Aero Revamp: What do You Want to See?

[SkyRender]

Personally I prefer FAR out of the various aerodynamics mods, though I would not recommend either it or NEAR for newer players. As such, I also am in the camp that's hoping for SQUAD's improved implementation of aerodynamics to be something of its own. Particularly given that there's no stock fairings (procedural or otherwise), FAR or NEAR would be very poor choices.

[Karriz]

I hope they add stock fairings. As for the aerodynamics model, I'd be happy with a drag fix.

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

I'll probably be sticking with FAR even after the overhaul, aerodynamic failure makes it more challenging and exciting.

[Tangle]

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?

Atmosphere reaching past the Mun confirmed????

[Scotius]

It's a bird! It's a plane! It's...it's...OH HOLY MOTHER OF KOD! NOOOOOOO!!!

[FishInferno]

What I am hoping to see:

Shape-based drag (Nosecones and stuff)

body lift (for dreamchaser-like shuttles)

Stock fairings

[PDCWolf]

I really hope they go with something like FAR, physics changing with mach numbers is a must (reentry profiles change between FAR and NEAR because of that, so does the heating if you have DR). The charts and the specialized guys are not a -need-, given the aerodynamic model is pretty intuitive: if it looks like a plane and follows the basic laws of plane design, then its probably going to fly too.

Deep space refueling? I don't like the sound of that. I want resources, not just GET MORE FUEL FROM THE SURFACE OF WHEREVER YOU ARE FOR INFINITE SPACE EXPLORATION, that's just pretty much slaughtering the entire feature and reducing it to the lowest common denominator possible. Give me something to maintain extraplanetary bases, give me something to get funds with, give me stuff that holds a scientific value. You killed the previous resources arguing it was not fun, yet you implemented the clickfest science system we have now, such hypocrisy. Now you have an opportunity to redeem yourselves with a meaningful mid-endgame feature that expands into the rest of the already existing game like the three currencies, the science system, life support in the future, etc. Don't blow it.

[soulsource]

Deep space refuelling? While I do see the possibility to implement this in a meaningful way - electrolysis of water from Dunas ice caps for oxidizer or extracting carbohydrates from the oceans of Laythe for liquid fuel for instance - I see a very large potential to make this way too unrealistic and easy. If there is a meaningful explanation why a certain resource can be obtained at a certain location, I'm fully for the possibility of deep space refuelling. If it's just land anywhere and get new fuel, I strongly oppose the idea.

Regarding aerodynamics: I'm a big fan of FAR, but it's probably too difficult for new players ("what's a derivative?"). If such an advanced aerodynamics model will be implemented, it needs to be optional.

[Cmdr. Arn1e]

I think it will be something SQUAD do themselves for the aerodynamics, I can't remember where they said it but I think there were various things about the existing mods they didn't like or couldn't implement in the core game for now...

I haven't said much about the deep space refuelling, because I really don't know and want to be finding that out nearer to when it's done, so it's more of a surprise gift than knowing in advance that I'll have to possibly learn to fly planes again xD (which, with the amount of real sims available that all have different controls and feels, shouldn't take too long )

I really doubt it will be like the mods for refuelling though... I think the fuel should be following some sort of logic, and not be a rather magical substance that happens to naturally form without being explained properly! (Microbial life will be sufficient for me...)

[viktor19]

Regarding aerodynamics: I'm a big fan of FAR, but it's probably too difficult for new players ("what's a derivative?").

Seriously, what's a derivative? (I'm only 14)

[Ikaneko]

Man...

I knew about this weeks before this thread appeared

Lulztotesrektn00bs

Am ultra hyped already for 0.91!!! Aerodynamics should be fun to play with, I have extensive experience with FAR (none of that NEAR nonsense). ISRU will be interesting, I am hoping for different asteroid types like water type (get rocket fuel from it), metal types (xenon? Maybe, I'm not the most creative) and some resource for monopropellant.

Good times and a very merry Christmas to you all!!!

[Technical Ben]

Deep space refuelling? While I do see the possibility to implement this in a meaningful way - electrolysis of water from Dunas ice caps for oxidizer or extracting carbohydrates from the oceans of Laythe for liquid fuel for instance - I see a very large potential to make this way too unrealistic and easy. If there is a meaningful explanation why a certain resource can be obtained at a certain location, I'm fully for the possibility of deep space refuelling. If it's just land anywhere and get new fuel, I strongly oppose the idea.

Regarding aerodynamics: I'm a big fan of FAR, but it's probably too difficult for new players ("what's a derivative?"). If such an advanced aerodynamics model will be implemented, it needs to be optional.

