Cheatable Aerodynamics

[amunray]

Hi KSP!

I wanted to say that the aerodynamics are quite advanced, very beautifully and awesomely made! but I can't support it none the less. for two reasons:

1. "Monoplanes produce more lift than for example triplanes, having less wing bodies. that is because triplanes have wings that are so close together that their aerodynamics mix (don't have enough space)" (That is what they thought me on school)

So the problem here is: In Kerbal Space Program you can cheat by putting wing(s) in each other and producing more lift, for example. You see that often in large or unrealistic crafts. If this isn't the case anymore (in 1.2) I will be very happy! And I wonder if I ask something very complicated. But for me it ruined my motivation to make aircrafts in KSP.

2. There are no proceduraly generated wings, if not using mods. This limits imagination and options drastically.

 

PS. I really love KSP! I want to thank everyone very much for making such an awesome game!!

PPS. You could check the "Gabe Flags" I made ...

[Rocket In My Pocket]

1. I see no problem with placing wings inside wings, as it still adds mass to the plane. Thus it's balanced from a gameplay perspective. "Part Clipping" is pretty important to designing advanced crafts in KSP so I don't think anyone is going to get behind the idea of removing it.

2. There are no procedural parts in general (besides fairings) in the stock game, why would wings be any different? You want procedural, use the mod.

That said, KSP is primarily about space flight/rockets. Super accurate plane aerodynamics just isn't the main focus. Don't let that ruin your motivation though, there aren't many games that let you design and build you own plane, and KSP does a pretty admirable job considering it's mostly a side show to the space exploration.

[panzer1b]

Noone is forcing you to use part clipping, but there are many others (myself included) that take advantage of it when desired.  Almost all of my sci-fi replicas abuse parts clipped, sometimes even inside a craft, when i want it to look a certain way externally but need it to fly straight and actually get off the ground.

This is probably my prime example, a SR-1 Normandy replica that has like 10+ wings clipped inside the engine nacelles to provide it with fuel/lift that it wouldn't be able to get anywhere without.  Thats not even to mention the sheer amount of part clipping elsewhere within that ship, yes that is unrealistic, but then again, i has to SSTO and it has to look roughly like the ship from Mass Effect, and that isnt happening without part clipping.

Anyways, if you have a problem with clipping parts do not do it, but also please dont impose excessive limitations on others just because you dont like a certain feature of the game that isnt forced on you if you dont want to take advantage of it.  And if you dont want to let others use it and say start a challenge, just tell them to not use part clipping when submitting craft to the challenge and people wont do it then...

[regex]

Get FAR; KSP's aerodynamic simulation is fairly simple (as these things go) and is designed for a majority of players who simple want to make something that looks reasonable, and flies in a reasonable manner. FAR uses craft voxelization to create a virtual shape that is testing for aerodynamic properties. Clipped parts will be properly represented as they look on the craft.

This is not to say that KSP's simulation is bad. In fact, I find it flies pretty close to the pre-voxel NEAR mod, which was basically FAR with some of the aerodynamic checks removed or toned down to appeal to a wider audience. But if you want the craft to fly like it looks you should get FAR.

Edited September 18, 2016 by regex

[Van Disaster]

As regex said, use FAR. I will dispute that stock is anything like even the old FAR given current FAR still uses the same wing code & it's blatantly different to stock, but stock is definitely better than old stock that's for sure. It is however not quite right rather than being simplified reality.

I vaguely remember the lack of procedural anything being a deliberate decision.

Edited September 18, 2016 by Van Disaster

[regex]

7 minutes ago, Van Disaster said:

 I will dispute that stock is anything like even the old FAR

I agree.

[Jonfliesgoats]

Getting aerodynamics and fluid dynamics right requires a lot of processing power.  If, for example, we were going to address spanwise flow on stall progression, we would see different handling qualities at high angles of attack with wings of different taper, sweep and aspect ratio.  Adding localized flow, interference effects, etc all requires tons of computing.  That's just for subsonic, incompressible aerodynamics!   Start adding compressibility, transonic effects, oh my!

