Stock Aero News from the Squadcast

[Superfluous J]

Everyone has a voice - if they choose not to use it, that's up to them. But they shouldn't expect things to go their way either.

I totally agree with you.

So I'm going to come out and say it: I like that FAR forces fairings and straight rockets. I don't like the gui in the VAB and I don't like flying planes with FAR installed. I like pulling high-gee turns that would rip apart a plane in FAR and don't like being constantly worried that the simple fact that I'm flying with a keyboard and not being absolutely perfect could spell instant disaster. I also don't want to feel the need to hit F5 every 3 minutes to overcome these problems. I don't mind one bit that FAR removes a grand and change of dV to orbit. I think the tradeoff of not being able to launch rockets shaped like bricks is a perfect compromise.

So, I personally want an aerodynamic model that encourages fairings, requires rockets to be aerodynamic, yet still allows planes (and rockets) to get away with less-than-perfect flight paths.

In other words, I want something closer to FAR than current stock, but I don't want FAR to be stock. It is a truly amazing piece of work and I've enjoyed it for hours and hours, but I really truly think it goes too... ahem... far.

I would of course as always prefer it was still an option. Making things that are unmoddable in this game is a huge mistake IMO. I also would like the tech tree, the buildings, which kerbal has what career to be moddable, though, so...

[wizzlebippi]

Better yet, tell the player at what speed their craft will experience an unscheduled disassembly. Then all doubt is removed.

Most of this thread embodies why I don't like FAR. Yes, it does use real aerodynamics, but it doesn't feel balanced. The atmosphere doesn't feel soupy like it should. Tapping W during a high speed dive results in yard sale of all the parts that previously made up an aircraft. Plus, the last time I used FAR, there was still nothing for lateral-directional aero improvements. Don't get me wrong, KSP's stock aero is awful, but for all FAR's improvements it's just differently broken.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Well obsessed with KSP your name is accurate. At the end of the day you paid $30 for entertainment. By any measure you have gotten that out of it. It's great that you are skilled and push the game but please realize you aren't the core market.

A recent survey of forum users (which would still represent the best players as many people never use the forum or reddit) showed only 10% of players ever visiting Moho, Eeloo and Dres. Only 20% of that same group have ever successfully launched a Spaceplane to orbit (let alone landed it). Heck 20% of players have t made or it yet.

So realize it's that type of user Kerbal is designed for. If that doesn't work for you use what addons are available or rage quit. Either way Kerbal will cater to the beginner.

TLDR: People who pay $30 and demand a game be built around their unusual play styles are delusional.

I don't wish to derail the topic and start a flamewar, but:

1, please do not judge me by my username. It's a username and nothing more. Thank you.

2, I've been to Dres and Eeloo precisely once and never landed on Moho. Neither have I returned from Eve or even landed on any of Jools moons (unless you count an uncontrolled descent into Laythes seas without establishing orbit first as 'landing'). Granted, I've taken several spaceplanes up to orbit, but I'm far from the best or most accomplished player. Truth be told, I'm actually not very good at this game. However, even before I even knew FAR existed, launching flat football fields into orbit felt so wrong. I was only a month or so into the game and I already hated the fact that the stock aero can be cheated like that. Yes, I know I'm just one person so you're free to ignore me, but, speaking as new player (who apparently has a more important opinion than me) would, FAR makes sense. It just does. With my newbie hat on, yes, I'd like to disable aerodynamic disassembly (mainly because it doesn't actually look like disassembly, more like the joint logic broke, but that's another discussion about KSPs failure mechanic), and possibly hide the numbers and graphs that FAR does, but once I learn more about the game, let me learn more about how to play it. Show the graphs, enable failures, give me the info required to make my planes as stable as possible. As a new player, yes, that information would overwhelm me (I know KERs did first time I installed it), but there's no sense to just always cater towards newbies, because after a while, they won't be newbies any more. Simple as. They'll know how to 'cheat the system' as it were, they'll get frustrated with the lack of info (which is why the majority of first mods installed are KER/MechJeb) and they'll just want more. If the game doesn't provide that, they'll turn to mods. Which is fair enough, I don't mind that, but then we're back at the original argument that 'the game isn't catered to them'. Can you see why this argument makes no sense to me? Because Squad want to cater the game towards new players, not players in general. It's ignoring how they progress and learn - having a simplistic aero model helps newbies for sure, but again, they're not newbies for long. Squad is after new blood players continuously and ignoring existing players in the process. That is why I push for FAR-esque aero - because it's more intuitive to new players (harder? Yes. Makes more sense? Also yes) and rewards older players.

Just to touch on the 'Makes more sense' there - with FAR, a rocket-shaped rocket will easily get to space. A plane shaped like a plane will also fly and be stable. People draw from real world experience when they design stuff and FAR rewards that.

