Aero Revamp: What do You Want to See?

[Jouni]

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

The word 'assuming' has a different meaning in that context than what you have in mind. You can replace it with "as long as", if the word bothers you too much.

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

Not automatically, but it usually does, as long as we're talking about a certain subgroup of gamers.

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".

That's obviously a false statement. There are many people who have designed and piloted different flying things in the real world, and they would be able to do the same more easily in KSP, no matter how realistic the game were. I don't have the necessary background for that right now, but I'm fairly confident I could have it in a decade.

It's important to understand that for many reenactor gamers, there's no such thing as "enough realism". There are only levels of realism that are too demanding for their current skills. As long as they remain interested in a game, their skills will improve and their expectations of realism will increase.

[Ziff]

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.

I've read everything you've said and the fact is that "in your experience" quite literally doesn't mean anything because you represent 1 person.

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.

That is a misrepresentation of the forums. Maybe in a thread like this you only see the top experienced players, but if you look at the forums as a whole there are far more new players. If you go read the help section you will see tons of people asking questions, mostly about things that aren't intuitive and obvious. These are not the top 10% of players, and they ask questions like "Why won't this Mk3 plane fly? How can I get this space plane into space? Why does my plane flip end over end for no reason?"

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".

I have considered it. I've considered how it's going to change things for the better in so many ways.

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?

1: You know what, you're right. Let's not update anything that a mod takes care of. So let's go back and remove docking , and the new parts catalog , and any and all of the MK2/MK3 parts, all of the 2m and 3m+ parts because KW rocketry and Nova/Punch took care of that, plus the parts catalog, there was no sense updating the catalog because we had a mod for it.

2: Your experience is not what everyone experiences. You're worried about aerodynamic changes in a game that basically requires people to learn orbital mechanics, the rocket equation, and things like ejection angles, phase angles, and pages upon pages of physics(if they want to understand what they're doing). Yet you think the average player can't handle some basic decent aerodynamics? That's ridiculous. It's quite frankly insulting to players.

[Vanamonde]

Folks, the subject of the thread is changes you personally would like to see to the aerodynamics system. Everything else is off-topic, so please stop arguing with each other and just state your preferences for aero improvements.

[Kesa]

I personnally would like to see an aerodynamic model that :

1 - really takes, in some manner, account of cross sectionnal section, making tall rocket usefull

2 - gives aerodynamical advantage to nose cones (eg not applying drag to hidden parts, and less drag to some parts)

3 - is forgiving about crapy rocket

4 - Keep the construction/piloting of plane hard but not too much, just as it is.

I'm not against souposphere (and drag proportionnal to the velocity squared), but if it has to be removed, the sooner is the best, cause it will need some serious rebalancing.

[Xaiier]

I've read everything you've said and the fact is that "in your experience" quite literally doesn't mean anything because you represent 1 person.

By that logic, neither does yours. Or anyone's. Why are we here?

1: You know what, you're right. Let's not update anything that a mod takes care of. So let's go back and remove docking , and the new parts catalog , and any and all of the MK2/MK3 parts, all of the 2m and 3m+ parts because KW rocketry and Nova/Punch took care of that, plus the parts catalog, there was no sense updating the catalog because we had a mod for it.

I...I have no response to this. It's just blatantly sidestepping the point. Not to mention that we can assuredly know that it won't be just FAR implemented in the game.

2: Your experience is not what everyone experiences. You're worried about aerodynamic changes in a game that basically requires people to learn orbital mechanics, the rocket equation, and things like ejection angles, phase angles, and pages upon pages of physics(if they want to understand what they're doing). Yet you think the average player can't handle some basic decent aerodynamics? That's ridiculous. It's quite frankly insulting to players.

Not really. KSP has always been about trial and error in order to succeed. That you presume that it is expected for players to read "pages upon pages of physics" shows that you are approaching this entire argument from position clearly biased towards realism, and I don't think anything I can say will be able to change that.

With that being said, I'm done with this topic until we hear news from SQUAD about their plan of action. There's no point in bickering until we have at least a vague idea about what might be coming.

[Kegereneku]

Folks, the subject of the thread is changes you personally would like to see to the aerodynamics system. Everything else is off-topic, so please stop arguing with each other and just state your preferences for aero improvements.

Got to recognize it's pretty inconclusive.

I will try to format my answer toward a neutral stop, After that I will follow Xaiier's step.

The word 'assuming' has a different meaning in that context than what you have in mind. You can replace it with "as long as", if the word bothers you too much.

There's a world of difference between "assuming" and "as long as". You and other here are assuming "more realism" will translate into "easy & more fun", assuming "many player would like that" thus implying "so more realism cannot lead to anything wrong"

It would be pretty easy to come up with a situation where added complexity (for the sake of realism) lead to something unplayable.

"As long as" however justly point out that there is an upper limit to how "complex/realist" you can make a system before it become unplayable. Kind of my and Xaiier's point.

Not automatically, but it usually does, as long as we're talking about a certain subgroup of gamers.

As rules of thumb we don't assume they are a majority or representative of whom the game must be designed for.

That's obviously a false statement. There are many people who have designed and piloted different flying things in the real world, and they would be able to do the same more easily in KSP, no matter how realistic the game were. I don't have the necessary background for that right now, but I'm fairly confident I could have it in a decade.

