Does the Community Want Better Aerodynamics?

[Highlad]

I don't really think we need realistic aerodynamics. I like the simplicity of designing planes however, as I am mostly a rocket guy, I think that slightly better aerodynamics (so that nosecones and aerodynamic shapes are more fuel efficient) would be good.

So we don't need real aerodynamics like FAR, but it would be nice to have them re-vamped and spruced up a bit.

If anything, a feature like this should be a in-game option, not forced onto the main playerbase.

Agreed, It would be nice to have a setting to change the 'realness' of the aerodynamics.

Kerbal Space program is a space simulation duh. And its your falt for making crappy payloads. God get some sense. I say we put the aerodynamics all the way to clost to realistic.

KSP is fun because of those 'crappy payloads'. Half the fun is in the hilarity of the payload!

The current aerodynamic model is a placeholder. Just because you like it doesn't mean it was ever meant to stay

Yeah but if we like it, should it not stay?

Edited December 20, 2013 by Highlad

[Xetalim]

We should first get other important stuff like career mode done.

Better aerodynamics is more the finishing touches.

[NASAFanboy]

Yeah but to get to space you have to fly through the atmosphere. Atmospheric dynamics are an important part of rocketry and space travel itself in the first place. It influences rocket design, rocket shapes and delta V requirements.

Kerbal Space program is a space simulation duh. And its your falt for making crappy payloads. God get some sense. I say we put the aerodynamics all the way to clost to realistic.

Kerbal Space Program is a game, duh. And you have no right, whatsoever, to tell me how to play my game. Make a option, you fool, but don't force it down the throats of those who don't want it. Did you read my post? God, go to school you can actually be literate instead of bumbing around like a idiot.

Even if it is a placeholder, does that mean you have to make the community angry by removing it? The creeper was a placeholder for the pig in MC, and it was kept that way. Let the current system be, and add a ingame option in the settings.

Just don't force it down my throat.

[Guest Brody_Peffley]

Kerbal Space Program is a game, duh. And you have no right, whatsoever, to tell me how to play my game. Make a option, you fool, but don't force it down the throats of those who don't want it. Did you read my post? God, go to school you can actually be literate instead of bumbing around like a idiot.

Even if it is a placeholder, does that mean you have to make the community angry by removing it? The creeper was a placeholder for the pig in MC, and it was kept that way. Let the current system be, and add a ingame option in the settings.

Just don't force it down my throat.

And people don't like creepers now do they? Creepers just blow the crap out of your stuff. And its annoying.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

Yeah but if we like it, should it not stay?

The poll so far clearly indicates that we in fact don't like it

[I_Killed_Jeb]

Kerbal Space Program is a game, duh. And you have no right, whatsoever, to tell me how to play my game. Make a option, you fool, but don't force it down the throats of those who don't want it. Did you read my post? God, go to school you can actually be literate instead of bumbing around like a idiot.

Even if it is a placeholder, does that mean you have to make the community angry by removing it? The creeper was a placeholder for the pig in MC, and it was kept that way. Let the current system be, and add a ingame option in the settings.

Just don't force it down my throat.

Nobody in the community is angry about it, except you it seems. Simmer down pal.

[Highlad]

The poll so far clearly indicates that we in fact don't like it

Point taken.

Still, I think there should be an in-game option.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

Point taken.

Still, I think there should be an in-game option.

Options are always a good thing, though I would think that people would derive some satisfaction from knowing their designs are more realistic and rocket science-y. More importantly, I wonder how an option to toggle proper drag/lift models can be programmed into the game, or if it's feasible at all.

[Godot]

Kerbal Space Program is a game, duh. And you have no right, whatsoever, to tell me how to play my game. Make a option, you fool, but don't force it down the throats of those who don't want it. Did you read my post? God, go to school you can actually be literate instead of bumbing around like a idiot.

Even if it is a placeholder, does that mean you have to make the community angry by removing it? The creeper was a placeholder for the pig in MC, and it was kept that way. Let the current system be, and add a ingame option in the settings.

Just don't force it down my throat.

I would have guessed that, accordng to your Nick "NASA-Fanboy", you would be one of the first to embrace changes that make the game more realistic,

so you can design rockets with the same constraints as the real rocket scientists at NASA have to consider

[spudcosmic]

I don't really think we need realistic aerodynamics. I like the simplicity of designing planes however, as I am mostly a rocket guy, I think that slightly better aerodynamics (so that nosecones and aerodynamic shapes are more fuel efficient) would be good.

