Resources and a new Aero model coming.

[Aethon]

Max on twitter.

https://twitter.com/maxmaps

[NecroBones]

Awesome.

[Norpo]

What? The two features I really want?

Why, this is just

I can't imagine the modding potential with the resources, and maybe the aerodynamics (engines that run solely on certain "raw" materials, perhaps? converters? who knows!)

[SkyRex94]

good news

[Maxwell Fern]

My 2 cents on a new, more realistic aerodynamics model: the hard part with such a model, such as FAR, is not the aerodynamic itself, but simply keeping control of your craft. If Squad releases a realistic model alongside an overhauled SAS (or any kind of new piloting control) that helps you not put your craft in stalling (not pulling too hard) while letting you use it at its maximum ability, I don't see anyone being unhappy about it.

It all gets back to good designing, and I cant wait for it

[LameLefty]

My 2 cents on a new, more realistic aerodynamics model: the hard part with such a model, such as FAR, is not the aerodynamic itself, but simply keeping control of your craft. If Squad releases a realistic model alongside an overhauled SAS (or any kind of new piloting control) that helps you not put your craft in stalling (not pulling too hard) while letting you use it at its maximum ability, I don't see anyone being unhappy about it.

It all gets back to good designing, and I cant wait for it

I can't see Squad doing something as complex as FAR, with its myriad data display and build/estimate tools. But a simpler system that uses the same concepts but easier for the end-user would be great. Something like Ferram's more idiot-proof NEAR? Yeah, that's the ticket.

[cantab]

Wow, not what I was expecting from the next update, though I knew Squad were thinking about aero.

IMHO the basic aerodynamics should be as accurate as reasonably possible. KSP, after all, gets its core gameplay from realistic physics. But I could get behind not including the weakness that FAR's aerodynamic failures do, and I don't think we'll see the analysis tools in stock. (Perhaps Ferram will do a mod that's FAR's analysis tools run against the new stock aero.)

Edited December 19, 2014 by cantab

[White Owl]

The problem lies not with balancing the difficulty in realistic aerodynamics, but with communicating information to players who aren't aerospace engineers. The game needs a system to display exactly what forces are acting on exactly which parts of the vehicle at any given moment.

I strongly believe that if any player can see and understand why the vehicle is doing something, and can also see and understand what can be done different to fix the problem, then even somebody completely ignorant of aerodynamics could learn to design stable and pilot controllably in perfectly realistic aerodynamics, mach effects and all.

The physics is not the difficulty. Education is. Oh, and that little problem with air being mostly invisible.

[Daze]

I'm crying of joy.

[Norpo]

The problem lies not with balancing the difficulty in realistic aerodynamics, but with communicating information to players who aren't aerospace engineers. The game needs a system to display exactly what forces are acting on exactly which parts of the vehicle at any given moment...

Hm, this strikes me as an incredibly good idea, but incredibly hard to execute...

Maybe a mod that displays a 3D arrow in the direction of lift, and maybe where most of the drag is going (big red arrow?)

This is all coming from someone who doesn't know squat about aerodynamics, so i'm probably grossly over-simplifying things.

It's a good idea, i'm just not sure how it should be executed (a UI designer would be great to weigh in here )

Anyhow, I think a NEAR-like aerodynamics model is what squad would go with. Of course, I think it should also have SOME aerodynamic failures but maybe a tad more forgiving than FAR, if you go really really fast without any consideration for aerodynamics, you should get the appropriate effect (rapid dis-assembly). That said, we need fairings first, before we go with any extreme aerodynamic models that would mess with rockets.

[cantab]

The problem lies not with balancing the difficulty in realistic aerodynamics, but with communicating information to players who aren't aerospace engineers. The game needs a system to display exactly what forces are acting on exactly which parts of the vehicle at any given moment.

Now this is a good point. FAR already has the lift and drag tinting, but I've not found it that informative. Norpo's idea would be helpful too I think, at least for small craft (for big ones with lots of wing pieces you'd get a forest of arrows).

[klgraham1013]

I'd love to see a wind tunnel in KSP. Your craft could float with inand 3D aeros could show forces being applied. The aero size and animation could differ due to the amount of force. Sliders would allow the player to adjust speed, atmospheric pressure, and angle of attack, among other things. Something a bit more visual than FAR's analysis tools. Just a thought. I'm no aerospace engineer but I try!

