Aero Revamp: What do You Want to See?

[Kegereneku]

No one is saying those things, Kegereneku. Your statement that designing craft will take 5 more hours is not supported at all, nor is the idea that only a "vocal minority" wants more realistic aero (we have no real numbers to go by on where the player base stands on it). We all want KSP to be fun, no one is obsessing over wanting a hyper realistic Orbiter clone. We're discussing how the aero model can be made better, something even Squad acknowledges is desirable and planned.

I strongly doubt that there is anyone who thinks the new model will be less or equally realistic as the current model. The discussion is about how a more realistic model should work, and what will be fun.

I would love to take your answer for granted and say "No problem then".

But there IS a vocal minority (on this forum particularly) trying to make their beliefs pass as some indisputable consensus (or genuinely believing they do) even if proved wrong.

Even ignoring those, the people asking for "small change" .... for the sake of realism don't get how some of those would overturn World Order by requiring recursively new change to keep the game not just fun but playable at all.

This is why we have to remind some that arguing change taking a "realism approach" do not make a position righter, and also that KSP isn't fun because it's "realist & intuitive" (a false correlation in itself) but because it TURNED into FUN something that isn't by default.

That's why my very first post is about why I prefer a Feature-driven approach.

Here is a listing of some of thing I've seen asked as feature :

- Nose-cone reducing drag (for intuitiveness not as part )

- Cargo-bay / fairing nullifying drag. (special mention that he don't mind souposphere)

- Center of Drag

- Breaking the made up relation between mass and drag (it's been there so long I've forgot why they even did that, instability at high speed maybe).

- Mention that awkward pancake rocket should stay possible, just less efficient.

And then I discovered that to make them perform better, or to get larger planes off the ground at all, I'd be best off turning it into a ridiculous looking Christmas tree of parts rather than try to learn how to construct something sensible.

And then I discovered FAR. Never flying stock again.

Still not disagreeing that KSP-now can force you toward ugly spacesplane when you want performance.

But I've got ask what would you consider "sensible design" and how would you obtain it using stock parts (use pict if necessary) ? At which point I might broke it apart using academic knowledge of Aeronautics.

SQUAD will have to reconciliate unstable-at-hypersonic rocket-plane with canard, impossible-to-design-in-KSP wing body, allow players to fly approximate replica and other doubtful design that could actually work even if it look like kerbal science.

[Capt Snuggler]

Id like to point out for those complaining about the "souposphere", a majot part of why it fells that way is because resource mass (Fuel) adds to the drag.

removing resource mass from the drag calculation does improve the "aero feeling" to some extent BUT it causes some other weird behavior because the heaviest parts (engines and pods) cause the most drag.

[Red Iron Crown]

But there IS a vocal minority (on this forum particularly) trying to make their beliefs pass as some indisputable consensus (or genuinely believing they do) even if proved wrong.

Please stop using the term "vocal minority". We don't have good numbers to support what a majority or minority of players want, when you call a group a minority you are implying that the consensus is with your position and against theirs, and there is no way to prove that. We are all just expressing what we'd individually like, because no one can speak for anyone but themselves about this.

This is why we have to remind some that arguing change taking a "realism approach" do not make a position righter, and also that KSP isn't fun because it's "realist & intuitive" (a false correlation in itself) but because it TURNED into FUN something that isn't by default.

I speak only for myself, but realistic physics is what got me hooked on KSP in the first place. Without its realism, KSP is just another silly space game, and those are rather thick on the ground these days. Now that more of the gameplay is atmospheric, I think more realistic aero would add to that.

That's why my very first post is about why I prefer a Feature-driven approach.

Here is a listing of some of thing I've seen asked as feature :

- Nose-cone reducing drag (for intuitiveness not as part )

- Cargo-bay / fairing nullifying drag. (special mention that he don't mind souposphere)

- Center of Drag

- Breaking the made up relation between mass and drag (it's been there so long I've forgot why they even did that, instability at high speed maybe).