Please keep in mind that better, more FAR like aerodynamics would effect building rockets as much as planes. Like I said in my OP, building realistic launch stages is actually just as efficient as an asparagus launcher, and considering it is probably less complex to build a long tall tube than it is to hook up fuel lines to tons of radial tanks, it probably wouldn't be that hard to adapt. Really, the noobs of the game would catch on to it pretty quickly too. need design help? Google NASA rocket in google images, then build the coolest looking picture. When I was a noob to the game, I'm pretty sure I did that once or twice, it wasn't until I searched how to build the most efficient rockets in ksp that I found out how to build asparagus launchers, and I thought it was insane that they actually worked.

[Geschosskopf]

I voted "no" because if SQUAD ever does it, Feram would be out of a job. And we can't have that because he's done so much for us

[spudcosmic]

I voted "no" because if SQUAD ever does it, Feram would be out of a job. And we can't have that because he's done so much for us

He has so many other great mods though, and maybe SQUAD would even hire him like they did with B9 and Nova silisko.

[Guest]

I'm all for a better aerodynamic model. If we had that, FAR could perhaps shift to being a "hard mode" aerodynamics with deep stalls, airfoil simulation (would probably require Procedural Wings, to use properly) and all those things it doesn't do for "gameplay reasons". I'd certainly play that.

Currently, FAR actually makes plane design easier for me. Stock drag model is counterintuitive to someone who know a thing or two about aerodynamics, like many flightsimmers and actual aerospace engineers. When devs get around to updating aerodynamics, something like FAR will be a necessary addition. That would change the game balance quite a bit, but it's an alpha, what do you expect?

[I_Killed_Jeb]

I'm all for a better aerodynamic model. If we had that, FAR could perhaps shift to being a "hard mode" aerodynamics with deep stalls, airfoil simulation (would probably require Procedural Wings, to use properly) and all those things it doesn't do for "gameplay reasons". I'd certainly play that.

Currently, FAR actually makes plane design easier for me. Stock drag model is counterintuitive to someone who know a thing or two about aerodynamics, like many flightsimmers and actual aerospace engineers. When devs get around to updating aerodynamics, something like FAR will be a necessary addition. That would change the game balance quite a bit, but it's an alpha, what do you expect?

Even for the folks who know nothing about fluid dynamics, the fact that wings completely clipped into the fuselage generate lift should immediately strike them as problematic

[spectrhz]

Yes, very yes. Especially with those wonderful Rapier engines, which are the ducks guts. We need aerodynamics to match

[jcraft]

I voted "no" because if SQUAD ever does it, Feram would be out of a job. And we can't have that because he's done so much for us

Ferram can do other things - his mod isn't something that keeping him alive after all. Besides - he already maintains few other good mods. And don't get me wrong - he is doing great job with FAR but I rather have core game element like proper aerodynamic model to be a part of a stock game rather than a mod.

[Daze]

Definitively yes + stock fairing

[ArmchairGravy]

Show me a fairing that will house these. Why do you want to suck the fun out of my game?

[Sid]

This reminds me of the saying " Be careful what you wish for " - realistic aerodynamics will make it impossible to build those crazy " moar struts, moar boosters " asparagus staged monstrosities that so many people like. Well, you'll be able to build them, but they'll disintegrate in flight.

That wouldn't bother me personally, because I'm into real world style rockets - but it would remove a lot of the fun for people who like building insane contraptions. And I think everyone would agree that KSP is about fun.

Now if it would be possible to switch 'advanced aerodynamics' off, then that would be the best of both worlds. I just don't know if that would be possible for the devs to do in terms of complexity or whatever. I'm no programmer...

[Geschosskopf]

Show me a fairing that will house these. Why do you want to suck the fun out of my game?

+1. If you want realism, go play Orbiter. But do not turn my beloved KSP into Orbiter.

[Murph]

Show me a fairing that will house these. Why do you want to suck the fun out of my game?

The "Procedural Fairings" mod would probably cope with them.

[Vrana]

Show me a fairing that will house these. Why do you want to suck the fun out of my game?

You are scared of FAR for no reason(at least as FAR is now). It not THAT hard or realistic but it is a huge improvment over what we have in stock.

I launched this under FAR

Javascript is disabled. View full album

And this...

Javascript is disabled. View full album

And this...

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I did this before i modded the game but i can guarantee i can launch all componenets with FAR nowdays. Sure its harder then under stock. And takes MORE dV then stock model but lets face it after a certain point the stock game becomes much too easy.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I could go on but you get the picutre.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Vrana

[ArmchairGravy]

Hey, look, you're using mods to turn on advanced aerodynamics. People want a way to have it in the game, and perhaps be able to toggle it? It's called installing and uninstalling a mod. Sheesh.

[Daze]

Hey, look, you're using mods to turn on advanced aerodynamics. People want a way to have it in the game, and perhaps be able to toggle it? It's called installing and uninstalling a mod. Sheesh.

Yes but if one day Feram will stop to work at FAR we won't have aerodynamic anymore...

[Maxwell Fern]

I never understood the forum poll choice "I have no opinion".

If you have no opinion, don't vote.