This is why we still do wind tunnel testing today, too.

That said, how cool would it be if we had to make coke bottle fuselages, address the different types of shock waves that from on our craft, etc!?!?  I get all nerded-up just thinking about it!  Perhaps in the next generation of computers and KSP?  We could see aeroelastic control reversal at high speed before our Kerbals disintegrate in rolling pull-outs!  Right now our parts bend, but don't twist under load.

So this is a fantastic notion.  I wonder how achievable it is, though.

 

 

[Van Disaster]

1 hour ago, Jonfliesgoats said:

That said, how cool would it be if we had to make coke bottle fuselages, address the different types of shock waves that from on our craft, etc!?!?  I get all nerded-up just thinking about it!  Perhaps in the next generation of computers and KSP?  We could see aeroelastic control reversal at high speed before our Kerbals disintegrate in rolling pull-outs!  Right now our parts bend, but don't twist under load

 

Install FAR - the current version models wave drag & it's modelled transonic effects for years. Not much you can do about elastic parts though.

[Jonfliesgoats]

Can't do FAR on console.  I loved it on PC, but my video card just isn't cutting it anymore.  I do miss some mods.

[Van Disaster]

4 hours ago, Jonfliesgoats said:

Can't do FAR on console.  I loved it on PC, but my video card just isn't cutting it anymore.  I do miss some mods.

Well, that's an issue - I can't see wave drag ever being an aero feature on a console game, somehow... and I'm very much looking forward to Ferram's new wing code if he ever manages to finish it, and that will be a bit much for consoles too.

[Jonfliesgoats]

Console KSP involves sad tuba music while I'm in the atmosphere.  Still it's better than stock .25(ish) was when I started.

[amunray]

On 9/18/2016 at 2:28 PM, Rocket In My Pocket said:

That said, KSP is primarily about space flight/rockets. Super accurate plane aerodynamics just isn't the main focus. Don't let that ruin your motivation though, there aren't many games that let you design and build you own plane, and KSP does a pretty admirable job considering it's mostly a side show to the space exploration.

 

On 9/18/2016 at 5:38 PM, panzer1b said:

Noone is forcing you to use part clipping, but there are many others (myself included) that take advantage of it when desired.  Almost all of my sci-fi replicas abuse parts clipped, sometimes even inside a craft, when i want it to look a certain way externally but need it to fly straight and actually get off the ground.

---

Anyways, if you have a problem with clipping parts do not do it, but also please dont impose excessive limitations on others just because you dont like a certain feature of the game that isnt forced on you if you dont want to take advantage of it.  And if you dont want to let others use it and say start a challenge, just tell them to not use part clipping when submitting craft to the challenge and people wont do it then...

 

On 9/18/2016 at 7:54 PM, regex said:

Get FAR; KSP's aerodynamic simulation is fairly simple (as these things go) and is designed for a majority of players who simple want to make something that looks reasonable, and flies in a reasonable manner. FAR uses craft voxelization to create a virtual shape that is testing for aerodynamic properties. Clipped parts will be properly represented as they look on the craft.

This is not to say that KSP's simulation is bad. In fact, I find it flies pretty close to the pre-voxel NEAR mod, which was basically FAR with some of the aerodynamic checks removed or toned down to appeal to a wider audience. But if you want the craft to fly like it looks you should get FAR.

 

On 9/19/2016 at 1:04 AM, Jonfliesgoats said:

Getting aerodynamics and fluid dynamics right requires a lot of processing power. 

That said, how cool would it be if we had to make coke bottle fuselages, address the different types of shock waves that from on our craft, etc!?!?  I get all nerded-up just thinking about it!  Perhaps in the next generation of computers and KSP?  We could see aeroelastic control reversal at high speed before our Kerbals disintegrate in rolling pull-outs!  Right now our parts bend, but don't twist under load.

So this is a fantastic notion.  I wonder how achievable it is, though.

 

 

Very informative responses! These quotes gives a little summary, and where the most awesome reactions? I agree with a lot of it, so I changed my opinion...