Please Add Realistic Aerodynamics (FAR) and Perhaps Procedural Nozzles for Optimizing at Different Pressures

[TLTay]

Needs a balance. KSP1 aero is not realistic, but CFD modelling of shockwaves is not reasonable. I'm sure they can manage a good middle ground, seeing as many flight sims have in the past. I'd be interested in a dev diary on it, but I'd rather the time go into making the game better. It'll be fine, and if not - someone will fix it.

[mcwaffles2003]

1 hour ago, TLTay said:

Needs a balance. KSP1 aero is not realistic, but CFD modelling of shockwaves is not reasonable. I'm sure they can manage a good middle ground, seeing as many flight sims have in the past. I'd be interested in a dev diary on it, but I'd rather the time go into making the game better. It'll be fine, and if not - someone will fix it.

FAR isn't nearly as computationally taxing as running CFD models and in my experience I have had reasonable framerates with it, even on a mediocre laptop. That said, doesn't this subject fall under "making the game better"? I would argue that the aerodynamic model of the game about aerospace engineering/exploration significantly impacts its gameplay

[shdwlrd]

3 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Idk what FAR was like back then but I think it's fair to say a lot has changed in the past 5+ years. It's worth a look at.

Not going to happen. It's one of those cases where the experience was so poor, even the mediocre replacement is preferred.

FAR was the primary reason for one of the few times I've rage quit KSP. The others were related to bugs within KSP or mods.

Edited July 14, 2021 by shdwlrd

[Dr. Kerbal]

Isn't that effect. Like planes hover. You know that giant weird Russian plane. It was like a pillow of air. It was some sorta effect. I'm not sure what its called but I think that would be cool to see. 

[TLTay]

1 hour ago, Dr. Kerbal said:

Isn't that effect. Like planes hover. You know that giant weird Russian plane. It was like a pillow of air. It was some sorta effect. I'm not sure what its called but I think that would be cool to see. 

Ekranoplane, I think. Ground effect lift. 

I read on reddit from Nate the other day that procedural engines were not in release due to issues with balancing game progression or something like that. 

[mcwaffles2003]

4 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

Not going to happen. It's one of those cases where the experience was so poor, even the mediocre replacement is preferred.

FAR was the primary reason for one of the few times I've rage quit KSP. The others were related to bugs within KSP or mods.

I can respect that, I'm sorry your experience was so painful.

[AlmightyR]

Is FAR one of my absolute must-haves in my KSP installs today? YES.

Was FAR required when I started playing KSP? No.

Will I need KSP2 to have a FAR-like aerodynamics model embedded in stock in order to buy it? No.

Would I absolutely love it if it was done and done right (optional, balanced, moddable, etc)? YES.

If it were to be implemented in stock KSP2, would I prefer the game to be delayed in order to have this at launch? No, with some extra words to make it clear: While I'd love it to have it at launch, I'd rather start playing KSP2 sooner and without this, just like it was for KSP(1), than to have this be the reason KSP2's launch gets a delay of any kind. I'd prefer that this gets implemented as any other feature update. Maybe a high-priority one, but still not as something required at launch (absolute base game).

[Bej Kerman]

2 minutes ago, AlmightyR said:

While I'd love it to have it at launch, I'd rather start playing KSP2 sooner and without this, just like it was for KSP(1), than to have this be the reason KSP2's launch gets a delay of any kind.

IMHO I'd rather KSP 2 come out as intended at launch rather than rush it for the sake of my impatience.

[AlmightyR]

6 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

IMHO I'd rather KSP 2 come out as intended at launch rather than rush it for the sake of my impatience.

I'd rather you didn't confuse or conflate mine preference for there not to be delays for the sake of a specific, optional feature, with any form of impatience or wanting things rushed in any way.

Those are VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. 

Edited July 15, 2021 by AlmightyR

[Bej Kerman]

18 minutes ago, AlmightyR said:

24 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

IMHO I'd rather KSP 2 come out as intended at launch rather than rush it for the sake of my impatience.

I'd rather you didn't confuse or conflate mine preference for there not to be delays for the sake of a specific, optional feature, with any form of impatience or wanting things rushed in any way.

Aerodynamics and, most important of all, polish, really matters to me. The team should be given as much time as is reasonable. And, besides that, aerodynamics is quite a bit more than just some optional feature. The game past orbital mechanics hinges on it.

[AlmightyR]

5 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Aerodynamics and, most important of all, polish, really matters to me. The team should be given as much time as is reasonable. And, besides that, aerodynamics is quite a bit more than just some optional feature. The game past orbital mechanics hinges on it.

At no point did I ever say the team shouldn't be given time to polish the stuff that is actually planned for the game's release. [snip] And even at that, I've made myself abundantly clear about what exactly I'm not willing to get delays for, and it has nothing to do with the base game, it's proper implementation, or the delays necessary for that.

At no point did I ever say that implementing realistic (or even non-realistic) aerodynamics in any game would be "just some optional feature" [snip].