This is a game. Theoretically we could mine water from the moon, it would just take inordinate* amounts of time. Thus, we could get "rocket fuel" (hydrogen + oxygen) from nearly any rock in the kerbin system. It just would take a drill and lots of time for electrolysis. However, being a game they will probably balance it to something a little more fun, so it takes less time or is more abundant. I'm ok with this.

However as you said, it will probably use the new biomes to make it logical and challenging at the same time.

*I'm amazed I even remembered what that word meant.

[Norcalplanner]

Implementing stock drag fix would be fairly easy, but I'd really like for nose cones and fairings to have a purpose. FAR is simultaneously a bit too advanced and a bit too polarizing to put into stock, IMHO.

[PDCWolf]

Regarding aerodynamics: I'm a big fan of FAR, but it's probably too difficult for new players ("what's a derivative?"). If such an advanced aerodynamics model will be implemented, it needs to be optional.

Knowing what a derivative is is totally optional with FAR. Most intuitively-made designs won't fly in stock KSP, but they do in FAR. If it looks like a plane and it is balanced, it will probably fly under FAR (as it would in real life).

I really fail to see a downside with far, given the advanced features such as charts and math formulas are optional and you don't even need to look at them.

This is a game. Theoretically we could mine water from the moon, it would just take inordinate* amounts of time. Thus, we could get "rocket fuel" (hydrogen + oxygen) from nearly any rock in the kerbin system.

There's a problem with that: Squad seems reluctant to de-abstract stuff, and explaining getting fuel from water to specifically make hydrogen and oxygen ends up in having to de-abstract the already existing "LF/O" system. If you decide to do that, then all of the current tank mass ratios and consumption ratios are wrong. They know this already though and that's why they invented "propellium" for example (which was only obtainable on EVE's oceans) back when the old resource system was being shown off, to avoid this kind of abstraction conflict.

TL;DR You can't get fuel from "anywhere" with a rational -canon- explanation, or you end up killing the LF/O abstraction and having to explain/fix a lot of stuff.

[Kerboman]

I'd like FAR to be the aero model, but I have no complaints if they go with something else; just download the mod again.

I also don't care much for ISRU; I'll be happy more or less however they do it.

[Technical Ben]

Knowing what a derivative is is totally optional with FAR. Most intuitively-made designs won't fly in stock KSP, but they do in FAR. If it looks like a plane and it is balanced, it will probably fly under FAR (as it would in real life).

I really fail to see a downside with far, given the advanced features such as charts and math formulas are optional and you don't even need to look at them.

There's a problem with that: Squad seems reluctant to de-abstract stuff, and explaining getting fuel from water to specifically make hydrogen and oxygen ends up in having to de-abstract the already existing "LF/O" system. If you decide to do that, then all of the current tank mass ratios and consumption ratios are wrong. They know this already though and that's why they invented "propellium" for example (which was only obtainable on EVE's oceans) back when the old resource system was being shown off, to avoid this kind of abstraction conflict.

TL;DR You can't get fuel from "anywhere" with a rational -canon- explanation, or you end up killing the LF/O abstraction and having to explain/fix a lot of stuff.

Kind of true, with the exception that if it only works off Kerbin, it need not be "water". Eve or Laythe need not be water seas. Likewise it need not be water mined from the mun. I only used the moon and o/h as a real life example. It would not be "unrealistic" to get small amounts of fuel from "anywhere" within reason, or specific bioms. So in theory they could have fuel mined from special places on the mun and/or any other body in the game (with perhaps limits, for example no mono prop from certain planets/moons).

I'm guessing it would be some sort of remote launch facility, as supposed to the old fuel system there were adding. Launch and land a big/multiple part facility to a moon/planet and you can then relaunch craft from it with full fuel etc. The "in game cannon" being it's run the same as Kerbins Mission control is right now, for example, we don't worry about where the fuel comes from, it's just magically there and infinite (funds allowing in career).

[Superfluous J]

Knowing what a derivative is is totally optional with FAR. Most intuitively-made designs won't fly in stock KSP, but they do in FAR. If it looks like a plane and it is balanced, it will probably fly under FAR (as it would in real life).

While I agree that FAR is easier than most people seem to give it credit for, I have never experienced this "Looks like a plane but won't fly" thing in stock. So long as the COL is near (preferably a bit behind) the COM and and the COT is roughly (preferably directly) behind the COM, it'll fly quite well.

[Streetwind]

I would be surprised if Squad went and implemented either FAR or NEAR. Here's why:

- NEAR seems simpler on the tin, but if you think that you need to re-learn how to build planes properly for realistic aerodynamics, or check if your old designs are still airworthy... well, you should probably be doing this with FAR, since FAR at least has the analysis panel. Even if you understand nothing whatsoever about it, you can at least see if all the numbers are green or not! NEAR has the same aerodynamics but zero build assistance. You're all on your own there. So just because you have no supersonic effects or maneuvering stresses doesn't magically make it easy to learn. You end up wishing you had the analysis panel to help you out.

