Gaarst

I'm not talking about the "historic" KSP devs, but the old-time modders that were hired by Squad recently, for 1.1 or 1.2 (NecroBones, NathanKell, TriggerAu, Sarbian, Klaw...). They all have been involved in the modding community for a long time, and I doubt they will just vanish leaving their mods abandoned. Edit: NecroBones is not cited in the leaving staff, so considering his awesome work on texturing in his mods, the retexturing is not dead yet.

Bumping this. A thread reminded me of this: as 1.2 is coming out soon and as a lot of changes happened to the Squad team recently, it might be a good time to bring this back to the surface. Just to see if there was any official plans on it. @Badie and @UomoCapra, I guess you are the people to ask now.

Localisation was mentioned by Squad at some point, and before 1.1 was released, rumours said it would come out with 1.2 with code implementation as soon as 1.1. Now this is obviously not going to happen since we haven't had any information on it recently. There was a language patch project (in which I briefly participated) running for a time, but it was dropped around 1.0.2 when 1.1 and localisation were announced as we figured out updating the patch to the potentially new language system for 1.1 might not be worth the trouble. But then the 1.0.5 patch came, and 1.1 was pushed again and again... and we never went back to the patch. The master thread and several following patches are not active anymore, but there is a Russian patch developed independently by @Helmut which seems up to date here: When the official localisation was announced, Simon (the guy managing the language patches) asked Squad about potential fan-made translation based on the patches; while Squad seemed interested at first, they changed their minds and implied they were going to ask for a professional company to do the translations. Since then, nothing. There have been a lot of changes in the Squad team recently, and 1.2 is coming out soon without any clear idea of what will follow, so I'm thinking it might be a good time to ping Squad about this. I'll ask someone and hope for an answer.

Yeah, kind of weird to leave all of a sudden when part overhauls and modding expansions seemed to be big parts of 1.2/1.3. I think they will continue their (awesome) work as modders still. Leaving Squad != leaving KSP.

I disagree on that one. A new solar system is very easy to make as a mod, methinks expansion packs should be things that expand the scope/framework of the game. I'd buy a DLC that brings nothing in-game if it allows new types of mods to be developed. I know and I'll get them for free, but I think it's actually the first time that expansion packs are mentioned as actual planned features, not just some hypothetical thing in a distant future.

Same here, but not everyone bought the game before 2013/2012/1925/whenever-they-said-you'd-get-free-updates-until.

1.2 is a free update, but the Asteroid Day mod can be considered a free expansion pack (definitely not an update).

You're making a fair point, I've assumed paid expansion packs but forgot about the Asteroid mod and football thingy, I'm correcting OP

Good news! Also I'm really interested about the mention of expansion packs, and further expansion of KSP "towards new horizons"; I want to speculate so hard right now

We have a date for 1.2 (), but there is another important information one could miss/skip: It might be the time to start an actual discussion thread instead of just mentioning it here and there (though it might already exist, if so then just merge/delete/close this one). So discuss. Please stay polite and don't make assumptions about the nature of the expansion packs (note the word DLC is not used) when we have no information on them besides the fact that they are planned for some time in the future. NOTE: for the poll, I have assumed paid expansion packs when writing it for some reason; but please consider both paid and free packs when answering it or writing a comment.

No:

Parachutes and proper Rapierspike tests will depend on my free time and willingness to repetitively launch dozens of rockets and watch them go up. I'm interested in the detached shockwave mechanics since I appear to never have noticed it when playing. Pinging @NathanKell hoping for a link to the thread you mentioned.

2050 then? Still a bit too optimistic am I?

Who knows, we might even have stock dV readouts by then!

So what effects would it have? If I could design something that exaggerates this effect I could measure it more accurately, but using simple rockets I haven't noticed anything. I will try it.

So I did a few more tests that were suggested to complete the ones I already had: I tested the shielded docking port and NCS adapter + SAS nose cone on a single core stack to see effects of detached shockwave. As predicted, the results suggest they do not exist in KSP: the NCS adapter + SAS nose cone assembly had an average of 73350m which is slightly lower than the value for NCS adapter + small nose cone (73760m); the shielded docking port had an average of 33770m putting it in significantly higher than the "empty" node (14760m) but also a lot lower than the most aerodynamic cones (around 72000-73000m for most, 67250m for the aerodynamic nose cone). Using a small nose cone under an empty node does have an effect, but as predicted, and like the other cones, this effect is rather limited. The average maximal height was 28640m, to be compared to 28020m for the empty node and around 30400m for other nose cones. Finally, I tested the new overhauled engines, in order to compare the boat-tail and bare engine versions. The rocket used was similar to the one used in the first part, but because of the engine specs change they must not be compared. The different engines do have different drag characteristics but the overall difference in performance is not extremely significant. The boat-tail version averaged 50620m while the bare engine version averaged 48410m. The difference is of the same order of magnitude as the difference measured when adding or removing a nose cone under and empty node. Note that as the part overhaul is still a WIP, and as the released version of this mod is incomplete, the difference in drag is likely to change significantly in the future.