What I said was that in my opinion an official FAR-like aerodynamics model as an option within the stock KSP2 (developed more integrally than a mod could be) would be good and very welcome, but that an aerodynamics model similar to FAR, that is secondary and optional to whatever becomes the main model (presuming KSP2 doesn't plan on a FAR model being the main; which is the same assumption inherent in the suggestion of it on this thread, [snip] is not something I'd wish to get extra delays for it to be present at KSP2's launch.

Meaning I'm willing to wait as long as necessary for the base game to be done and polished; but would not welcome extra delays for launch, for extra, unnecessary features, which a secondary aerodynamic model is.

[snip]

[Bej Kerman]

12 minutes ago, AlmightyR said:

Meaning I'm willing to wait as long as necessary for the base game to be done and polished; but would not welcome extra delays for launch, for extra, unnecessary features, which a secondary aerodynamic model is.

I'm willing to wait as long as possible for the aerodynamics to not be so easy to exploit. FAR might be harder to use than stock in some cases, but it feels far more fluent when you get the hang of it. If KSP 2 considers realistic aero model, I'll definitely wait another year for any kinks to be ironed. I mean, through my eyes, the KSP 1 aero model is hacky, the atmosphere feels soupy and planes don't feel as good to handle nor easy to flip and pull stunts on, and it doesn't feel like something to come from KSP 2, but we'll have to see.

[AlmightyR]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

I'm willing to wait as long as possible for the

...MAIN...

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

aerodynamics to not be so easy to exploit.

----------
Meanwhile, I was clearly referring to a

1 hour ago, AlmightyR said:

secondary aerodynamic model

----------
And you still insist on quoting me, as if I was saying I'd like for the main model to be rushed in order for the game to be launched faster; which is not the case, not what I believe in, and not what I'd like my image to be associated with.
As I explicitly told you, multiple times.

[snip]

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, AlmightyR said:

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

I'm willing to wait as long as possible for the

...MAIN...

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

aerodynamics to not be so easy to exploit.

----------
Meanwhile, I was clearly referring to a

2 hours ago, AlmightyR said:

secondary aerodynamic model

What I mean is that I want  realistic aerodynamics from launch to minimise broken aircraft from updates. Not sure what the deal with a secondary aero model is.

[AlmightyR]

7 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

What I mean is that I want  realistic aerodynamics from launch to minimise broken aircraft from updates. Not sure what the deal with a secondary aero model is.

If either model ever gets adjusted, which it almost certainly will because aerodynamics models are complex and hard, and internal and limited public testing have their limits, almost never becoming the final model without post-launch wide-audience data, then you will get craft designs conflicting ("broken") between the changes for that model.

If you mean "broken" as in actually broken with bugs, then most of the issues with FAR come from integration with the game and engine, which a stated reason for the suggestion of doing it in the stock game as part of an officially-developed thing in the first place.

As for what a secondary model is; let's just say my patience and good will are gone, and reading shouldn't be hard.

[Bej Kerman]

13 hours ago, AlmightyR said:

If either model ever gets adjusted, which it almost certainly will because aerodynamics models are complex and hard, and internal and limited public testing have their limits, almost never becoming the final model without post-launch wide-audience data, then you will get craft designs conflicting ("broken") between the changes for that model.

Switching from stock to FAR midgame is going to really mess things up. Fortunately KSP 2 was built from the ground up for stability and it should be a walk in the park - relatively speaking - to do FAR.

13 hours ago, AlmightyR said:

As for what a secondary model is; let's just say my patience and good will are gone, and reading shouldn't be hard.

I asked what the deal with a secondary model is I.E. why you insist on switching models through post-launch development, not what it is. Can't say anyone else's patience and good will are gone - I'll wait as long as I like for a solid, future-proof aero model that ensures future stability

[AlmightyR]

5 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Switching from stock to FAR midgame is going to really mess things up.

Which is why it's a second, separate aero model; in all of my arguments; and in the suggestion of most people who discussed.

This is only a problem for your view where there can ever be only one model. Which is not what I'm talking about.

5 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

I asked what the deal with a secondary model is I.E. why you insist on switching models through post-launch development, not what it is. Can't say anyone else's patience and good will are gone - I'll wait as long as I like for a solid, future-proof aero model that ensures future stability

I'll wait as long as needed for the game to be launched. And I'll wait further for as long as needed for a second, FAR-like aero model to be implemented as an option post-launch. For a solid future-proof game that ensures not only stability but also freedom, since some people clearly prefer to have an aero model that is not FAR-like.

But hey, if you want the game rushed, and to get less features, for the sake of your impatience, you do you.

[mcwaffles2003]

1 hour ago, AlmightyR said:

I'll wait as long as needed for the game to be launched. And I'll wait further for as long as needed for a second, FAR-like aero model to be implemented as an option post-launch. For a solid future-proof game that ensures not only stability but also freedom, since some people clearly prefer to have an aero model that is not FAR-like.

I'm normally all about toggle options to increase freedom of difficulty but having 2 different aero models in stock, in my opinion, is a bit much... 

[Bej Kerman]

2 hours ago, AlmightyR said:

But hey, if you want the game rushed, and to get less features, for the sake of your impatience, you do you.

That is the complete opposite of what I am saying.

