Sign in to follow this  
hoojiwana

Should Squad drop backwards compatibility with the new aerodynamics? (2nd update in OP)

Should Squad drop backwards compatibility with the new aerodynamics?  

510 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Squad drop backwards compatibility with the new aerodynamics?

    • Yes
      409
    • No
      51
    • I don't care
      50


Recommended Posts

Squad are changing the aero model. By definition, it will not be 100% backwards compatible *anyway* since the only backwards compatible model is one that is unaltered from 0.90.

Personally, I want to wait and see what they come up with. There are far few details as yet to form solid opinions. If they produce a new system that is *universally* reviled, I'm fairly certain that they wouldn't declare "this was the one chance for the aero model to be changed, you've all missed your chance to opine, so this is what will land in V1.0".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not do backwards compatability in a beta. EVER!!

You also need to think of the potential buyers. They want to see realistic physics. Realistoc doesn't have to be orbiter, but it does not need backwards compatability with old flying bricks. This game is a BETA and is not finished yet, so there is no such thing as backwards compatibility until it is completed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I start a new career everytime there is an update. There is zero expectation from me that anything I build now will work in future versions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it would be a pain if backwards compatibility wasn't possible, it certainly wouldn't be the end of the world. I don't build many important crafts anyways, so I don't really care about what happens.

It's a game in Beta, can't have everything working all the time for everyone, can we? It's an unrealistic goal; anything will inevitably break something else. Really, the mk2 update broke a lot of spaceplanes (I think), but I didn't see anyone get completely bent out of shape about it.

Sure, crafts would be broken, but then again, it's better to do these changes now, instead of closer to the full release. Less people playing the game probably now; and people can't really expect a completely working product, it's in Beta! Under development, all in all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people want unrealistic aerodynamics (which allow for wild, unrealistic ships), then let the community build a mod for it.

Those of us who enjoy realistic aerodynamics have depended on mods (FAR/NEAR) for quite some time now. It hasn't killed us. Even after Squad makes their changes, no matter what they do, there will probably still be a group relying on mods for even greater realism. That's okay.

According to this poll, 10-15% of players want their old, crazy, unaerodynamic ships to work. That's just the active community... Let's be generous and say that this number should be 25% when you include people who won't come into contact with this poll. That means 3/4 of KSP players are completely fine (if not hopeful) if Squad implements an aerodynamic model which makes the old, silly contraptions obsolete. That tells me that the community wants realistic aerodynamics to be stock.

And this is consistent with everything else in KSP. Are Kerbals quirky creatures that make you smile? Yes. Does stock KSP have a junkyard space center feel? Yes. Are crew reports funny? Sure. Are the contacts and strategies ridiculous sometimes? Definitely. But the physics in KSP are as good as it gets. The orbital mechanics are spot on. You can pull out a physics textbook to help you with the game. Why should this be different for aerodynamics? Shouldn't we expect something just as "real"?

The primary concern seems to be "fun." And I think that's a very noble concern. KSP is fun. KSP is a game. I don't think anyone wants for KSP to become a hardcore space flight simulator. But that doesn't mean it can't be realistic and fun! Just look at the rest of the game as it already is. Within reason, space flight works like it should. It's realistic. It's physics. Does this prove difficult for new players? Sure. Does it prevent you from flying around the solar system willy nilly? Yep. But that has never stopped people from having fun. Heck, for many I believe that the realism is what makes KSP so fun and rewarding.

Would a realistic aerodynamics overhaul change the game in a way some people dislike? Yes. But it's already in a state that people dislike, and those people have gotten along just fine with mods. Mods are one of KSP's brightest jewels. They support all kinds of functionality that most players don't care for. If you want unrealistic aerodynamics, that's totally okay! It's just that you might need a mod to get things the way you want. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Meanwhile, it's time for KSP's aerodynamics to meet the standards that Squad has set for the rest of the game.

If we're talking about fun, I for one believe that realistic aerodynamics would make it more fun. If a relatively small handful disagree, then let them find their fun in the form of mods (which the "pro-realists" have been doing all along, and will continue doing if the changes aren't sufficient).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no point trying to hold on to old settings simply because peoples spaceships might not work. Tweak them if that is the case.

Personally, I don't think we have the right to demand that the patches be backward compatible while the game is still in development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares about backwards compatibility. I'd rather see it done right than a compromise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the poll results are really clear. What confuses me though is why Squad so often misjudge community opinion on things. Harvester himself seemed to be under the impression that this issue would be important to players.

According to this poll, 10-15% of players want their old, crazy, unaerodynamic ships to work. That's just the active community... Let's be generous and say that this number should be 25% when you include people who won't come into contact with this poll.

No, let's not pretend that the active community is any different than the rest, because there's no reason to do that.

Edited by Cpt. Kipard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted yes but I'd like to expand it to "Yes, if needed". I don't think they should go out of their way to remove backwards compability but I don't think they should put even a minute of time considering the problem either.

This is beta for reason and I fully expect stuff to break regularly, it's a sign of progress!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This poll obviously won't include the entire KSP community as some are on reddit and some don't use any forums whatsoever.