As I explained somewhere in this wall of text, the FL-T100 tanks in the rockets are exclusively ballast tanks. Their fuel is not used by the engine and their only use is to balance the masses and their distribution when adding different nose cones. Even though I can't balance the rocket mass to a 1kg accuracy, the masses have never deviated of over 10kg from the "empty" craft (over a wet total of 5-10t depending on the tests), that makes a variation of under 0.2% of the mass of the whole rocket (bring that up to 0.5% max if you consider dry masses). I'd say this is not a test of mass.

I have a ton* of rockets with hydrolox as mean of propulsion, unfortunately I don't think I have any without these nasty polluting SRBs... Meh, I'll slap something together quickly (= I'll just remove boosters on a rocket I already have). *not literally, they actually all weigh a lot more than a ton

I'll try but I don't think it will do anything particular. I'd say the SAS cone thing has the same (or slightly higher) drag than the small nose cone, and the shielded docking port has low-average drag (lower than any nosecone but higher than the tank alone. Same as above, I don't think that detached shockwaves exist at all in KSP: if they don't have any effects on aero, they shouldn't have any effect on heat. Didn't think about this. Since the difference between each bottom-attached node is rather small, I don't expect to see any obvious difference between the small nose cone and no attachement, but I'll definitely give it a try (I'll also try the rapierspike with different cones to see if there is any difference with cones under a tank, if I find time). Interesting. I somehow completely forgot these even existed when I had them on my screen during the entire tests. I'll fire a few launches (probably with a T45 since that is the engine I have already been using).

Yeah, if Kerbin was not the right size, I think we'd have noticed by now. I was about to go there and do an angular size measurement to prove Kerbin has a radius of 600km, but you did it for me