- Mention that awkward pancake rocket should stay possible, just less efficient.

We're all feature-driven. "More realistic aero" is a feature, desirable for some. A more realistic aero model would deliver all the features you list above.

But I've got ask what would you consider "sensible design" and how would you obtain it using stock parts (use pict if necessary) ? At which point I might broke it apart using academic knowledge of Aeronautics.

Why would you do that? No one is suggesting a 100% accurate engineering-grade aerodynamic simulator, there are going to be some simplifications and assumptions to make the game perform well and be accessible to those uneducated in aerodynamics. Pointing out that designs that work in a more realistic model might not work in a 100% realistic model is asinine, realism is not an all-or-nothing proposition. To say that FAR-friendly designs are not 100% realistic is not a compelling argument to not improve the stock model's realism at all.

SQUAD will have to reconciliate unstable-at-hypersonic rocket-plane with canard, impossible-to-design-in-KSP wing body, allow players to fly approximate replica and other doubtful design that could actually work even if it look like kerbal science.

Again, a more realistic aero model would deliver all these things.

[Wanderfound]

FAR, but with a game option to turn off disintegration (default off for easy/normal). Stuff flies much better, but it's no fun watching your early rockets fall apart because you tried to turn just a little too fast, or having your first space plane disintegrate on re-entry after an otherwise successful mission...

Primary reason for calling FAR over NEAR is the sim window in the SPH. With NEAR, you're still pretty much guessing at stability, where FAR lets you know in advance if you're gonna die. Lol, it could be made a little more friendly though. The decimal point accuracy of the display is a bit overkill and scary

The introduction of tweakable wing strength in FAR has greatly flattened the learning curve; aero failures are now something that you only have to deal with if you're making ultralight speedsters or trying 20G aerobatics.

The analysis displays are nowhere near as complicated as they look, although they are a bit intimidating. But the key factor is just whether the numbers are red or green, anyway; you could easily replace them with a few coloured plus and minus symbols. And designing by eyeball and flight test without ever looking at an analysis is perfectly doable as well.

[Wanderfound]

But I've got ask what would you consider "sensible design" and how would you obtain it using stock parts (use pict if necessary) ? At which point I might broke it apart using academic knowledge of Aeronautics.

SQUAD will have to reconciliate unstable-at-hypersonic rocket-plane with canard, impossible-to-design-in-KSP wing body, allow players to fly approximate replica and other doubtful design that could actually work even if it look like kerbal science.

You can see plenty of my designs in the Kerbodyne thread. Some of it is based on fairly conventional airframes, some of it is designed to stretch the limits of the game for giggles. All of it necessarily represents the abstraction involved in any game or simulation; if you want to count rivets, I'm sure that there are plenty of grounds for nitpicking.

But, as R.I.C. suggests, we're dealing with a spectrum here rather than absolutes. And the current stock end of that spectrum is a very long way down at one end of the band; for a demonstration of how far off, see http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/93779-SSTO-Spaceplane-Airplane-Design-Contest-II-Akademy-Awards?p=1416715&viewfull=1#post1416715

[Kegereneku]

Please stop using the term "vocal minority". We don't have good numbers to support what a majority or minority of players want, when you call a group a minority you are implying that the consensus is with your position and against theirs, and there is no way to prove that. We are all just expressing what we'd individually like, because no one can speak for anyone but themselves about this.

There's no misuse of the expression from my part. You have a few person, coming on this subforum, sometime writing HUGE wall of text claiming that the only solution to a problem is to do X and that everybody want it the same way he do. The burden of proof is at the charge of the one claiming to have consensus, I did no such things. So correlating the criticism of such phenomena as a reversal of proof is an error of logic made by other. I can't be blamed for other's misinterpretation of a straightforward affirmation.

As you said we are speaking only for ourself. Thus we have those discussions because we want to exchange different point of view with other.