To be brutally honest, I don't care what Squad goes with, as long as it's moddable or failing that, that it rewards realistic (/believable) rocket shapes, that gravity turns are possible, that the atmosphere is thinned out and that wings act like wings, not downward pointing engines.

3, I paid $30 to play a game and that's what I've been doing. But, seeing as I'm posting in a forum titled Suggestions and Development Discussion, I thought I'd give my suggestion for development, what with KSP being essentially a WIP. Also, I'd hardly call players who install a mod to make the atmosphere realistic 'unusual'.

- - - Updated - - -

The atmosphere doesn't feel soupy like it should.

Go faster than Mach 1. Sure gets soupy and draggy there, that's for sure. If you're ascending and the AP is at 80km and you're horizontal at 30km, yeah, you're not going escape the atmosphere. Reynolds Numbers, Mach effects.. the air behaves like porridge above Mach 1, as it should do. Below that though.. just look head on at a Mk2 or Mk1 plane and tell me it should have a load of drag. Air is surprisingly slippery at subsonic speeds and surprisingly sticky at supersonic.

[CaptainKipard]

I just want one single model that everyone uses. If it's derived from FAR then great. I hate having to chose my mods based on what model I pick at that time, and vice versa, picking either FAR or stock based on what mods I want to play with.

[Majorjim!]

Look here chaps, some answers: Stock aero link thing

[Bill Phil]

Air isn't surprisingly sticky at all at supersonic speeds.

You go so fast that the air LITERALLY can not move out of the way. You slam into the air. Pressure differences increase drag.

Plus, air generally sticks to moving objects, but not much.

[asmi]

Good. As long as Squad keeps their intention not to screw up FAR, I'm fine with whatever they do (even if that means zero new content for me in the new update).

[Wanderfound]

Better yet, tell the player at what speed their craft will experience an unscheduled disassembly. Then all doubt is removed.

Most of this thread embodies why I don't like FAR. Yes, it does use real aerodynamics, but it doesn't feel balanced. The atmosphere doesn't feel soupy like it should. Tapping W during a high speed dive results in yard sale of all the parts that previously made up an aircraft. Plus, the last time I used FAR, there was still nothing for lateral-directional aero improvements. Don't get me wrong, KSP's stock aero is awful, but for all FAR's improvements it's just differently broken.

While the reputation of FAR's aerodynamic failures as high-difficulty was reasonable a few versions ago, the inclusion of tweakable wing strength in recent updates has almost totally negated that factor.

A reasonable plane built with default-strength wings can safely pull 10G manoeuvres at low altitude; a craft designed as an aerobatic specialist can do a lot more than that. You only get hair-trigger fragility if you tweak them down to ultralight glider equivalents.

[Parallax]

ksp needs something like this, that way everyone's happy.

[SorryDave]

It seems like SQUAD has a grasp on what changes need to be implemented in simulating aerodynamics and still be a fun game.

The biggest changes I am looking forward to are wings with enough lift to fly from the runway without a crazy angle of attack and much needed design aids in the editor. A dry mass indicator or maybe center of pressure would be s nice add to the VAB as well.

I hope they implement a slider to change lift to simulate different airfoils, that would make balancing tails easier.

To get a feel for the changes, I will probably first try and launch large slow pancake rockets and then really fast needlers.

I hope it is fun, is there even a real example of a "realistic" space plane?

[Empiro]

http://i.imgur.com/RhCxztq.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/ogXVEU5.jpg

ksp needs something like this, that way everyone's happy.

Too many options make the game harder to maintain though, especially if they're options that have gameplay (as opposed to just graphical) impact. Basically every time you patch the game, you'd need to test every combination of options. Mod makers probably wouldn't be huge fans either.

It also ironically makes the game harder for new and intermediate players, because it's harder for veteran players to answer the question, since they could be playing under very different settings.

At most, there should be "easy" and "hard" physics mode, but I'd even just lean toward there being one setting -- hard. When I played using FAR, it took me about an hour and a few videos to figure out what I needed to do to make my rocket not flip over. It's actually not that hard to fly rockets under FAR once you learn. A good tutorial can guide new players in even less time.

When it comes to planes/spaceplanes, I'd argue that you don't even need to use them at all to enjoy and succeed at the game. You can visit every body in the game without flying a single plane. Let players who want to take things to the next level learn all about how planes work. It took me dozens of hours to finally make a plane that can lift off and land in FAR, but it was hugely rewarding for me.

[Louella]

I have a couple of basic aircraft. And just about the only reason I have them, is because doing atmospheric survey contracts is profitable, and is a useful earning thing to do, while waiting for moon or planetary missions to reach their destinations.