It's important to understand that for many reenactor gamers, there's no such thing as "enough realism". There are only levels of realism that are too demanding for their current skills. As long as they remain interested in a game, their skills will improve and their expectations of realism will increase.

That's a total overconfidence in your own skills. And another one of the things I'm warning against here.

You are talking like a kid who played a video-game that looked realist and believe it will count in a meaningful way if he tried to do the real thing.

I'll agree on your case-study of reenactor but for other people there is in fact such a thing as "enough realism". A video game's goal is specifically to make fun experiences that are not realistically accessible globally to the player-base, be it stopping a alien invasion single-handedly, designing a lego-spaceship that work or piloting an hypersonic plane without computer-assist.

[rkman]

the only argument I've ever seen for "realism" is "realism" itself.

I rather like the argument that people want there to be a (practical/rockety) reason for their rockets to look like rockets: streamline, engine- and payload fairings should have an (aerodynamic) purpose.

I've said it many times and I will say it again, KSP is 100% game, 0% simulator. Sorry if that offends you

Harvester has said KSP is something in-between a game and a simulator.

[Cmdr. Arn1e]

For those that have missed it, SQUAD have said happy holidays, and given us some important news about the next update! (0.91.0? 0.90.1?) Here!

What would you like to see from this? do you have a preference for FAR or NEAR, and if you've tried both which do you prefer?

And, of course, Merry Christmas!

[Technical Ben]

Anything slightly more consistent (nose cones doing something etc). Plus any type of re-entry heat (either total ship for easy implementation, or individual parts+heat shields).

Why? As that would solidify my rocket and space plane designs. As assuming anything I build now will not work or be obsolete. Plus they are really nice features to add, So the sooner the better!

[Levelord]

We’re celebrating the fact that an aero overhaul and deep space refueling will be in the next update. What would you call that holiday?

The aero news makes me all tingly inside! I'm looking forwards to the new update and I want to make sure my SSTO fleet is up to the new challenges.

[theend3r]

I'll probably still use FAR but this is great news! We might get some new nosecone or even fairing parts too.

[Liowen]

I await the endless tears of how it is worse than it was before posts. Prepare for more buggyness.

[Elthy]

I have no idea how they want to integrate it balanced, with NEAR its way to easy to build rockets with large payloads. A larger orbital velocity would be required, but that is unlikely since it would either mean to increase surface gravity (there are so much ways why this wont happen) or larger planets (at least Kerbin), but that would mess up quite much stuff, too.

[Technical Ben]

They could keep kerbins atmosphere "treacly".

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

Please no Far or Near.... Squad should make up their minds for their own Aerodynamics.

[cantab]

I think Squad should have an expert work on this, someone who's done aerodynamic simulations before. They'll get better results, and quicker coding, that way than if they have the usual team trying to do something. I also think given the kind of things KSP lets the player do they'll get better results with a custom model than if they attempt to use an off-the-shelf library.

(And yes we all know one candidate, but he's not the only person who could do a good job.)

[Yukon0009]

Okay, then that means the end of most Eve lander designs.

Qwop.

[Rithsom]

Please no Far or Near.... Squad should make up their minds for their own Aerodynamics.

Yeah, I think Squad should make the next update by themselves. Any new aero model made at this point will definitely be better than the current one.

[Liowen]

Okay, then that means the end of most Eve lander designs.

Qwop.

Yeah I am doing mine very shortly to say I got there before it is no longer possible, unless you count those using command seats as legit. Personally I do not believe that would be possible on a planet like Eve due to its thick atmosphere, but Duna would be a more believable target for that kind of design IMHO.

[Rune]

I have no idea how they want to integrate it balanced, with NEAR its way to easy to build rockets with large payloads. A larger orbital velocity would be required, but that is unlikely since it would either mean to increase surface gravity (there are so much ways why this wont happen) or larger planets (at least Kerbin), but that would mess up quite much stuff, too.

Or buff the atmosphere. Who says it can't reach 200kms like the one on Earth? Just mess up with the scale height, and perhaps increase surface pressure a bit if necessary. That could bump aerodynamic and gravity losses back to something resembling the current stock, and problem solved with a realistically scaled drag/velocity relationship. Alternatively, Kerbin could increase diameter and mass, but that would mean a new surface texture, and mess up every orbit on the Mun/Minmus system. So much more unlikely, IMO.

Rune. Who says kerbin has to have Earth surface conditions anyway?

[cantab]

On the one hand Eve landers will have to worry about aerodynamics, on the other hand they won't have as much drag to deal with any more. I think it'll balance out.

Considering I've seen Jool ascenders, and an RSS Venus return lander, I think Eve return will remain perfectly possible.

[worir4]

Will it be FAR, will it be NEAR or will it be something else?

[cyberpawn]

deep space refueling is the best to me.. xD

[Arran]

Great news, but if you guys throw some more landing gears into the soup as well that would be great.

And its winter, a good filled soup works perfectly to get all warm and fuzzy from the inside

And to be fair havent we abused those small landing gears enough by now with 50+ ton planes on those eeky small wheels.

[timsfitz]

I'm more looking forward to the deep space refueling and how they will implement it.