Thus I'm expressing the opinion that some players, by centering their reasoning around realism being the only thing that would count as an improvement are missing or prone to miss the various BREAK from reality that make the game fun & playable in the first place.

Why would you do that? No one is suggesting a 100% accurate engineering-grade aerodynamic simulator, there are going to be some simplifications and assumptions to make the game perform well and be accessible to those uneducated in aerodynamics. Pointing out that designs that work in a more realistic model might not work in a 100% realistic model is asinine, realism is not an all-or-nothing proposition. To say that FAR-friendly designs are not 100% realistic is not a compelling argument to not improve the stock model's realism at all.

Again, a more realistic aero model would deliver all these things.

Frankly you are becoming insulting, you are not even trying to get what I am saying since here.

I am NOT arguing "AGAINST improving the stock model at all" !

It's that we shouldn't be talking of REALISM when it is in fact only game-logic giving a greater feeling of verisimilitude, not necessarily by simulating anything "realistically"... maybe it would be easier to convey if I started replacing Aero-model by game-logic...

Anyway, by your answer I am now certain you will take as an improvement the game-logic not hurting your expectation although I have my doubt about your actual understanding of aerodynamic principle.

To end with your last remark : ""Again, a more realistic aero model would deliver all these things.""

I'll interject that if playing the game become realistically impossible because of that it will NOT have delivered, and we should be seeking a more believable game-logic instead.

You can see plenty of my designs in the Kerbodyne thread. Some of it is based on fairly conventional airframes, some of it is designed to stretch the limits of the game for giggles. All of it necessarily represents the abstraction involved in any game or simulation; if you want to count rivets, I'm sure that there are plenty of grounds for nitpicking.

But, as R.I.C. suggests, we're dealing with a spectrum here rather than absolutes. And the current stock end of that spectrum is a very long way down at one end of the band; for a demonstration of how far off, see http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/93779-SSTO-Spaceplane-Airplane-Design-Contest-II-Akademy-Awards?p=1416715&viewfull=1#post1416715

I have tried to look at as much of your design as possible to get an meaningful base (took me a lot of time), as you joke we can get desperate of getting a non rear-delta wing from you but, truth, thing like the precedent or this Tigershark of your are interesting.

Globally your designs are what I would expect new player to try first. Something that fit popular preconceived ideas of a SSTO shuttle, before they try to make it cooler/more efficient.

As you said it would be nitpicking to go over the little detail... the fundamental is more than enough to dismiss them as unrealistic.

Most are no more aerodynamically sound than what you could build & orbit Stock, even if they certainly fly differently in FAR without the souposphere which is kind of the thing that really matter (disparate from their look). Unless FAR also have its absurd requirement.

Realistic design would call for blended wing body, extremely precise dimension and wind-tunnel calibrated design just be able to work through ONE of the very different dynamic of subsonic, supersonic and transonic. Yet not only you cannot achieve that with stock part, but you wouldn't know how even if you had procedural part.

I consider your other link more relevant to our discussion

Design like this, this, this, another, another and that last one.

Are part of a spectrum you WANT to be able to fly up to orbit in KSP regardless of the physics realism. What you don't want is your "most efficient one" looking aerodynamically unsound or unbalancing career, which is a question of game-design.

Nothing else to add, I would be repeating myself.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Kegereneku
small rewording

[Jouni]

Realistic design would call for blended wing body, extremely precise dimension and wind-tunnel calibrated design just be able to work through ONE of the very different dynamic of subsonic, supersonic and transonic. Yet not only you cannot achieve that with stock part, but you wouldn't know how even if you had procedural part.

Your definition of realism is too strict for this discussion. Realism as an art movement is more about the pursuit of realism than about having realistic end results, and realism as a game design style is related to that.

[Kegereneku]

What I'm implying (and what we must all be tired of) is that arguing endlessly for realism Could lead to such needlessly strict design process around a still unrealistic model...