2 hours ago, AlmightyR said:

And I'll wait further for as long as needed for a second, FAR-like aero model to be implemented as an option post-launch.

Having 2 aero models as options is overkill.

[AlmightyR]

3 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

That is the complete opposite of what I am saying.

One model instead of two means less features.

KSP(1) does not have a native FAR-like model. No mention was made of a more complex aero model for KSP2.
So a FAR-like aero model at launch for KSP2, while some KSP fans have expressed not to like FAR, is rushing.

I'd rather KSP2 come out as intended by the devs at launch rather than rush a FAR-like aero model into it for the sake of my impatience.

11 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Having 2 aero models as options is overkill.

I'll gladly agree to disagree.

Although FAR is an absolute must-have on my KSP installs nowadays, and I'd be overjoyed if the devs decide to add a FAR-like aero model, a lot of people, probably a majority of the KSP1 casual players in fact, don't use and/or don't like FAR, and similarly wouldn't use or wouldn't like FAR at the main model on KSP2.

With that in mind, if the devs decide to add FAR-like at all, and specially as a second model optional or difficulty-setting toggle, I'm fine with it being post-launch. Meaning I'll gladly let the people who don't play with FAR get their simplified model first. That when KSP2 launches, I'll enjoy the simplified model alongside them too. And that if and when a FAR-like model gets added, I'll use it.

But hey, if you want the game rushed with a FAR-like model, and to get less features, and for the people who don't like FAR to get a worse KSP2 experience, for the sake of your impatience, you do you.

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, AlmightyR said:

But hey, if you want the game rushed with a FAR-like model, and to get less features, and for the people who don't like FAR to get a worse KSP2 experience, for the sake of your impatience, you do you.

Yeah that ain't true chief

[AlmightyR]

43 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Yeah that ain't true chief

I think, as I explained, that it's inherent to the one-model, at launch, stance you seem to have. So saying it's not true sounds to me like a contradiction with your own stance.

But if you say it's not the case, then ok. --- Maybe you've changed your stance, don't realize the contradiction, disagrees that it is a contradiction, or some other thing. I really don't care at this point.

[Vanamonde]

Please talk about the thread's subject rather than each other. 

[mcwaffles2003]

@AlmightyR

How does asking for multiple stock aerodynamic models not seem insane to you? Genuinely curious.

That would make craft sharing hilarious... "Try my plane! It flys like a dream in model A but in model B it flys like a lawn dart"

I mean how crazy would something like this sound to someone discovering KSP. Not to mention you would have to balance each part for both models, this sounds like a coding nightmare and a horrible decision. There's a MOBA I used to play called vainglory and it started out as a 3v3 game. At some point the devs decided to incorporate a 5v5 mode as well and everyone playing the game was excited to hear about this. But once it was implemented balancing the game was a nightmare. Some characters could be perfectly balanced for a 3v3 but become absolutely broken in 5v5 or vice versa... and this is just increasing the players and a change of map, all other mechanics and characters remained the same. Imagine having to tweak subtle characteristics of every part in the game to balance them for multiple aerodynamic models. You might as well just make 2 similar but separate games...

[Bej Kerman]

2 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

@AlmightyR

How does asking for multiple stock aerodynamic models not seem insane to you? Genuinely curious.

That would make craft sharing hilarious... "Try my plane! It flys like a dream in model A but in model B it flys like a lawn dart"

I mean how crazy would something like this sound to someone discovering KSP. Not to mention you would have to balance each part for both models, this sounds like a coding nightmare and a horrible decision. There's a MOBA I used to play called vainglory and it started out as a 3v3 game. At some point the devs decided to incorporate a 5v5 mode as well and everyone playing the game was excited to hear about this. But once it was implemented balancing the game was a nightmare. Some characters could be perfectly balanced for a 3v3 but become absolutely broken in 5v5 or vice versa... and this is just increasing the players and a change of map, all other mechanics and characters remained the same. Imagine having to tweak subtle characteristics of every part in the game to balance them for multiple aerodynamic models. You might as well just make 2 similar but separate games...

Taken the words right out of my mouth. Sort of what I was trying to get across with "Having 2 aero models as options is overkill", it's just somewhat unsustainable and would probably end up with spaghetti code in the game before launch. Besides that, FAR shouldn't be as difficult to implement as it was with KSP 1. Intercept is building the game from the ground up and there should not be nearly as much problems as there were with fitting FAR into KSP 1. Intercept has all the money they'll need and an entire blank slate - it should be easy for them when it was possible for a single guy with no extra income to fit FAR into a game it wasn't built for.

To cap this off, I just simply don't get why having FAR from day one would end up with KSP 2 being rushed as AlinghtyR thinks I'm saying, and why we'd want KSP 1's problem of an evolving physics engine breaking rockets again when we could delay KSP 2 a few months and end up with an aero model that'll stick for longer and result in a more rigid game. Again, I completely agree with you and I don't want 2 aero models nor do I want the aero model to change between updates obsoleting stuff. I want Intercept to get it right from day one, even if it means waiting longer - it would mean a lot if things weren't breaking and physics wasn't shifting between updates.