Concerned about KSP2 aerodynamics

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Now that I see Aziz's post I remember the atmosphere density bar when looking at rockets.  Or maybe I was only looking at it w/r/t parachutes! 

I don't remember 'feeling' my aircraft behave differently though.  Maybe they did. 

I do think that there was a difference in how engines performed.  But what I don't remember was 'feeling' lift and performance changes.  

Shrug.  It's been a long time since I have played. 

[The Aziz]

I mean, the higher you go, the more useless wings become. I could shutdown the engines and still turn and pitch the aircraft with immediate results at 5km, as long as there's enough speed. At 30km, not so much. 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

6 hours ago, The Aziz said:

I mean, the higher you go, the more useless wings become. I could shutdown the engines and still turn and pitch the aircraft with immediate results at 5km, as long as there's enough speed. At 30km, not so much. 

Thanks.  I'm just trying to get a frame of reference to understand all the quibbling over the flight model.  I remember planes being fun in my first run-through, but barely used them the second time I played a campaign.

And like I wrote: i'm far from current on KSP's issues.

[KerikBalm]

IMO, the biggest hinderence to having more realistic aerodynamics in KSP1 was the lego-like aspect of wing building, and the floppyness of wings parts attached to wing parts attached to wing parts.

Now that they have procedural wings,I am very much in favor of a more realistic aero-model.

Of course, there are still limits, we can't do "coke-bottle" or "Wasp-waist" parts either to do better area-ruling, so, there should be some limits to aero-realism, recognizing that there are limits to the build process

[GoldForest]

34 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

IMO, the biggest hinderence to having more realistic aerodynamics in KSP1 was the lego-like aspect of wing building, and the floppyness of wings parts attached to wing parts attached to wing parts.

Now that they have procedural wings,I am very much in favor of a more realistic aero-model.

Of course, there are still limits, we can't do "coke-bottle" or "Wasp-waist" parts either to do better area-ruling, so, there should be some limits to aero-realism, recognizing that there are limits to the build process

You mean you are not going to attach procedural wings to procedural wings to procedural wings? 

Tbh, the limit for the wings looks quite small. Of course, that could have just been a medium wing we saw when they were showing off the procedural wings. But if we don't have any airline sized procedural wings, I picture people still stacking wings on wings. Not to the extent of KSP 1, but it will still happen for sure. 

Edited November 30, 2022 by GoldForest

[KerikBalm]

5 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

You mean you are going to attach procedural wings to procedural wings to procedural wings? 

Tbh, the limit for the wings looks quite small. Of course, that could have just been a medium wing we saw when they were showing off the procedural wings. But if we don't have any airline sized procedural wings, I picture people still stacking wings on wings. Not to the extent of KSP 1, but it will still happen for sure. 

Well, what I ended up doing was attaching a bunch of wings to heavy parts, and then using the part offset tool to move them out, so the wing parts aren't actually attached to one another here:

I'm not sure how FAR would interpret this. Also I think it improves computational performance, because there are fewer "links in the chain" of forces. Each wing applies a force just to a part that is very close to the root, as opposed to having to compute a long chain of forces and wings bending, whatever.

I'm not sure on this though.

Even my lower part count 2.stage designs (for scaled up kerbin, anywhere from 3-6.4x), I'm really not happy with the wing options:

Spoiler

In this one, seen without the top mounted upper stage, I use a fairing as a fusalage, so at least there I could do some area ruling:

 

[GoldForest]

@KerikBalm Good lord... Yeah, that's a mess and a half if I've seen one. 

I think FAR calculates the physical wing, and not the attachment, so no need to worry about it being offset. 

Also, I forgot to add a word to my first post. I meant to say, 

25 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

You mean you are not going to attach procedural wings to procedural wings to procedural wings?