Fortunately I'm sure most of us are more than okay with gameplay abstraction, and that's what we gonna get from game developers.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Kegereneku
ooops, error

[Jouni]

The whole point of realistic game design is always striving to make the game more realistic. The more realistic the developers manage to make their game while still keeping it playable, the greater achievement the game is. For those players who like playing realistic games, this often makes the game better and more fun.

[Ippo]

People here are getting lost over the technicalities of defining the term "realism" in a game, and at the same time forgetting that the current aero model is not unrealistic, it's strictly physically impossible.

It requires a good amount of doublethink to defend an aerodynamic model where the air flow interacts with a part and also with the part that's shielding it: basically, parts are solid (they interact with the airflow) and they are not (it goes through them to interact with shielded parts). Please, let's all agree that this is not acceptable in a game about science regardless of the level of accuracy you want from it.

[Kegereneku]

"duckspeak" I say !

It ask just as much doublethink to believe you could actually design a fly a spaceplane behaving under strictly realistic rules of physics.

I will entirely agree that "aerodynamically shielded" parts shouldn't impart drag-like force over your vehicle.

Jouni, please stop assuming KSP strive to as realistic as it can. There's several fundamental game-design decision made over KSP that are not going to change even if they could (see mods) because there's such a thing as "too realistic".

The loud minority strike again, assuming "more realist=better" when it's not the case.

[Red Iron Crown]

No one, even the most stalwart realism buff, is arguing for total realism at the expense of playability. No one is arguing for a totally realistic aerodynamic model that requires advanced education to make things work well with. They are discussing what a less-unrealistic model should be like, and how much realism can be incorporated without sacrificing playability or enjoyment.

Just as too much realism is not a good thing for many players, so is too little realism. It's jarring when things don't work remotely like they do in real life, it is better when the approximations are less obvious and a layperson's knowledge of the subject applies and will likely be expanded by playing.

[Ziff]

What I'm implying (and what we must all be tired of) is that arguing endlessly for realism Could lead to such needlessly strict design process around a still unrealistic model...

Fortunately I'm sure most of us are more than okay with gameplay abstraction, and that's what we gonna get from game developers.

You're saying don't argue for realism because realism. We are saying don't argue against realism because realism.

# A Realism-Driven approach would be to consider that KSP 'must' only go toward more realism at any point, focusing on making the game "act like reality" rather that "look like reality", thus discarding simplification that make the game fun or playable at all.

No one has said that it "must only" go towards realism. You seem to think that everyone here who wants to improve the stock aerodynamics by making it "more" realistic means that it is going to be MS Flight Simulator 2215 edition.

For example, considering that plane must be aerodynamic** or insisting to add a plethora of "realistic details" that bring nothing to the game.

I'm not sure exactly what you meant by "considering that plane must be aerodynamic-" but seriously you always have to take into consideration the aerodynamic function of the parts in order to obtain flight. Currently stock KSP is has a very convoluted anti-intuitive method for this. Drag being dependent on mass, not shape, is the biggest gripe here, and the biggest reason why people are using the phrase "Realistic aerodynamics" because a drag/shape system is realistic compared to a drag/mass system. Again, not a single person here has suggested adding a "plethora of realistic details that bring nothing to the game."

# A Feature-Driven approach would be to set the gameplay you want to achieve, then shape the rules. Thereby focusing on making the game "fun" rather than "tedious", and including acceptable break from reality.

For example, for all intent and purpose KSP's spaceplane requirement can be split up to these basic features :

- Anything with enough "wing/speed" shall be able to achieve aerodynamic lift.

- Anything with enough/adapted engines shall be able to accelerate to any speed.

- Minor complication will still arise to make your spaceplane actually usable.

The ease with which a design is able to achieve this is then subject to parameter that allow to balance the game's progression.

What makes you think that realistic aerodynamics would be any more tedious than feature driven aerodynamics that are hard to understand and follow because we would have to learn all new rules about how planes fly?

[Kegereneku]

Ouch, fragmented answer.