[Wjolcz]

YES!

I hope we get 3 different aero models to choose from, so everyone's happy.

I'd love to see a wind tunnel in KSP. Your craft could float with inand 3D aeros could show forces being applied. The aero size and animation could differ due to the amount of force. Sliders would allow the player to adjust speed, atmospheric pressure, and angle of attack, among other things. Something a bit more visual than FAR's analysis tools. Just a thought. I'm no aerospace engineer but I try!

Rep to you, Sir! Great idea!

[spinomonkey]

Whaaaaa- that's awesome news. Resources are a huge deal- they'll change how the game is fundamentally played. My bud and I used to say we're too different types of players: He'd slap a bunch of boosters to a capsule and point himself at Duna, where I'd instead build a orbital Mun Station with fuel. I imagine I can't be the only one who will benefit from this update!

[federicoaa]

Hope Ferram gets hired to implement the aerodynamic rework, he deserves it

[Hodo]

I can't see Squad doing something as complex as FAR, with its myriad data display and build/estimate tools. But a simpler system that uses the same concepts but easier for the end-user would be great. Something like Ferram's more idiot-proof NEAR? Yeah, that's the ticket.

I don't understand why people find all that difficult. If you don't understand it, dont use those tools, you can still build an affective aircraft without using them. There is not a HUGE difference between FAR and NEAR.

[Van Disaster]

I can't see Squad doing something as complex as FAR, with its myriad data display and build/estimate tools. But a simpler system that uses the same concepts but easier for the end-user would be great. Something like Ferram's more idiot-proof NEAR? Yeah, that's the ticket.

Except NEAR is less idiot-proof than FAR, what with a deliberately hamstrung aero model that makes re-entry harder, and lacking any sort of indication of what's going on at all. FAR only looks hard because of the steep learning curve of the tools, you can make flyable things without even looking at any of those.

The big problem is lots of people have no idea how planes work at all, and they're rather more complicated than rockets - there is a point where there's so much learning to do that it's less fun and more like work.

[Hodo]

The big problem is lots of people have no idea how planes work at all, and they're rather more complicated than rockets - there is a point where there's so much learning to do that it's less fun and more like work.

I know a real life NASA Fuel System Engineer who works on the Delta line of rockets. I once explained to her how a rocket works in the simplest terms. She found it funny and said in the simplest terms that is how it happens.

Take a HIGHLY volitile fuel source, mix it with another slightly less volitile fuel source then leak the mix out of the bottom inside of a shaped cone and light a match. It will go up.

All a rocket is, is a controlled explosion directed in a direction to force an otherwise simple lawn dart straight up. This is why rockets came before planes.

[lazarus1024]

This is very cool, but I'd also like to see Porkjet's habitat stuff added too. Now that his spaceplane stuff is stock, the habs would be REAL spiffy. They are fun to play with and considering some of the new contracts need you to do things like build a space station with a capacity of 20 Kerbals, or a base with 12 or what not, the inflatable habs would be a good way to get cracking on some stuff like that.

[lazarus1024]

I know a real life NASA Fuel System Engineer who works on the Delta line of rockets. I once explained to her how a rocket works in the simplest terms. She found it funny and said in the simplest terms that is how it happens.

Take a HIGHLY volitile fuel source, mix it with another slightly less volitile fuel source then leak the mix out of the bottom inside of a shaped cone and light a match. It will go up.

All a rocket is, is a controlled explosion directed in a direction to force an otherwise simple lawn dart straight up. This is why rockets came before planes.

If you have a controlled explosion, either you have an awesome Orion engine, or else you are doing it wrong. Nothing is exploding at any point (controlled or otherwise) (if it does, you have pieces of rocket raining everywhere). Also, generally you only have a volitile fuel source being mixed with an oxidizer being lit with a match and exhausting out a hole in the bottom. In the case of some rockets, you have a couple of fuel sources mixed with an oxidizer, lit with a match and exhausted out a hole in the bottom.

