Exactly how bad is the aerodynamic model in KSP?

[Gambi]

I went to all the pages of this thread, and I'm susprised that:

1) I couldn't find any response from the dev team/community manager/mods

Which only confirms that SQUAD doesn't really care about community criticism, and prefers wasting time adding world cup mods than actually fixing what needs to be fixed.

2) the mods haven't locked this thread yet

usually, any thread with criticism of the game, the develoment process or the lack of communication from the dev team gets locked in a matter of seconds.

Concerning the aerodynamics model, why bother having nosecone parts and general aerodynamics parts if these thing go against general logic?

And now that C7 left, I don't expect any spaceplane part overhaul before the next ice age (I'm looking at you MkII cockpit IVA), or loading times getting optimized.

Before adding new features, it's commons sense to make sure that the core of a game is working properly. And sadly for KSP, this isn't the case.

Multiplayer? In a sandbox game?

How about figuring out the wobble and fixing the ressources system?

[RidingTheFlow]

I went to all the pages of this thread, and I'm susprised that:

1) I couldn't find any response from the dev team/community manager/mods

You missed it, here is the one, and it acknowledges the problem (though I'd find "placeholder works good enough" bit alarming).

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/82842-Exactly-how-bad-is-the-aerodynamic-model-in-KSP?p=1210627&viewfull=1#post1210627

Personally I don't really care about hypersonic shock, how drag is exact and such.

All I want, is that tube which heavy in the front and light in the back flies forward. This is basics of cavemen aerodynamic design which even children know when they launch paper airplanes.

Edited June 13, 2014 by RidingTheFlow

[Gambi]

I shouldnt have included forum mods as the qualified people to respond gameplay/development question.

[cpast]

Fair enough, although I worry that throwing compressibility, hypersonic shock, and multi-axial coupling modes at someone still learning their way around the VAB might be a little bit overwhelming. I suppose it comes down to how realistic you want a realistic flight model to be . I think that a model that allows a passivly stable aerodynamic structure to be intuitively constructed (as apposed to having to 'game-the-system') would be a very nice starting point for most new players.

Perhaps allowing scalability of the difficulty would be desirable so players can decide on the level of challenge they want to experience? Or, maybe I'm overthinking this and it really isn't as difficult as I think it is. It's hard to judge as someone who already knows.

I don't think aerodynamics should be a built-in difficulty level. Anything that is relevant in sandbox mode shouldn't be subject to difficulty settings; difficulty is a more game-y element, and belongs with the more game-y mode (career). That said, I agree that intuitiveness with at least some connection to reality is the most important property; fairings should reduce drag, pancakes shouldn't fly, and I shouldn't be able to suddenly change direction at high speed. But a given craft should fly the same way on any stock install.

I went to all the pages of this thread, and I'm susprised that:

1) I couldn't find any response from the dev team/community manager/mods

Which only confirms that SQUAD doesn't really care about community criticism, and prefers wasting time adding world cup mods than actually fixing what needs to be fixed.

Or that they're aware of the issue, that they don't have this issue at the top of their priority list, and that they have better things to do than reply in the eleventy bajillionth thread about aerodynamics.

And now that C7 left, I don't expect any spaceplane part overhaul before the next ice age (I'm looking at you MkII cockpit IVA), or loading times getting optimized.

Actually, isn't Hugo (the intern) working on spaceplane part overhaul? I feel like I heard that somewhere.

Before adding new features, it's commons sense to make sure that the core of a game is working properly. And sadly for KSP, this isn't the case.

Many features they're adding are core. Contracts are essential to making career really distinct from sandbox; without budget, there's no reason to care about efficiency of designs. That's core. Aero works strangely, and has no connection with real aerodynamics. That doesn't make it the only important thing, though.

[RocketPilot573]

I think that aerodynamics really should be right after career (like .25). It's definitely an important core feature. Ask any person at NASA or something and ask them "How important are aerodynamics when designing a rocket?" Probably pretty important.

[Red Iron Crown]

Actually, isn't Hugo (the intern) working on spaceplane part overhaul? I feel like I heard that somewhere.