NB: this thread is heavily based on @Yakuzi's excellent thread describing drag of different cones in KSP 1.0.4. This is an unofficial continuation for 1.2, aiming to give an estimate of the changes for the release (it should come soon as I write this, so build 1553 should not be too far from 1.2.0 aerodynamic-wise). For each different category, I built a simple launcher keeping the same structure on each test. The parts that change on each tests are the nose cones, set at different locations depending on the test (top, bottom or on radial boosters), and a ballast tank to keep constant masses for each test regardless of the mass of the cone used (if several cones are used, several ballasts are placed next to each cone and are tweaked separately to keep similar mass distributions on the craft). Note that the ballast tank mass changes with discrete increments so masses are not always identical. The rocket is launched three times for each test, and the maximal height reached is recorded for each test. The average of the three tests is the value used on the graphs, along with error bars corresponding to 1 standard deviation (calculated over the three tests). Note that the error bars shown do not accurately represent potential statistical errors/noise arising from the reduced number of elements in each sample. Also note that due to the square powers involved in the calculations of gravity losses and drag, the differences between each height are not linear and should not be used to calculate drag of a part as a multiple of another part's. Lexicon: Cones on single core rocket Rocket used for this test (only the part in red is changed, here the cone at the top of the rocket): On the graph, we can see that using cones are important to reduce drag. Comparing the results with the ones obtained by Yakuzi in 1.0.4, we notice that the spread is a lot stronger, with heights varying from 14750m to 73750m (to be compared to 21000-46000m spread in 1.0.4), so in 1.2 the drag characteristics of each part have been strengthened, with draggy parts becoming even more draggy and aerodynamic parts becoming even more aerodynamic. For the tests with the lowest values, most delta-V was lost during transonic phase, with acceleration getting reduced by several Gs; while for the least draggy tests, the transonic phase only had very limited effect on the rocket ascent. Still comparing with the 1.0.4 values, we notice that the drag values for the intakes have been "levelled", they are now almost identical to the nose cones values and the shock cone intake does not stand out as the best way to reduce drag on a craft anymore, but is on par with the highest values of the other nose cones (shock cone intake: 73550m, NCS + small cone: 73760m, advanced nose cone: 73150m, tail connector: 73560m) We can also notice that sharpness of the part is a good indicator of the drag produced by it, with very strong differences between each type of fairing (73140m, 71980m and 16220m average maximal heights, in the graph order) and between the FL-A10 and FL-A5 adapters (66920m and 16150m respectively); generally, blunt parts produce a great amount of drag while sharper parts only produce reduced drag (note that the intakes do not follow this observation). This statement has its limits, as shown by the values for the advanced nosecone (73150m) and aerodynamic nose cone (67250m) being rather close, and by the values of the sharpest and medium fairings in a similar fashion. Matching part diameters also seems to be very important to reduce drag, with parts smaller than the 1.25m stack they are attached onto producing great amounts of drag (octagonal strut, and other 0.625m parts): linear occlusion does not occur for parts with different diameters. The 2.5m nosecone also produces more drag than smaller cones, but remember that rockets follow a square-cube law (drag varying with square of size, while mass varying with cube of size), therefore the greater drag (force) with only produce a small decrease in acceleration for a larger, and heavier, rocket. Leaving empty nodes does not seem to be an issue, with values for the lone NCS (72830m) and FL-A10 (66920m) adapters being very close to values obtained for node-less cones (73760m for the NCS adapter + small nose cone). Again the square-cube law can be used to explain this, and one can predict that an open 0.625m node on a 0.625m stack will produce effects similar to an open 1.25m node here (see "None" value: 14760m). Putting octagonal cubic struts on top of an empty 1.25m node (not surface-attached) does not reduce drag at all. The value for the octag (14750m) is even slightly lower than the value for the lone part (14760m), but this can be explained by discrete mass increments in the ballast or more simply statistical noise and one can not conclude to a drag increase Then again, linear occlusion does not apply to different diameter parts. Cones on radially attached parts Rocket used for this test (only the parts in red are changed, here the nosecones on the side stacks): Similarly to results obtained previously, putting cones on the radial boosters helps a lot with drag, with blunt rockets being very affected by transonic drag. Offsetting the radially attached parts inside the core to reduce the rocket span has no effect on the drag experienced by the rocket, with similar results obtained for "None" and "Clipped + none" columns (14470m and 14500m respectively). The small difference between the two values can be justified by statistical noise, again, or different radial mass/force distribution leading, in the first case, to increased chances of small trajectory deviations. Using slanted nose cones on the radial part does not improve the drag compared to regular nose cones (68510m for slanted, 69500m for regular) but, on the contrary, tends to increase it slightly. Then again, the position of drag vectors origins (closer or further from the centre) can explain this discrepancy: the slanted cones put more stress towards the centre, making the rocket more likely to change its course by a few degrees and to therefore lose some height. The shock cone is still an excellent alternative to regular nose cones, for spaceplane use. Cones on core and radially attached parts Rocket used for this test (only the parts in red are changed, here the nose cones on the core and the ones on the side stacks): The main objective of these test series was to test radial occlusion: putting a blunt nose cone on the top central stack to deviate airflow away from the lower radial stacks, thus producing even less drag than when using a sharp nose cone on the central stack. This was used to protect the Space Shuttle's wings from plasma flow from the cockpit (a blunt nose cone was used to avoid redirecting the plasma flow directly on the wings); it has also been used for several ICBMs as "drag-reducing spikes" (a small spike is creating a shock ahead of the missile nose, deviating air flow and allowing blunter shapes without increasing drag). Unsurprisingly, as airflow is still not modelled in KSP, this effect does not occur and using a blunter nose cones does not reduce drag but still increases it. Should this effect have been added, we would have expected the "Std+2adv" column to be higher than the "3adv" one (or "3std" higher than "Adv+2std") but this is not true (68810m and 71740m). Only the drag of each individual nose cone matters, and the craft does not have to be considered in its entirety: reducing the drag on each stack separately is enough to reduce the drag on the entire rocket as much as possible. Cones on the bottom of a single core rocket Rocket used for this test (only the part in red changes, here the nose cone under the core): Even though adding a nose cone on an empty bottom node still reduces the drag, the effect of this trick seems to be weaker in 1.2 than in 1.0.4: here is a spread of 28020-30440m, against a spread of 27000-30500m in 1.0.4. (Note that I used an empty node on the bottom of the fuel tank while Yakuzi used the empty node on the bottom of the Rapier engine) The reduction of drag being minimised, cones that have different drag values overall end up giving very similar values for average maximal height reached (aerodynamic nose cone: 30310m, advanced nose cone: 30440m, and shock cone intake: 30370m). Note that here again the shock cone intake "nerf" is visible, as it is not the best choice in this case either, as opposed to 1.0.4. Summary Nose cones are essential to overcome transonic drag Don't put a 0.625m nose cone on a 1.25m as it will have close to no effect: linear occlusion only happens for matching sizes If it looks draggy, it is draggy: avoid blunt designs The shock cone intake is not the magical solution to drag anymore Offsetting parts does not change their drag Slanted nose cones do not improve drag on radial boosters Radial occlusion is not a thing: still avoid blunt designs even with radial boosters Sticking a cone under an empty node is useful, but not essential I hope this will be helpful to at least some. Feel free to discuss these results below. Appendix A (few additional measurements):

Let the dislikes return, and He will do so; He will hear the call, and rise once again. Fear Him for He is the child of Evil. His name still recalls the darkest of times; He the Unholy, the Green Iron Crown.

I have a thing able to hit 225km on 5 engines. 8 more km and I take back the 1st place!

And I still view this as a bad choice. Fix, then add.

If you break your leg, taking painkillers isn't going to fix it. If the aerodynamics are flawed, then they must be fixed, adding heat tiles won't solve the problem. And as a matter of fact, adding heat tiles because reentry heating is not intense enough doesn't make any sense. This is how I see it.