Exactly how bad is the aerodynamic model in KSP?

[WafflesToo]

<strike>There have been 23 updates, we're still waiting Squad...</strike>

<strike>We would all be extremely pleased if the aerodynamic modelling were updated ever so slightly, if you get a spare minute to maybe look into it in the next six years or so. Take your time.</strike>

Look, guys, seriously my initial remark really was intended as a good-natured jab at Squad over this. But ignoring a problem is not a good way to handle anything. As this conversation has progressed I think a good number of us are starting to realize that by delaying a fix that Squad is digging a really bad hole for themselves here and we the community are actually doing them a disservice by looking the other way. Edited June 13, 2014 by WafflesToo
stuck comment made due to misplaced anger.

[WeatherMAN]

You could be a little kinder in your request and a little less demanding sounding. If you read their update notes they are finishing their scope-completion and after that comes optimization, improvements and more content. So you won't likely see any major aerodynamic overhaul until a few more updates at least. Maybe use Ferram Aerospace Research in the interim?

[LordQ]

Good video. Not sure how much it matters in the stock aerodynamics model, but where is the center of lift on that probe?

[WafflesToo]

Good video. Not sure how much it matters in the stock aerodynamics model, but where is the center of lift on that probe?

Well, the CoM is in the front-third of the vehicle; it's basically built like a badminton bird so I really don't understand why KSP's aerodynamics would decide that flying side-on would be the most stable position for it :rollseyes:

[Sirine]

You could be a little kinder in your request and a little less demanding sounding.

Agree.

To OP. Squad does not owe you anything. Or does you donate a fair amount of $ for their development? Or contribution? Or support of any kind?

If fact, are you playing a genuine copy of KSP?

[WafflesToo]

Agree.

To OP. Squad does not owe you anything. Or does you donate a fair amount of $ for their development? Or contribution? Or support of any kind?

If fact, are you playing a genuine copy of KSP?

Your logic is infallible, you win forever because as we all know the best way to fix any sort of problem is to never ever say or do anything about it whatsoever

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

Your logic is infallible, you win forever because as we all know the best way to fix any sort of problem is to never ever say or do anything about it whatsoever

I believe you mean with "as we all know" just "I know"...

You are demanding the right to rip an unfinished Piece of Software to pieces which is absolutely unfair to the developer Team.

[Kasuha]

When testing aerodynamic model, I suggest to turn off DRE since it tends to obfuscate results.

I also suggest to not rely on your experience from real world.

Stock KSP aerodynamics work kind of like gravity - drag is proportional to mass and drag coefficient, so all parts with the same drag coefficient undergo the same deceleration (in m/s2). In result they're not turning the ship anywhere.

Parts with lower drag coefficient undergo proportionally lower deceleration so they're being pulled to the front.

Parts with higher drag coefficient undergo proportionally higher deceleration so they're being pulled to the back.

If you're not happy with it, there's always FAR.

[Hodo]

When testing aerodynamic model, I suggest to turn off DRE since it tends to obfuscate results.

I also suggest to not rely on your experience from real world.

Stock KSP aerodynamics work kind of like gravity - drag is proportional to mass and drag coefficient, so all parts with the same drag coefficient undergo the same deceleration (in m/s2). In result they're not turning the ship anywhere.

Parts with lower drag coefficient undergo proportionally lower deceleration so they're being pulled to the front.

Parts with higher drag coefficient undergo proportionally higher deceleration so they're being pulled to the back.

If you're not happy with it, there's always FAR.

I think you are mistaken...

KSPs aerodynamics work kind of like syrup. To the OP I highly suggest dumping the stock KSP hydrodynamic model and getting FAR. I have had it since I downloaded the game, and I have never looked back.

[Kasuha]

I think you are mistaken...

KSPs aerodynamics work kind of like syrup.

I'm pretty sure my description is more accurate than yours. Using FAR is of course an option and I'm far from suggesting that stock aerodynamic model is 'good' or 'realistic' but if you understand how it works, you can use that knowledge to your benefit.

My ships spend absolute majority of their flight time in vacuum anyway, atmosphere is just a small hindrance between space and surface on some bodies. I don't need to roleplay 'real world' and fight additional problems when transferring my ships between these two important locations.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Kasuha

[cantab]

This is wilfully dishonest. You are trying to make it look like the bad stock aerodynamics will result in your probe breaking, when that only occurs because YOU installed a mod that makes it break. And when you haven't even shown that your probe would survive if it faced the way you want.

[YukiCruentus]

Doesn't DRE add heat tiles to the bottom of most of the pods and make them naturally want to lift in such a way to put said tiles in the direction of the heat coming towards it? Also considering that you have DRE wouldn't the logical idea be to put a tile on the front facing the atmo, pretty sure your ship will still burn unless you have the 2.5 or large model but at least you could get more appropriate flight data for what you are wanting to do than this attempt. Really from the look of it you just threw together what you knew would fall apart just to have a soap box to stand on.