He said that he's working on some existing parts, it's not confirmed which. A lot of people jumped to the conclusion that it's spaceplane parts and IVAs but I don't think that's confirmed.

[weezl]

This is a damn good point! Why does Squad keep giving us a half-finished game? We paid our money for an as-is product, so they should give us the finished product now!

Is this sarcasm? I can't tell. I'll assume its not for now.. and in that light, my response:

Buying something As-is means just that.. AS IT EXISTS RIGHT NOW. Which means you have zero leg to stand on to complain about anything. In latin they would say: Caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware. Want a full release product? Don't buy it until it goes full release.

Anyone agitating for whatever they want done to the product has every right to agitate, these board don't prevent that. But the terms of the purchase with Squad are very simple.. Squad delivers what they want when they want. And what you bought is what you bought. Period. Full stop.

I'm not saying Squad is ignoring the community.. far from it.. from the communications I've seen they are paying close attention. But they don't have to listen to any one voice per the agreement.. and that is absolutely the correct stance, especially in game development. I've seen many games where there is a very small but highly vocal (and frequently immature) minority that can push your game in the wrong direction if you just listen to them. Shooters are especially prone to this. Every game developer has that reality at the front of their mind when interacting with a community. They are building a game for a large potential customer base, not just for the folks who take time to post on forums. The kiddies don't like hearing this.. but its the real deal.

Finally..

When posting on the internet.. keep this in mind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

If you were being sarcastic.. its very easy to miss when things are in print.. remember that lots of folks post on the internet that have the reasoning capabilities of a hamster..

Edited June 13, 2014 by weezl

[Pulstar]

He said that he's working on some existing parts, it's not confirmed which. A lot of people jumped to the conclusion that it's spaceplane parts and IVAs but I don't think that's confirmed.

It was mentioned in a squadcast two or three weeks back, Maxmaps specifically said that the plane parts are going to get redone and that the Intern is going to work on them. Sadly the said squadcast is gone from the past broadcasts on KSP TV. But I remember rewinding and playing that bit a few times over to be sure I heard it correctly.

Also it's not like it is hard to guess which parts need a revamp the most. There's a clear gap in quality between the plane parts and everything else ever since old parts started getting revamps around 0.18.

[Red Iron Crown]

It was mentioned in a squadcast two or three weeks back, Maxmaps specifically said that the plane parts are going to get redone and that the Intern is going to work on them. Sadly the said squadcast is gone from the past broadcasts on KSP TV. But I remember rewinding and playing that bit a few times over to be sure I heard it correctly.

Also it's not like it is hard to guess which parts need a revamp the most. There's a clear gap in quality between the plane parts and everything else ever since old parts started getting revamps around 0.18.

I don't watch the Squadcasts, thanks for that info.

[Kasuha]

Also it's not like it is hard to guess which parts need a revamp the most. There's a clear gap in quality between the plane parts and everything else ever since old parts started getting revamps around 0.18.

IMO what's needed the most are IVAs for most cockpits (and lab module). But that has nothing to do with aerodynamics.

[Rowsdower]

Hi there. Community Manager here. I'm a member of Squad. I may not have responded to the thread, but I certainly have kept tabs of it. I'm glad that things are getting back on point here. Please keep them that way.

[Jouni]

After playing with FAR for a few hours, I got the impression that realistic aerodynamics make the game easier for beginners. Build a rocket that looks like a rocket, and it'll most likely go to space after a couple of attempts. Pretty much anything has enough delta-v to reach orbit, unlike with stock aerodynamics.

When the aerodynamics are eventually updated, we're going to need a bigger Kerbin. Otherwise staged rockets are going to be obsolete.

[Duxwing]

After playing with FAR for a few hours, I got the impression that realistic aerodynamics make the game easier for beginners. Build a rocket that looks like a rocket, and it'll most likely go to space after a couple of attempts. Pretty much anything has enough delta-v to reach orbit, unlike with stock aerodynamics.

And that ease is good because the Space Age has given almost everyone beginning KSP an intuition about rocket design.

When the aerodynamics are eventually updated, we're going to need a bigger Kerbin. Otherwise staged rockets are going to be obsolete.

