Jump to content

Devnote Tuesdays: The "Can't Spell Kerbal without K" Edition

SQUAD

By SQUAD
in KSP1 The Daily Kerbal

 Share

Recommended Posts

Lysergic

Lysergic

Posted
Posted

Apologies HarvesteR. Good luck with no speculation. (" For now, we have to keep these things under wraps, so please bear with us and try to keep speculation to a minimum, ok?")

OK! Time to speculate (but lets keep it to a minimum as HarvesteR asked). MaxMaps said "Also, our art team is currently sequestered in what is the largest 3D asset endeavor that we have overtaken so far. So much so you won’t see it in .25, so forgive them if they’re not really sharing a lot of info on the matter."

To me, this sounds suspiciously like MOAR PLANETS!

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whirligig Girl

Whirligig Girl

Posted
Posted

They have to be careful with how they implement realistic aerodynamics. You have to not only not be hard, but you need to keep the extra 1.5 km/s dv. When I look at FAR designs (RSS being an obvious exception), They are MUCH smaller rockets for larger payloads because even though you need payload fairings, Delta-V to orbit is only 3 km/instead of 4.5.

All replacement drag models get rid of the soup of the lower atmosphere which, while realistic, is not what the gameplay needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
regex

regex

Posted
Posted (edited)
They have to be careful with how they implement realistic aerodynamics. You have to not only not be hard, but you need to keep the extra 1.5 km/s dv. When I look at FAR designs (RSS being an obvious exception), They are MUCH smaller rockets for larger payloads because even though you need payload fairings, Delta-V to orbit is only 3 km/instead of 4.5.

All replacement drag models get rid of the soup of the lower atmosphere which, while realistic, is not what the gameplay needs.

They could just adjust engine isp across the board to deal with that. Since KSP isn't realistic and uses isp as a measure of fuel flow rather than available thrust, the jump from atmosphere to space isp isn't nearly as jarring as it could be.

E: In fact, you could have atmospheric isps for rocket engines be ridiculously low (100 or so) and still have insane payload fractions, that's how silly the stock solar system is.

Edited by regex
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Andrew Hansen

Andrew Hansen

Posted
Posted
All replacement drag models get rid of the soup of the lower atmosphere which, while realistic, is not what the gameplay needs.

I don't know if it's possible to keep 4.5 km/s to orbit while having a realistic atmosphere. The other option would be to increase the density of Kerbin's atmosphere, but I'm not sure that's a good idea either. On the other hand, FAR designs seem to require a lot more speed to take off than non-FAR designs, so maybe increasing Kerbin's atmospheric density would keep the extra 1.5 km/s to orbit.

Anyway, I think working on the aerodynamics would go very well together with the spaceplane-parts overhaul they're doing. I'm hyped!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ferram4

ferram4

Posted
Posted (edited)

Frankly, if that's how they intend to implement "real" aerodynamics (with 1 km/s of drag losses because Isps can't be changed instead for unexplained reasons), then "real" aerodynamics will be terrible for gameplay and we'd be better with the stock mass-dependent model.

If they allow shape to determine aerodynamics, then the increase in forces will make many rockets even more flip-happy than with FAR / NEAR. So it'll be a lot harder.

If they allow shape to determine aero forces, but center the application of forces at the CoM to combat that, then there's inconsistent physics: shape determines forces, but not where it's applied, unless it's for wings, which are mystical force creators for no apparent reason. This will be confusing as hell for new players.

If they go with shape determining aerodynamics and where forces are applied, but then artificially stabilize it based on the vehicle's orientation to make things easier, they'll limit players to a set group of "correct" designs, far more than FAR or NEAR currently do.

Then besides that, maybe I'm alone in this, but leaving a rocket flying vertically to get out of the thick souposphere for a minute while I walk away to get a donut is not my idea of fun. There are better ways to force larger rockets, either by scaling up the planets slightly, by changing Isps, or by changing part masses. Ones that don't result in launches being boring.

Edited by ferram4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RocketPilot573

RocketPilot573

Posted
Posted

I agree that with all these wonderful spaceplane changes, improved aerodynamics are kind of important. The current system was added like, before the first version was released, and has to my knowledge not been changed since.

I think something similar to NEAR, with engines that have a lower sea level ISP to keep balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HafCoJoe

HafCoJoe

Posted
Posted (edited)

BLAME YARGNIT XD. Rowsdower I wish I could give you more rep. It was Space Plane plus! I thought the banana was becoming a joke when SQUAD voted for it on the poll. I just finished work on my eagle project just in time for my 18th birthday and Ill finally be able to relax this summer! It's been more hectic the bananahype we just had :). Thank you.

Edited by Avera9eJoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites
regex

regex

Posted
Posted
by scaling up the planets slightly

Just as a side note (not really to ferram4), if Kerbin were increased in radius by half again to 900,000m and retained the same surface gravity, you would have a 70km orbital velocity of 3440 m/s, which is roughly 1,100m/s faster than stock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rkman

rkman

Posted
Posted
Seeing Crew Manifest and Enhanced Navball ingame (well, clones thereof, I presume,

clone = copy.

I very much doubt that Squad actually copied any code from a mod in order to implement those features.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bigbadben

bigbadben

Posted
Posted

they are including enhanced navball, but I see no mention on a docking alignment indicator in the description, like in the mod 'navball docking alignment indicator'. Hope they include it, it makes docking make sense, is very minimalistic, and looks stock-ish.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/54303-0-24-Navball-docking-alignment-indicator-v4

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hary R

Hary R

Posted
Posted

Man, I just download sp+ beacaus it fit well with my near stock challange and now it will be stock...:P well that's good espacialy if they make the cagobay stock too.

As for enhanced navball, i remember the dev of this mod said it is an intended stock feature but he made the mode so peaple have it earlier, glad it really become stock now as it a very good mod.

And finaly, no more EVA transfer, another part of crew manifest going to stock. remember, before .21 was it, there were no crew selection in VAB and SPH.

Hope Near, deadly reentry, and the clouds (aka EVE) will come next...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ringotuna

Ringotuna

Posted
Posted

A better aerodynamic system would be nice, but like ferram said it would make launching rockets extremely dull and rather effortless. Perhaps Squad could add something like turbulence/wind and deadly reentry along with the improved aerodynamics to balance the difficulty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
diomedea

diomedea

Posted
Posted
A better aerodynamic system would be nice, but like ferram said it would make launching rockets extremely dull and rather effortless. Perhaps Squad could add something like turbulence/wind and deadly reentry along with the improved aerodynamics to balance the difficulty.

Let me correct this. A badly implemented aerodynamic model (as Ferram considered in his post) would make launches effortless. A better aerodynamic model (like the one in FAR) is a very different thing, is not easy to master and actually requires to build and launch rockets in a much more realistic way, certainly not easier than what is stock KSP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...