced physics.

[Grumman]

For KSP: I like the new aerodynamic, the old one was a bit boring in my opinion. Interplanetary reentry straight down with no problems does not feel interesting. If you dislike it, you can still play an old version of KSP or use a mod. Indeed, I myself keeped sometimes an old version when I did not find the changes interesting and did not want the mechanics to be changed for my curent versions.

The problem is that now you can't even "reenter" from 50,000 meters without being in danger of crashing before it is safe to open your parachute. It's ridiculous. If you're not even moving at orbital velocity, let alone escape velocity, you shouldn't be in more danger just because you're moving too slowly to have a periapsis.

[samhuk]

I think the OP and the topic in general is a little daft. Basically, "Nah, I don't want the game to improve.". I mean, what? The changes to the aerodynamic system for example have been amazing and I can't thank SQUAD enough for the improvements. The new aero system for example means that the air is less 'bitey' at slow velocity which makes all sorts of VTOL, plane, and rocket designs much easier, fun, and possible. The camera shake is very immersive, and I made a thread about it's suggestion about a year ago, so that's nice to see finally in.

Overall, why complain about these great improvements? It's maddening IMHO.

[micha]

Do I think Squad jumped the gun released 1.00? Yes. Do I complain about the iterative updates since then? HELL NO!

Please Squad, keep updating and fixing the game, even if it means that some vessel designs will no longer work.

People who don't want the changes and who want to keep playing with their old designs aren't forced to update, after all.

[Kaos]

The problem is that now you can't even "reenter" from 50,000 meters without being in danger of crashing before it is safe to open your parachute. It's ridiculous. If you're not even moving at orbital velocity, let alone escape velocity, you shouldn't be in more danger just because you're moving too slowly to have a periapsis.

I had no problems as mentioned with capsulas, yet. For more complex constructions I have to think in advance and add heatshields or slow down in the high atmosphere. Both which I find reasonable effort.

Nevertheless I am sure that it will be rebalanced further or further options will be given at game start so everyone can enjoy the game.

That said, let me ensure that I find it a good thing that you speak about your problems, as for a game to match the requirements of the community the community should share its experience.

[Grumman]

I had no problems as mentioned with capsulas, yet. For more complex constructions I have to think in advance and add heatshields or slow down in the high atmosphere. Both which I find reasonable effort.

Slow down? The airspeed in the upper atmosphere was zero. Burning off 2,000 m/s of orbital velocity should require some finesse, burning off 4,000 m/s from an interplanetary voyage moreso. A capsule falling from a flight that isn't even suborbital should have no issues slowing enough to safely open its parachute before it hits the ground.

[Kaos]

Slow down? The airspeed in the upper atmosphere was zero. Burning off 2,000 m/s of orbital velocity should require some finesse, burning off 4,000 m/s from an interplanetary voyage moreso. A capsule falling from a flight that isn't even suborbital should have no issues slowing enough to safely open its parachute before it hits the ground.

Ok, then I have misunderstood you. That of course should be fixed, I didn't get this behaviour yet, though.

[karolus10]

In a way, new aerodynamics model and re-entry heating added just before 1.0 was a move to make this game a complete product which could be treated and sold as one and not early access game that shouts customers in their face that they buy not finished game.

I guess that it was dictated by commercial motives as KSP "beta" was surprisingly short and more time could be used to polish and fine tune so complex feature added right after 1.0 was out but I cannot condemn this as there is a lot of games with "first day" patches that fix issues unacceptable for quality games.

I had to admit that despite my wishes to keep developing KSP as long as it is possible so it would become a better, richer in content/complexity and more stable game than it is currently, KSP can be considered a complete game, a long way from the fun little game that instantly enchanted me 3 years ago.

However, I am happy that SQUAD still seem to keep development of their product after decision to finish was made and it is not a beginning of the end of the KSP growth.

As a owner of non-steam version of the game I never experienced issues connected to the updates as I keep the copy of the game in separate folder(s) (if you are Windows user you can use barely used Saved Games directory), if you ever don't want to have issues connected with it you can copy an backup of fresh KSP installation to be immune to the game updating itself and using multiple copies of own game to try out the mods, play with settings or just start fresh without downloading a game again, this way you can also try out new versions of KSP without removing your old instalments of the game and decide to start over with fresh and future version when the changes will be worth doing it.

[rkman]

I had something like 50 long-tested and reliable ship designs which I had been developing over the course of a couple of years. 1.00 forced me to discard them all...

Do I blame Squad for changing the game? Absolutely not. I appreciate that they're still working on it...

It is one thing that the game changes over the course of years after when development had just started, and I don't see to many people complaining about it.

But that's rather different than the post-1.0 changes that are occurring now, which is what people are currently complaining about.

As i've said before: those changes are necessary, but only because the game was not finished when 1.0 was released.