Staging is already obsolete for all but the largest payloads because of the 3.75 meter parts: the only reason to stage until budgets arrive is aesthetic.

-Duxwing

[cpast]

And that ease is good because the Space Age has given almost everyone beginning KSP an intuition about rocket design.

Staging is already obsolete for all but the largest payloads because of the 3.75 meter parts: the only reason to stage until budgets arrive is aesthetic.

-Duxwing

Staging isn't obsolete if you don't like overbuilding designs. Once budgets appear, there is strong incentive to build cheaply, and that means, among other things, not using massive single stages on small payloads.

[Jouni]

Staging is already obsolete for all but the largest payloads because of the 3.75 meter parts: the only reason to stage until budgets arrive is aesthetic.

The difference between 3200-3500 m/s to orbit and 4500-4700 m/s to orbit is huge. Take pretty much any reasonable efficiency measure (for example, budgets), and staged rockets are going to be clearly more efficient than single-stage rockets with stock aerodynamics. Lower the delta-v requirements to below 3500 m/s, and it becomes much less clear, whether staging can help with efficiency.

[m4v]

After playing with FAR for a few hours, I got the impression that realistic aerodynamics make the game easier for beginners. Build a rocket that looks like a rocket, and it'll most likely go to space after a couple of attempts. Pretty much anything has enough delta-v to reach orbit, unlike with stock aerodynamics.

When the aerodynamics are eventually updated, we're going to need a bigger Kerbin. Otherwise staged rockets are going to be obsolete.

This is my whole problem with FAR. Putting a payload in orbit IRL is not easy, if realistic aerodynamics make the whole task easier then it doesn't feel real and I wouldn't call it realistic. You don't need a bigger Kerbin though (nobody wants to spend 15 minutes to only reach orbit), you need to adjust the aero model.

[RidingTheFlow]

Another option is make air resistance larger, to keep delta-v roughly the same as it now for average rocket as it now.

[cpast]

This is my whole problem with FAR. Putting a payload in orbit IRL is not easy, if realistic aerodynamics make the whole task easier then it doesn't feel real and I wouldn't call it realistic. You don't need a bigger Kerbin though (nobody wants to spend 15 minutes to only reach orbit), you need to adjust the aero model.

Right, but atmosphere isn't why it's hard to reach orbit on Earth - it's because the Earth is so big (and, yes, the atmosphere matters a bit, because it means stable orbits have to be hundreds of km up, but that's also the case in any proposed KSP atmospheric system). Atmospheric drag isn't a huge issue, delta v-wise; I think I read somewhere it's only a few hundred m/s on Earth, out of a 10 km/s total delta v to LEO.

Atmosphere isn't a good way to compensate for scale. Changing engine and tank performance is a good way to compensate for scale.

[rkman]

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

The OP is outright disrespectful, with its condescending attitude. I suppose you can do that outside of the ksp forums, but not like this. Does the op think it would help in getting Squad to do what he wants?

I doubt the op would address members of Squad like that if it would be in person.

Why not show show the same respect when you address people via the internet?

[WafflesToo]

Another option is make air resistance larger, to keep delta-v roughly the same as it now for average rocket as it now.

I thought about that too... unfortunatly I don't know if you can really do that without causing unintended problems somewhere else because I understand that drag and lift are related to one another mathmatically. It may not have an easy solution and balance may need to be redone to accept LKO only being 3.5 - 4.0 Km/s away, I really don't know.

Ferram doesn't frequent these boards very often does he? I would seriously be interested in hearing what he has to say on the matter if only for our own benefit.

[razark]

Is this sarcasm? I can't tell.

...

If you were being sarcastic.. its very easy to miss when things are in print.. remember that lots of folks post on the internet that have the reasoning capabilities of a hamster..

See: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/82842-Exactly-how-bad-is-the-aerodynamic-model-in-KSP?p=1211253&viewfull=1#post1211253

My view on this is that I paid for an unfinished product, with the full understanding that Squad has the right to take my money, walk away, and never even give this thing a second thought. I also understand that some parts will be updated at different times, that Squad can only do so much at one time, that some updates may not be clear just from looking at it, that customers don't always understand the difference between a minor and a major change, and that as a system becomes more complex, adding to it becomes more complex as well. I'm happy to have what I have now. The amount I paid for the game is rather small, and compared to the hours I've gotten out of it, I have absolutely nothing to complain about. There are things that I'd like fixed, things I'd like added, and things will be added that I disagree with, and I accept these facts. I also trust that Squad cares about their product, and has made design decisions based on what they would like to see as a finished product.