You're saying don't argue for realism because realism. We are saying don't argue against realism because realism.

That's not what I got from other, also that's not what I was doing.

In fact I'm wasn't arguing against anything. I stated a preference for discussing Gameplay Feature rathr than realism for the sake of realism and why, then went more in detail as asked.

Problem it seem is that if you aren't arguing directly "more realism!" some assume you are arguing against and get defensive.

Oh and there's also the problem of people with an inflated ego over their designskill getting condescending, thinking you are afraid of realism when you could school them. (not aiming anybody, just speaking broadly of personal experience)

Right now this all becoming very meta.

No one has said that it "must only" go towards realism. You seem to think that everyone here who wants to improve the stock aerodynamics by making it "more" realistic means that it is going to be MS Flight Simulator 2215 edition.

I wasn't aiming anyone you know, however if someone here feel targeted that's maybe because that's what they do... "KSP is realistic so only realism can improve it" period. I'm expressing a warning that people indiscriminately arguing for more realism as if it was an end by itself can miss out interesting gameplay logic that abstract the challenge face by engineers (such as my hypothetical example of Mach effect suffocating engines).

Anyway I would expect MS Flight Simulator 2215 to have an arcade mode as did other opus, KSP 6.0 wouldn't since it would be arcade and fun-oriented by design.

I'm not sure exactly what you meant by "considering that plane must be aerodynamic-" but seriously you always have to take into consideration the aerodynamic function of the parts in order to obtain flight. Currently stock KSP is has a very convoluted anti-intuitive method for this. Drag being dependent on mass, not shape, is the biggest gripe here, and the biggest reason why people are using the phrase "Realistic aerodynamics" because a drag/shape system is realistic compared to a drag/mass system. Again, not a single person here has suggested adding a "plethora of realistic details that bring nothing to the game."

Oh but I completely agree that the current game-logic used by KSP need a serious revamp, same with the absurd mass/drag relation.

However when we get to "simulating shape/drag realistically", I see way too much people getting caught up by realism for realism ...either forgetting....or not getting.... how much KSP rely on abstracted mechanism to make a fun experience where you pretend to be designing spaceplane.

It make you want to tell them "Yeah sure...sure KSP is quite more realist that other game isn't ? But that's still a GAME, not a training simulator". But they know that, right ?

I did saw a few other member suggest "plethora of realistic details that bring nothing to the game", just not here.

I'm taking for granted that surely you must had met the type at last once, or that you can imagine the type.

What makes you think that realistic aerodynamics would be any more tedious than feature driven aerodynamics that are hard to understand and follow because we would have to learn all new rules about how planes fly?

Taking a Feature-driven approach lead to design your game logic around what you want to accomplish in a failsafe and intuitive way.

To give very gross example : "Wing + Speed = Lift", "not enough speed=stall" or "basic jet engine choke at the Mach because of nose-cone parts vs airflow speed".

But if you only think about making the game-logic behave "as realistic as possible" without caring about what it's supposed to achieve in terms of gameplay, you'll necessarily end up with the same difficulty that designer would face in reality, frustrating non-intuitive problem often because no reality isn't always intuitive, it's common sense or should be !

Some person on this forum (not aiming anybody) don't seem to get how far KSP's game-logic is/have to be designed to make a feeling of verisimilitude accessible ...to ANYBODY !!!

SQUAD isn't "dumbing down" the game for "uneducated players" you know, barely anybody would have the knowledge, skill and patience to deal with "too realistic" problem, and then there's the Dunning–Kruger effect.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Kegereneku
various syntax correction

[Francois424]

I just want the atmosph helping steer my plane. No need to be all complex, but if I fly a plane and turn 45 degrees, my plane should slowly turn without me pressing keys.

[Ippo]

Some person on this forum (not aiming anybody) don't seem to get how far KSP's game-logic is/have to be designed to make a feeling of verisimilitude accessible ...to ANYBODY !!!