This got me thinking. Much like mods checking for updates when the game starts, could Squad prompt users to a link that would direct them to a survey asking similar questions? That way everyone would be prompted for their feedback instead of just the ones that happen to notice a poll here or there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could confirm the poll and ensure it's more accurate given a larger data set. My idea of Squad polling users wouldn't just be for a single question like this. They could have a survey with multiple questions covering multiple topics. You could get 4,000 replies instead of 400. More info is never a bad thing.

Edited by bdito

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If people want unrealistic aerodynamics (which allow for wild, unrealistic ships), then let the community build a mod for it.

Those of us who enjoy realistic aerodynamics have depended on mods (FAR/NEAR) for quite some time now. It hasn't killed us. Even after Squad makes their changes, no matter what they do, there will probably still be a group relying on mods for even greater realism. That's okay.

According to this poll, 10-15% of players want their old, crazy, unaerodynamic ships to work. That's just the active community... Let's be generous and say that this number should be 25% when you include people who won't come into contact with this poll. That means 3/4 of KSP players are completely fine (if not hopeful) if Squad implements an aerodynamic model which makes the old, silly contraptions obsolete. That tells me that the community wants realistic aerodynamics to be stock.

And this is consistent with everything else in KSP. Are Kerbals quirky creatures that make you smile? Yes. Does stock KSP have a junkyard space center feel? Yes. Are crew reports funny? Sure. Are the contacts and strategies ridiculous sometimes? Definitely. But the physics in KSP are as good as it gets. The orbital mechanics are spot on. You can pull out a physics textbook to help you with the game. Why should this be different for aerodynamics? Shouldn't we expect something just as "real"?

The primary concern seems to be "fun." And I think that's a very noble concern. KSP is fun. KSP is a game. I don't think anyone wants for KSP to become a hardcore space flight simulator. But that doesn't mean it can't be realistic and fun! Just look at the rest of the game as it already is. Within reason, space flight works like it should. It's realistic. It's physics. Does this prove difficult for new players? Sure. Does it prevent you from flying around the solar system willy nilly? Yep. But that has never stopped people from having fun. Heck, for many I believe that the realism is what makes KSP so fun and rewarding.

Would a realistic aerodynamics overhaul change the game in a way some people dislike? Yes. But it's already in a state that people dislike, and those people have gotten along just fine with mods. Mods are one of KSP's brightest jewels. They support all kinds of functionality that most players don't care for. If you want unrealistic aerodynamics, that's totally okay! It's just that you might need a mod to get things the way you want. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Meanwhile, it's time for KSP's aerodynamics to meet the standards that Squad has set for the rest of the game.

If we're talking about fun, I for one believe that realistic aerodynamics would make it more fun. If a relatively small handful disagree, then let them find their fun in the form of mods (which the "pro-realists" have been doing all along, and will continue doing if the changes aren't sufficient).

I really hope that Squad is reading this thread and listening. This is spot on. I think that recently, they have been forgetting why people like KSP (and full disclosure, I wasn't around here until .23, but I like KSP for the same reasons that everyone else does) and acting like "fun" and more realism are mutually exclusive. They aren't. I think that most of the community would like having the game be very realistic, more so than it is now. I'm not saying include RSS or RO in the game, but players shouldn't have to install mods to get basic realism features like life support, proper aerodynamics, or reentry heat damage (for example, there are obviously many more). Yes, they would make the game harder, but not in any way different than having a proper physics simulation in space does. And I agree, this added difficulty would make the game more rewarding. If people don't like some new realism feature (and there will definitely be people who won't like more realism, that's kind of unavoidable), mods can take it back out. I think that it is better having the base game realistic (to a degree) and then letting people mod it into either something similar to what it is now, or into a total hardcore RSS and RO game (or some middle ground that is more middle ground-ish than what ideally we would have with the base game). Oh, and on the topic of the thead, yes, if when the aerodynamics model is done (why did they not bring in ferram4??? It would have made their jobs easier and given people an aerodynamics model that was either already accepted by the community, or an aerodynamics model that was made by someone who's skill is not doubted by the community. Win-win-win. More time to spend on other features, better aerodynamics, happier community) it is backwards compatible with old designs, great. But don't let that influence the quality of the model. Don't make a design decision based on whether it will break old designs or not.

Edited by asheft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No point in voting or debating, we all know from past experience that Squad will just do what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No point in voting or debating, we all know from past experience that Squad will just do what they want.

When .90 was in development, people hated the original idea of Kerbal XP. Squad listened and made changes. When they showed the original barn photos, the community didn't like them, so Squad held back the barn tier until they could be redone with a higher quality. So there is a point in voting and debating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, I couldn't give less of a you-know-what whether ships I designed in old versions would still work in the next. If they shouldn't be able to fly, but still do in current stock, like that box-shaped thing made from wing-connectors Scott Manley did once, then they definitely shouldn't work anymore in the new version. Anything that looks like it should fly, like pretty much any half way realistic aircraft/rocket design I ever did, should still be fine, since it literally has no reason not to work. That's not "backwards compatibility" though. If they'd make it so that anything that flies now still flies in 0.91 they would essentially not change anything about the aerodynamics.