[WafflesToo]

You'all are missing the point. The probe exploding isn't the point, the probe exploding is comedy. -_^

The point is that despite being shaped and weighted like a lawn-dart this thing is only aerodynamically stable flying sideways into the jetstream because of the wonky way KSP handles aerodynamics (KSP sees everything as spheres). Squad is on record multiple times having said that the aerodynamic model is a temporary placeholder and that it will be updated. That was two years ago and here it is still holding that place so why is it so out of line to try and put it back on their radar?

(and yes, I know about heatshields. There are two stacked on the leading edge of the probe, and yes it survives just fine when flown manually to maintain heading, but that wasn't the point either, and yes, it flies with perfect stability in FAR, but guess what, also not the point). I don't understand why everyone gets so defensive whenever someone points out this walrus sitting on the coffee table.

I don't want a walrus on my coffee table...

[Hodo]

I'm pretty sure my description is more accurate than yours. Using FAR is of course an option and I'm far from suggesting that stock aerodynamic model is 'good' or 'realistic' but if you understand how it works, you can use that knowledge to your benefit.

My ships spend absolute majority of their flight time in vacuum anyway, atmosphere is just a small hindrance between space and surface on some bodies. I don't need to roleplay 'real world' and fight additional problems when transferring my ships between these two important locations.

Man I need to start tagging things when I am being sarcastic.

Sorry most of your craft spend their time in space. That is no longer and option for me as I have gone all Realism Overhaul so the need for a good aerodynamic model is a must. But even when I wasn't RO, the base Kerbin which is roughly 1/3rd the size of Earth is still pretty big. I still could not wrap my head around the terrible aerodynamic model and how you could basically shoot a barn on the end of a rocket in to space without any form of fairing or aerodynamic shielding. This is why the asparagus launchers were so popular, yet in real life they would be spectacular bombs.

[nobbers12345]

I don't see how it flipping front ways first is a problem, considering your COM was pretty close to the top. You essentially threw a shuttlecock from orbit, it is always going to go that way since COM is a lot further from your wanted forward facing surface.

Along with that, don't sound demanding, the developing team puts loads of time and effort into the game, and hell, they've already done absolute buttloads to get the game where it is now.

If you have a real problem, get FAR.

[MR4Y]

People are either overly sensitive or with their fanboys flags held high up.

How is this post demanding in any way?

[Hodo]

People are either overly sensitive or with their fanboys flags held high up.

How is this post demanding in any way?

Oh I know... if you argue to much with them or call them out on it they will hit the report button faster than Bob would hit the abort button.

[MR4Y]

Oh I know... if you argue to much with them or call them out on it they will hit the report button faster than Bob would hit the abort button.

Except the abort button doesn't do anything.

[Eric S]

Squad is on record multiple times having said that the aerodynamic model is a temporary placeholder and that it will be updated. That was two years ago and here it is still holding that place so why is it so out of line to try and put it back on their radar?

I look forward to the day they replace that placeholder. But right now, they're working on things that don't even have placeholders, like budgets.

[MR4Y]

I look forward to the day they replace that placeholder. But right now, they're working on things that don't even have placeholders, like budgets.

Everything they're working on will eventually be a placeholder at some point. Alpha is where you implement features.

[Tex]

Squad is on record multiple times having said that the aerodynamic model is a temporary placeholder and that it will be updated. That was two years ago

Yes, and did they state how long it would be before it is updated? No. Actually, according to the latest devnotes (and underlying links) they say that optimizations will take place after every major gameplay element is completed. *ahem* Aerodynamicmodelsincluded *ahem*

We all get what you're saying, and you're not the first person to say it. WE UNDERSTAND. Be patient. If you're not happy with the game, publicly bashing SQUAD for their already-amazing game is the worst way to go about it. Get a mod if you're soooo wanting a fix. Most of all, you will have to wait for a fix, just like the rest of us.

[Hodo]

Except the abort button doesn't do anything.

Does on my craft... I have my cockpit/capsule attached to a decoupler and a few radial sepatrons all cued to the Abort button so if things go bad, I jettison the crew and it blows clear of the craft, then I deploy the parachutes and land safeish to the ground.

[MR4Y]

Yes, and did they state how long it would be before it is updated? No. Actually, according to the latest devnotes (and underlying links) they say that optimizations will take place after every major gameplay element is completed. *ahem* Aerodynamicmodelsincluded *ahem*

We all get what you're saying, and you're not the first person to say it. WE UNDERSTAND. Be patient. If you're not happy with the game, publicly bashing SQUAD for their already-amazing game is the worst way to go about it. Get a mod if you're soooo wanting a fix. Most of all, you will have to wait for a fix, just like the rest of us.

Essentially how long they're gonna be jumping between Alpha and Beta?

Also, your suggestion for problem solving might be THE WORST suggestion ever. People can have whatever opinion they want. You're not a spokesperson for SQUAD and if any of the supersensitive people around here feel offedended by anything, they'll either warn the person or delete the post. Period.

[regex]

Exactly how bad is the aerodynamic model in KSP?

Utter crap.

[MR4Y]

Does on my craft... I have my cockpit/capsule attached to a decoupler and a few radial sepatrons all cued to the Abort button so if things go bad, I jettison the crew and it blows clear of the craft, then I deploy the parachutes and land safeish to the ground.

It does on your craft because you made it do something. By default, it doesn't do anything.