SQUAD isn't "dumbing down" the game for "uneducated players" you know, barely anybody would have the knowledge, skill and patience to deal with "too realistic" problem, and then there's the Dunning–Kruger effect.

I am an engineer specialized in control theory. I know full well what a mathematical model is, and I admit with no problems that I am nowhere near skilled enough to design / fly a real plane, nor do I want to be. Well, okay, I'd like to be, but I don't expect to learn it by playing a video game; there's the Dunning-Kruger effect, and there's an aerodynamic model where the air both interacts with a part and doesn't at the same time.

Although I have some pretty strong ties with the RO modders, I'm not one myself: in fact, I don't even play with RSS+RO. Yet, I absolutely support more realism (please note: "more realism" =/= "realism") in stock. Please don't make the huge mistake to assume that everyone that wants some realism wants Realism Overhaul to be stock. Not even Felger, RO's maintainer, would say that.

tl;dr: "you want ksp to be a simulator!" is a strawman argument.

[Superfluous J]

I love how we've got 10 pages of arguing over the definition of a single word, when everybody wants (roughly speaking) the same thing: An aerodynamic model somewhere between real life and what KSP has now.

The "Realism" crowd seems to think the "Gameplay" crowd wants crazy unrealistic stuff like double drag on* parts that are sideways or maybe drag based on the shape of the last iteration of the vessel in the VAB before the one you launched. Conversely, the "Gameplay" crowd seems to think that the "Realism" crowd wants anything more than 1 degree off of perfect to not ever leave the ground lest is interfere with some sort of atomic-level simulation of the universe.

Of course, I'm being hyperbolic but come on. Is anybody actually arguing that the gameplay would not be improved by a more realistic model? Or that - once gameplay has been sufficiently improved and more realistic changes would make the game less fun - that Squad should continue to make it more realistic just because "screw having fun this must be perfect?"

*DOUBLE DRAGON!

Edited December 23, 2014 by 5thHorseman

[Kegereneku]

Tss... your own argument is the strawman here. Misrepresenting what I say. I never aimed you or anybody in particular. Yet I did met people who believe you should be able to learn to fly from KSP.

And speaking of mistake, you are doing one yourself, the very one I'm warning you about : it's that you insist of thinking ONLY in term of realism, when we should be talking of game-design. You don't seem to grasp that maybe, just maybe, SQUAD knew full well it wasn't realism but did it anyway because at the time it served a purpose.

Making my point that you should only be asking for the gameplay feature you want, rather than to change the physic engine blinded by the false assumption that "more realism=better", which isn't the true either for all the same reasons, on the subject of logical fallacy it's my turn to say you have "moved the goalpost".

I'm not an engineer but an aeronautic technician, the curriculum include aerodynamic principle.

Take the quote below, a perfect example :

I just want the atmosph helping steer my plane. No need to be all complex, but if I fly a plane and turn 45 degrees, my plane should slowly turn without me pressing keys.

Simple effect like this (called induced yaw) result from a relatively more complex aerodynamic interaction than it appear.

It's not complex enough you can't learn it on Wikipedia or here, but it can be complicated enough to simulate in a videogame. KSP can already do this and it's quite impressing considering it is not valid depending of plane design.

Induced Yaw is on most design accompanied by induced pitch that you must compensate for. Using the effect coordinated flight require to act on all 3 controls.

Remember that it is design dependent and I have in mind no design that is so aerodynamically stable you can turn not pressing another button.

A clean and clear example of non-intuitive aerodynamic principle that people have preconception on.

I love how we've got 10 pages of arguing over the definition of a single word, when everybody wants (roughly speaking) the same thing: An aerodynamic model somewhere between real life and what KSP has now.

Damn right...

Of course, I'm being hyperbolic but come on. Is anybody actually arguing that the gameplay would not be improved by a more realistic model?

Noooooo !!!!! But apparently they keep assuming I do !!!

[Xaiier]

...