- All at the same time, I think FAR has too many elements that pull the user out of the "stick parts together and fly it" style of KSP for Squad to really consider it. It's the same thing as with the discussion of whether or not the VAB should show you your rocket's dV values. Squad has decided against that, and they will decide against the editor complexity of FAR. Meanwhile ferram4 is not going to let this labor of love of his be "half-assedly" stockified either.

No, I think what happened is that Squad took a look at NEAR and saw that there is room for a middle ground. For them, the point I have always seen brought up in dev posts on the topic time and time again is "what is realistic but fun enough? Where is the point that is acceptable? Where is the cutoff at which point you go overboard?" You can make this system as gamey and unrealistic as you want, or you can make it as realistically simulated as you want. It's a sliding scale, and while everybody has their own vocal opinion about their preferred style, just about nobody has any idea how a compromise would or should look like.

What Squad is attempting to do now, finally, after fussing over it so long, is taking a shot at hitting precisely that compromise. Maybe it'll be similar to, but not exactly like NEAR is right now. I think it'll be something that gets by without any further editor tools that aren't in place already, but that isn't so precision-demanding as to leave the player wishing for better tools.

I also think that ferram4 may possibly be helping Squad in this endeavour (unless he has already denied any such involvement, I wouldn't know, I don't stalk him). But at the same time, I'm convinced that FAR will live on as a separate mod. It will switch to build upon whatever aerodynamics model Squad comes up with, but it will probably end up working more or less exactly like it does now. The only thing that changes is how it's achieved under the hood. NEAR will probably die in the meantime, assuming stock becomes "good enough".

Edited December 25, 2014 by Streetwind

[TokiTech]

Merry Christmas guys. Thought Deep Space Refuel is already possible with stock but wonder there might be new parts for it? Also hoping aerodynamic overhaul won't render all my planes going too astray. Redesign and test flights them all can take days.

[Vanamonde]

Merged into the exsisting aero wish list thread.

[Fizwalker]

I've only read a few of the posts on this thread and I don't really have time to read it right now, but.... This is my two cents worth.

My thoughts are that maybe they could be both implemented. Have NEAR be the "normal" difficulty and maybe FAR be "hard" or perhaps be check mark options kind of like how having destructible facilities are handled.

(I like FAR, but then I haven't tried using NEAR, so...)

[luizopiloto]

Squad is messing with something very delicate here... this will change the game from ground up... some ppl will like... some will dislike...

[Ziff]

Merry Christmas guys. Thought Deep Space Refuel is already possible with stock but wonder there might be new parts for it? Also hoping aerodynamic overhaul won't render all my planes going too astray. Redesign and test flights them all can take days.

Deep space refueling, as in, resource collection and conversion to appropriate fuels. Similar to Kethane Or Karbonite, but done how Squad sees it.

Man...

I knew about this weeks before this thread appeared

We've all known since like October.. When HarvesteR announced it.

[Northstar1989]

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!

Merry Christmas to you too!

I actually just really hope they bring in Ferram. He's the only modder who seems to have a sufficient knowledge of how to model aerodynamics in KSP that he's created not one, but TWO working systems (FAR and NEAR). I think they can work with him to iron out the wrinkles of which particular features to include and not to include, and perhaps even collaborate to find ways to IMPROVE his code so it uses less memory, etc.

And, for the record, I would also like to see a lot of the data screens like in FAR (should require opening "Advanced Mode" in the VAB/SPH like with the parts catalog)- I find KSP just doesn't provide enough informational displays in the stock game in general. As long as the displays don't show up by default, and have to be "enabled" by clicking a button or setting an option, it shouldn't be too overwhelming for new players...

Regards,

Northstar

P.S. The informational displays in FAR aren't technically NECESSARY to build a plane/rocket- they just give you data about the expected performance of your vehicle, so you can make changes to it BEFORE you set it out on the Launchpad/Runway...

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to everyone!

-Northstar-

[Northstar1989]

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.

There is a third option you didn't consider. One that's vastly superior, and I'm sure you can see the wisdom of...

Nerf the ISP's (possibly replace them with real world ISP's and fuel-densities, as all real fuels are either lower-ISP or lower-density than stock KSP). This way it requires the same sized rocket to get to orbit as before, and makes the game slightly more realistic/challenging once you get to other planets or moons...

See the related discussion thread:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/104061-Should-Specific-Impulse-%28ISP%29-be-nerfed-with-improved-aerodynamics

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

- Northstar-