I remember the days when I found out about new games by walking the shelves at a store, patches were extremely rare, and my communication with a game company used an envelope and a stamp. Near instant communication is a wonder, but patience seems to be one of the virtues that the internet has helped destroy.

[cantab]

My understanding is that one of the bigger "buffs" currently is that air pressure makes engines consume more fuel, when for real rockets it would instead make them produce less thrust. Also, a brief look over wiki reveals more variation in Isp range for real engines than for KSP's. For example the RD-170 has an Isp of 310/340 s sea level/vacuum, and consequently very little dropoff in thrust, while the J-2 - "prototype" for the game's KR-2L - has an Isp of 200/420, consequently producing less than half the thrust at sea level that it can in vacuum.

We've seen a bit of this variety in the ARM engines, and I really hope it can be expanded on. Even with modest delta-V requirements to get into orbit, if some engines are clearly at their best at low altitudes and others only come into their own near space then that increases the benefits of staging.

[karolus10]

My understanding is that one of the bigger "buffs" currently is that air pressure makes engines consume more fuel, when for real rockets it would instead make them produce less thrust. Also, a brief look over wiki reveals more variation in Isp range for real engines than for KSP's. For example the RD-170 has an Isp of 310/340 s sea level/vacuum, and consequently very little dropoff in thrust, while the J-2 - "prototype" for the game's KR-2L - has an Isp of 200/420, consequently producing less than half the thrust at sea level that it can in vacuum.

Actually you came very close to the point, smaller universe is only one side of the medal and lower ÃŽâ€v requirements allow for larger payload fraction making rocket building easier (you use smaller rockets in KSP) and make travel shorter... "balancing" the game by increasing ÃŽâ€v neededs or making rockets with proportionally inferior performance aren't the way IMHO.

Few engines mechanics are one of reasons why getting to orbit is easier (especially visible with ARM engines) as thrust/atmospheric pressure is opposite from real life - In normal situation fuel consumption would be equal on every altitude, but thrust is depending from engine optimal altitude (it's getting weaker above and bellow optimal pressure).

This mean (extreme conditions) that vacuum-only engine would be weak (or flame-off) on the launchpad and first stage engines work best at launch and get worse with altitude... this one of reasons why staging is so essential (also areospikes don't had best ISP, but had similar thrust on every altitude - important factor for space-planes).

Other problems with engines is limited throttling (~20-50% or even none) and adding restarting feature is getting much harder and costly (or just not feasible for it's size) with larger engines.

Most engines work only once and don't start again after being turned off, so they're discarded with stage and another stage start next burn.

This mechanics could also bring more complex choices (that would be unlocked with tech progressing in career) and content as one engine design (even if looking nearly the same) can had multiple versions (as tweak-ables of base version) with different features that would be more advanced than basic version (like LV-30 with minimal throttling, medium altitude and no restart) but they would be trade-offs in performance (better in some condition) and price for more complex part (career).

Also one of "balancing features" already in place is kerbals physiology/body proportions that doesn't allow to scale down crew compartments as much like other rocket parts, (real spacecrafts scaled down to kerbin scale would not fit kerbals inside) so they had to be proportionally bigger and heavier when compared to other parts of the rocket.

EDIT_1: Also I believe that a lot of demands and disappointment exist because of not understanding concept of "early access" release, unlike classic pre-order's you don't pay for finished game, but for access to current available version and free updates until full release (AKA KSP v1.0) when it came out.

Edited June 14, 2014 by karolus10

[Gambi]

until full release (AKA KSP v1.0) when it came out.

If it ever cames out. With this update rate our grandchildren will be enjoying .25

[m4v]

If it ever cames out. With this update rate our grandchildren will be enjoying .25

uh-huh, says some internet nobody that knows nothing about programming.