Of course, I'm being hyperbolic but come on. Is anybody actually arguing that the gameplay would not be improved by a more realistic model?

...

That's the issue though, nobody is arguing that it would be improved. Nobody is looking at this from the perspective of balancing the gameplay. That was the intent of my original post, to get those who support realism to provide reasons that realistic aero make KSP a better game without resorting to the "realism because realism" reasoning so often used, but it seems all that has resulted from it is yet another useless argument about the merits of realism.

[Boomerang]

I love how we've got 10 pages of arguing over the definition of a single word, when everybody wants (roughly speaking) the same thing: An aerodynamic model somewhere between real life and what KSP has now.

The "Realism" crowd seems to think the "Gameplay" crowd wants crazy unrealistic stuff like double drag on* parts that are sideways or maybe drag based on the shape of the last iteration of the vessel in the VAB before the one you launched. Conversely, the "Gameplay" crowd seems to think that the "Realism" crowd wants anything more than 1 degree off of perfect to not ever leave the ground lest is interfere with some sort of atomic-level simulation of the universe.

Of course, I'm being hyperbolic but come on. Is anybody actually arguing that the gameplay would not be improved by a more realistic model? Or that - once gameplay has been sufficiently improved and more realistic changes would make the game less fun - that Squad should continue to make it more realistic just because "screw having fun this must be perfect?"

*DOUBLE DRAGON!

It's nice to see at least some people backing off the rhetoric a bit. We're not arguing over whether something ought to be red or blue, but rather whether it ought to be sky blue or more of a teal.

Personally, I think it's fair and reasonable to expect an upgrade to how things work without approaching FAR/NEAR levels of difficulty. I realize that either of those are a must-have for many people, but the Mach effects of FAR and the lack of predictive data in NEAR would both make building anything more than basic planes more difficult that Squad has meant them to be.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Boomerang

[Ziff]

That's the issue though, nobody is arguing that it would be improved.

Are you saying the current system cannot be improved by implementing basic aerodynamic principles, because that is absurd. It is obvious to nearly everyone who understands the system that some basic changes that mirror real aerodynamics would be beneficial. I would like to see a post detailing why an implementation of the basic drag/shape model would be worse than what we have now.

Nobody is looking at this from the perspective of balancing the gameplay. That was the intent of my original post, to get those who support realism to provide reasons that realistic aero make KSP a better game without resorting to the "realism because realism" reasoning so often used, but it seems all that has resulted from it is yet another useless argument about the merits of realism.

This thread is not about the merits of realism. It's about what we want to see in the Aerodynamics update and you keep derailing the thread to argue against realism for any apparent reason. If you want to see something other than realistic aerodynamics feel free to make a post about it. What you seem to be doing is arguing against anyone who says a shape/drag system would be better than a mass/drag system for what is very apparent, obvious, and intuitive reasons. We all know what planes look like. We've all seen some ideas on conceptual spaceplanes. Close your eyes and picture a plane. Now go build it in KSP and tell me if it flies as well as you would expect. This is what the average player does and very quickly they discover the set of rules they were expecting to play by are quite the opposite.

Simply put the combination of the drag/mass system and fuel being stored in the fuselage instead of wings creates serious front/back weight distributions as a plane in KSP flies. There are ways around this, by balancing the dead/full center of mass but this currently requires a mod to see the dead center of mass. Following a somewhat realistic implementation of aerodynamics would lead to far more intuitive designs and less frustration. There will still be those Kerbals that just whack something crazy together and make it fly.

We are simply asking for a basic set of real rules to work with, just like how Squad did with rocket engines. Rocket engines follow basic principles to the point that we can plug the related numbers into the rocket equation and come up with delta-v required for orbital maneuvers. This exists because it is based on a set of basic rules that mirror reality. This is what we also want with stock aerodynamics.

[Jouni]

Jouni, please stop assuming KSP strive to as realistic as it can. There's several fundamental game-design decision made over KSP that are not going to change even if they could (see mods) because there's such a thing as "too realistic".