Ideally at some point we'll figure out a way to mix that fuel source with atmospheric oxidizer a match and exhausted out a hole in the bottom. Right now though, scramjets are proving real hard. But maybe someday will get it right (Scramjets typically range from around 1,400-4,000s Isp, compared to a rockets 220-430s, so even if you can only use a scramjet for a portion of the launch, that can make a HUGE difference in terms of payload capacity and or launcher size).

[Deadpangod3]

I know a real life NASA Fuel System Engineer who works on the Delta line of rockets. I once explained to her how a rocket works in the simplest terms. She found it funny and said in the simplest terms that is how it happens.

Take a HIGHLY volitile fuel source, mix it with another slightly less volitile fuel source then leak the mix out of the bottom inside of a shaped cone and light a match. It will go up.

All a rocket is, is a controlled explosion directed in a direction to force an otherwise simple lawn dart straight up. This is why rockets came before planes.

but planes could be considered basically the same thing, just with wings strapped on.

[Bill Phil]

Hmm...

Aero? We are gonna need fairings. And believe it or not fairings are a gameplay mechanic. They limit the SIZE of the payload, and plus it makes our rockets prettier ( no weird ugly probe on top).

Resources.... Yeah, that'll help out and stuff. It will make asteroid bases useful, and even a few other things.

[Bill Phil]

If you have a controlled explosion, either you have an awesome Orion engine, or else you are doing it wrong. Nothing is exploding at any point (controlled or otherwise) (if it does, you have pieces of rocket raining everywhere). Also, generally you only have a volitile fuel source being mixed with an oxidizer being lit with a match and exhausting out a hole in the bottom. In the case of some rockets, you have a couple of fuel sources mixed with an oxidizer, lit with a match and exhausted out a hole in the bottom.

Ideally at some point we'll figure out a way to mix that fuel source with atmospheric oxidizer a match and exhausted out a hole in the bottom. Right now though, scramjets are proving real hard. But maybe someday will get it right (Scramjets typically range from around 1,400-4,000s Isp, compared to a rockets 220-430s, so even if you can only use a scramjet for a portion of the launch, that can make a HUGE difference in terms of payload capacity and or launcher size).

An explosion is an outward reaction that's ectothermic caused by a chemical reaction. Rockets are controlled explosions, the explosion is happening the whole time. Pressure is applied to all the sides of the chamber. It's a splosion.

[lazarus1024]

Hmm...

Aero? We are gonna need fairings. And believe it or not fairings are a gameplay mechanic. They limit the SIZE of the payload, and plus it makes our rockets prettier ( no weird ugly probe on top).

Resources.... Yeah, that'll help out and stuff. It will make asteroid bases useful, and even a few other things.

Please oh please oh please if resources are added, add them in such a way that asteroids can also be used for getting resources for whatever, not just planet side bases. Of course you'll maybe have to figure out how many resources an asteroid has or what not, but I'd think that would be perfectly doable. Latch on fuel extractor, begin extraction at set rate that is not acceleratable (well, maybe physics acceleration works). Once tanks are full, transfer fuel to whatever.

I do hope they keep it rather simple in terms of mechanics and parts. Maybe just 1-3 parts. Super simple, just a fuel extractor that needs electricity and the fuel resources from a dirt side or asteroid resource source and it pumps out refined fuel to whatever fuel tanks are attached to the "ship". Moderately complex, but maybe not too bad, resource extractor that needs the above, but it pumps raw fuel in to regular fuel tanks...which then has to be refined in to oxidizer and liquid fuel using refiner part and electricity. Next most complex would require seperate tanks (maybe inflatable????) that store raw fuel before it is refined (IE can't use regular fuel tanks).

Most complex would have seperate liquid fuel and seperate oxidizer fuel resources and possibly refining parts.

My hope is the least complex, or maybe one step up where you have to extract and then refine, but regular tanks can store it. I do hope it is "time limited" like resetting/cleaning science experiments are now. I also hope it takes a resonably impressive amount of electricity to do the job (not ridiculous amounts, but there should be a fun and good reason why you need a base with 8 giant solar panels on it).

[LameLefty]

I don't understand why people find all that difficult. If you don't understand it ...

Let me just be clear: I *AM* an aerospace engineer by education and (formerly) by profession. I understand it just fine. But a simple scroll through the FAR thread from beginning to end shows that many, many people don't.