To put it short: Any plausible designs will still work anyway, so why would they even mention that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely no!

If they think about "backward" so neithet porkjet wing or new mk3 cockpit should have been implemented

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they produce a new system that is *universally* reviled
Which I think will appear to happen. Noisy souposphere fans will complain that the new system is too hard, and noisy FAR fans will complain that it's nowhere near good enough. The satisfied majority and the new players who never knew the soup will be relatively silent, that's the way these things work.

Unlike with the Kerbal experience mechanics or the farmyard KSC, the new aerodynamic model won't be something that can well be judged without playing. So I predict things quiet before the release, but then an absolute storm of complaints afterwards. Whatever Squad do with the aerodynamics, they need to be prepared for the angriest community backlash in the game's history. It will all blow over but I wouldn't be too surprised if Squad get bullied into reverting from a decent new system back to the soup or a minor tweak a la Stock Drag Fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HarvesteR updated the article, it might help you to understand what he means :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If people want unrealistic aerodynamics (which allow for wild, unrealistic ships), then let the community build a mod for it.

Those of us who enjoy realistic aerodynamics have depended on mods (FAR/NEAR) for quite some time now. It hasn't killed us. Even after Squad makes their changes, no matter what they do, there will probably still be a group relying on mods for even greater realism. That's okay.

According to this poll, 10-15% of players want their old, crazy, unaerodynamic ships to work. That's just the active community... Let's be generous and say that this number should be 25% when you include people who won't come into contact with this poll. That means 3/4 of KSP players are completely fine (if not hopeful) if Squad implements an aerodynamic model which makes the old, silly contraptions obsolete. That tells me that the community wants realistic aerodynamics to be stock.

And this is consistent with everything else in KSP. Are Kerbals quirky creatures that make you smile? Yes. Does stock KSP have a junkyard space center feel? Yes. Are crew reports funny? Sure. Are the contacts and strategies ridiculous sometimes? Definitely. But the physics in KSP are as good as it gets. The orbital mechanics are spot on. You can pull out a physics textbook to help you with the game. Why should this be different for aerodynamics? Shouldn't we expect something just as "real"?

The primary concern seems to be "fun." And I think that's a very noble concern. KSP is fun. KSP is a game. I don't think anyone wants for KSP to become a hardcore space flight simulator. But that doesn't mean it can't be realistic and fun! Just look at the rest of the game as it already is. Within reason, space flight works like it should. It's realistic. It's physics. Does this prove difficult for new players? Sure. Does it prevent you from flying around the solar system willy nilly? Yep. But that has never stopped people from having fun. Heck, for many I believe that the realism is what makes KSP so fun and rewarding.

Would a realistic aerodynamics overhaul change the game in a way some people dislike? Yes. But it's already in a state that people dislike, and those people have gotten along just fine with mods. Mods are one of KSP's brightest jewels. They support all kinds of functionality that most players don't care for. If you want unrealistic aerodynamics, that's totally okay! It's just that you might need a mod to get things the way you want. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Meanwhile, it's time for KSP's aerodynamics to meet the standards that Squad has set for the rest of the game.

If we're talking about fun, I for one believe that realistic aerodynamics would make it more fun. If a relatively small handful disagree, then let them find their fun in the form of mods (which the "pro-realists" have been doing all along, and will continue doing if the changes aren't sufficient).

I REALLY hope that harvester look at your post and think about it, you have exactly centered the point of "fun".

Another example: should they change interplanetary transfer to make it easier and more " fun"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HarvesteR updated the article, it might help you to understand what he means :)

I've added the update to the OP for any other people coming into the thread to vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, let's not pretend that the active community is any different than the rest, because there's no reason to do that.

Well, for my purposes I was just trying to give the "No" crowd the benefit of the doubt.

But I do think that it's possible this poll is misleading. It's not exactly scientific. For all we know, the link has been posted in places where "Yes" people are more likely to see it. For all we know, the people who would vote "No" might tend to be the sort of people who just goof around on their own and don't frequent online KSP communities. And their voice matters too, even if they're not vocal. My point is merely that we don't KNOW how accurate this poll is.

That said, it's probably dead on, and I was being conservative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stock aerodynamics has been at the top of the list of things the player community are annoyed about for a long time. Backwards compatibility would help to preserve the flying pancakes and stupid designs that we all want to see the end of. Few tears will be shed for the demise of such designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, for my purposes I was just trying to give the "No" crowd the benefit of the doubt.

But I do think that it's possible this poll is misleading. It's not exactly scientific. For all we know, the link has been posted in places where "Yes" people are more likely to see it. For all we know, the people who would vote "No" might tend to be the sort of people who just goof around on their own and don't frequent online KSP communities. And their voice matters too, even if they're not vocal. My point is merely that we don't KNOW how accurate this poll is.

That said, it's probably dead on, and I was being conservative.

Well you're just pointing out the inherent flaws in listening to ANY feedback. It seems HarvesteR isn't quite listening to what people are saying anyway, and (as I see it) is missing the point behind peoples concerns over backwards compatibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this