There are many people for whom "better gameplay" and "more fun" equal "more realism", assuming that the additional complexity doesn't overwhelm them.

One way to categorize gamers is the breadth-first vs. depth-first axis. (Real games obviously fall between the two extremes, but I'll continue with the extremes for simplicity's sake.) Breadth-first gamers want to experience many different games, but they rarely play any particular game for more than a couple of hundred hours. Depth-first gamers, on the other hand, play fewer games, but concentrate more on them. While breadth-first gamers want to experience many different things, depth-first gamers want to learn the things they do as well as possible.

Simulator games, strategy games, and sandbox games have traditionally attracted depth-first gamers, as there is more to learn in them than in casual games or story-driven games. Considering that KSP is a sandbox game, where you build and fly rockets in a physics simulation, and which is slowly becoming a strategy game, it's not surprising that depth-first gamers are more common among KSP players than in the general gamer population.

There's one particular breed of depth-first gamers, which one could call reenactors. For them, the entire point of games is replicating and reenacting something that already exists (has existed, could plausibly have existed, could plausibly exist) as faithfully as they're able. They often like tinkering with small details and spending a lot of time learning new things about their hobby. When they play computer games, they're often drawn to games about history, military, and technology. As KSP scores two out of three (history and technology), it's not surprising that it has acquired more than its fair share of reenactors.

To a reenactor, more realism generally means the same thing as improving gameplay and making the game more fun. The level of complexity just has to increase gradually over the hundreds and thousands of hours they spend playing the game in order to not overwhelm them.

[Xaiier]

...for what is very apparent, obvious, and intuitive reasons. We all know what planes look like. We've all seen some ideas on conceptual spaceplanes. Close your eyes and picture a plane. Now go build it in KSP and tell me if it flies as well as you would expect. This is what the average player does and very quickly they discover the set of rules they were expecting to play by are quite the opposite.

If you actually bothered to read what I've said you would realize that in my experience it isn't so "apparent, obvious, and intuitive" as you make it to be.

Remember that on these forums what we see is probably the top 10% (at most) of players who largely represent an outlier in the general population of players. You cannot base your assumptions upon the perceived competency of such a small, elite group. Any change to stock is going to affect the entirety of the community, and that is something that has to be considered. We are effectively a "vocal minority".

We have already solved most of our issues with FAR, why is it necessary to force upon the majority a change in stock which we know will still not rival FAR and which in my experience, they aren't prepared for?

[Superfluous J]

It's nice to see at least some people backing off the rhetoric a bit.

Just for clarity, I'm not backing off of anything. I want an aerodynamic model that is more realistic and more fun, just like almost everybody else in this thread.

[Kegereneku]

There are many people for whom "better gameplay" and "more fun" equal "more realism", assuming that the additional complexity doesn't overwhelm them.

[...........]

THAT'S, that's what you should stop assuming !

"more realism" doesn't automatically translate into "easier & more fun".

And it is not a matter of complexity, it's a matter of "you might not be able to pilot anything if KSP didn't simplified the gameplay for you as much as it does now".

I really have anything of your message. We know there's various expectation from players and I disagree with your slab of personal opinions and baseless number.

Are you saying the current system cannot be improved by implementing basic aerodynamic principles, because that is absurd. It is obvious to nearly everyone who understands the system that some basic changes that mirror real aerodynamics would be beneficial. I would like to see a post detailing why an implementation of the basic drag/shape model would be worse than what we have now.

[.......]

This thread is not about the merits of realism. It's about what we want to see in the Aerodynamics update and you keep derailing the thread to argue against realism for any apparent reason.

You weren't talking to me, but I can also tell you that you are totally misunderstanding what Xaiier said, (we share a very similar opinion on this and you are beside the point).

And all over again nobody have ever been arguing AGAINST realism here !!!!! It's like you have never read any of Xaiier's of my posts.