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

Maxmaps just gave an update on Twitter regarding backwards compatability of craft files:

Edited by KasperVld
updated with proper Twitter embeds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be honest, that sounds promising. Harvs wacky asymmetrical Mk2 plane was actually pretty well balanced, even in FAR. Wing and intake spam sound either less feasible or downright impossible (this is a good thing, in my opinion) and yeah.. to me, sounds better than what Harv was saying.. Thanks for the pic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool to know that once again, squad is listening the community. :)

Some aerodynamic mechanisms are completly broken (no stall for control surface), in an unintuitive and frustrating way. It'd better get repaired.

Adding 3 nosecones to a 5 min made rocket launcher should not hurt many players.

And designing craft is part of the fun (most of it for some of us), so recreating new spacplanes with a better aerodynamic and better construction tools will just add to the fun. By the way, retrocompatibility has already be broken for less important features (but important though), like the new mk2 plane parts, and the MK3 overhaul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So his tweet is that a well-designed plane should fly in either version of the aerodynamics.

Maybe it's me, but I kind of presumed that, no? Maybe a slight adjust of a wing by a degree or two if lift and atmo density is different, but for the most part a sound design is a sound design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think harvester should do a second update, to clarify the clarification (pun intended).

One of the major points he brings up in the update, is having a "control" and "reference". He then goes on to mention an example of getting the initial lift values right, by using a stock craft as reference.

That is perfectly reasonable. When replacing something as fundamental as aerodynamics with a new model, then of course you need a reference to bring values "into the ballpark" at first.

However, using stock crafts to achieve a good starting point, and then from there on tweaking further, OR using stockcrafts as the final GOAL... those are two entirely different things.

Surely almost no one here would have a problem, with them using stock crafts to merely achieve a "first guess", and then from there on tweak further while allowing stock breakage. What people instead consider (rightfully) bollo***, is the implication, that in the final model will have to support every/most stock crafts that have been built. This is like rewriting a story, while tying your hands to your back, so you have to keep the pen between your teeth, and write that way.

Edited by rynak

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