The atmosphere of Kerbin, is almost irrelevant to the vast majority of my game. It is just an obstacle to be overcome.

All the atmosphere effectively does for most of my spacecraft, is mean I have the Kerbin terminal velocity in atmosphere table open in a browser on my second monitor, so I adjust the throttle of my rocket to minimise losses due to atmospheric drag.

On the spacecraft that return to Kerbin, the atmosphere means I have to remember to have enough parachutes, to make a safe landing.

That's all the atmosphere and aerodynamics means to the majority of my spacecraft = a limitation on launch acceleration, a restriction on minimum orbital height, and a requirement for X number of parachutes for return missions.

Changing how aerodynamics works would mean altering the limitations on launch, and the requirements for parachutes and/or heat shield for return missions. But how aeroplanes or spaceplanes work would make little difference to my game, except in career modes, where the survey contracts are consistent earners.

[Francois424]

What I want personally is for flying bricks to still be viable. Say asparagus 3x5 orange tank stack with payload on top. That ship *will* make orbit, but should be less efficient. Add-in nosecones, you get a bit more. On the other hand, your Delta-II look-alike should be far more efficient than the other one in getting into that same orbit.

That way, you can still launch weird Kerbal stuff into orbit. But unless you absolutely have to (big payload) or that you don't know what you are doing (newbie), you will have a tendency to go for the Delta-II looks instead of 'the brick'.

Throw in No weird "rocket falling off the sky" as I see all the time rom Far videos and I think this should satisfy most people.

--

For planes, I agree for whatever changes they want to make as I find the current model hard to fly based on flight-sims of old that I used to play. I just want electric/plain propeller to make a Boom plane for surveys. I already made one, and based on comments that wings aren't powerful enough, it should perform really well in the new atmos.

[DaMichel]

Look here chaps, some answers: Stock aero link thing

The main goal of a new drag model then, is to allow the game to properly simulate payloads being protected from the airstream by a cargo bay or fairing, and nose cones properly reducing the drag of parts stacked behind it.

Oh i guess then drag will still be proportional to mass. It would be a shame if this was true.

This is something we plan to remove, definitely. If everything goes according to theory, we should be able to finally tick off the acceleration mode flag. That's going to be our moment of truth I think, so fingers crossed.

Yeah this sounds pretty good overall then. I'm looking forward to what they come up with. But on the hand i'll probably still be using FAR

Edited January 14, 2015 by DaMichel

[Superfluous J]

The atmosphere of Kerbin, is almost irrelevant to the vast majority of my game. It is just an obstacle to be overcome.

...a limitation on launch acceleration, a restriction on minimum orbital height, and a requirement for X number of parachutes for return missions.

...how aeroplanes or spaceplanes work would make little difference to my game...

Have you played with FAR installed? I ask because I thought exactly this before I installed it. Then after a while of playing I realized that those first 5 minutes or so of your launch - and the changes you need to make to craft to get through those 5 minutes using a totally different aerodynamic paradigm - follow you throughout the entire mission.

[bdito]

Until we see what the actual stock aero will be like everything is speculation. I just hope that their changes allow FAR and NEAR to remain as a living mods (which HarvesteR said they plan to do).

[juanml82]

It seems like SQUAD has a grasp on what changes need to be implemented in simulating aerodynamics and still be a fun game.

The biggest changes I am looking forward to are wings with enough lift to fly from the runway without a crazy angle of attack and much needed design aids in the editor. A dry mass indicator or maybe center of pressure would be s nice add to the VAB as well.

I hope they implement a slider to change lift to simulate different airfoils, that would make balancing tails easier.

To get a feel for the changes, I will probably first try and launch large slow pancake rockets and then really fast needlers.

I hope it is fun, is there even a real example of a "realistic" space plane?

An SSTO HOTOL? No such an aircraft was ever successfully tested IRL. Project Skylon, which is still far from a prototype, is expected to put 15 tons into LEO, using two Sabre engines - the comparable KSP engine is the Rapier.

Here's an in illustration

Now compare that wingspan to a typical KSP spaceplane

[Crimson Sunrise]

Until we see what the actual stock aero will be like everything is speculation. I just hope that their changes allow FAR and NEAR to remain as a living mods (which HarvesteR said they plan to do).

Including what everyone heard in Squadcast.

- - - Updated - - -

An SSTO HOTOL? No such an aircraft was ever successfully tested IRL. Project Skylon, which is still far from a prototype, is expected to put 15 tons into LEO, using two Sabre engines - the comparable KSP engine is the Rapier.

Here's an in illustration

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ea/Skylon_front_view.jpg

Now compare that wingspan to a typical KSP spaceplane

I'll bet it'll be done before KSP 1.0