KerbalSofaProgram

That's my general sentiment. I kind of had issues referring to FAR as if what I'm trying to say is, "hey take that mod and just do the same thing", but since it's the topic of the thread I did specifically refer to FAR. The main point I'd like to push is I hope they give aerodynamics some serious love. Everything you put in space has to get there through the atmosphere... I know that's apparently not actually going to be true in 2, but still. Atmosphere is important! And learning about it, and building around it, modeled in a way that's as realistic as possible while still remaining enjoyable, is 100% in the spirit of what the developers seem to going for. I just want to push this message as hard as I can because I worry there will be shortcuts in this area, and I have some secret hope someone with some say-so reads this and says, "you know what? I agree".

This is the correct answer! No really though, I just read through this whole thread... it wasn't fun, but I'm pretty invested in the implementation of aerodynamics in KSP2. I think it's important that they ditch the "drag cubes" (?), and get on with a more accurate model. I'm quoting you here just to let you know I'm addressing you. Tell me if I'm wrong but your main argument for KSP1 aerodynamics has been crowd appeal and accessibility, right? I'm going to assume you said "yes" and move on. Now I'm not always great at articulating my thoughts, but I'll try... First off, I'm going to shelve the discussion about two flight models, I think it's a bad idea, or not even a bad idea, just not a "worth it" idea, at least. I'll get back to it later if I still feel like typing. Anyways!!! I want to establish that realistic, does not mean difficult. Sure, in stock you can build things you can't in FAR, but it doesn't really... Make sense? Why things sometimes act the way they do in stock? On that note FAR has always felt "easier" for me, because it's a little more realistic, you know, so it's a little closer to reality, which I'd say I'm familiar with. What I'm saying is stock is easier because it's more forgiving sometimes, but harder because it just doesn't make logical sense... And with something like that, you can't just say, "well it's what people are used to so let's keep it". No if they can I believe they absolutely need to find a model more like FAR. Doesn't have to be the same thing, but it has to be as close to reality as they can make it, without making it frustrating or thinking they need to make a sci-fi style super simulation. Ok on to the two flight models one game... it's just not going to happen. No matter if I agree with you on this or not. It's not going to happen. I suspect we all know it's just not going to happen... So let's all have a productive conversation. If a developer happens to read this we ought to make it easy to see our consensus on the topic... So let's try to get to one. I'm going to do that in another post so it looks better. EDIT: the forum won't let me make two separate posts. Probably a good idea. But I want to bring attention to the last part so let me put some in bold. And underline it. There. 1. Is there anyone who's happy with KSP1 aerodynamics? Not just content, but it's perfect and shouldn't be changed AT ALL. Like a shark... 2. Who wants to see a more true-to-life flight model, so long as it's well explained and doesn't detract from a fun experience? 3. Who wants as much tricky realism as possible? What this option might include I don't really know... I'm not a professional. So I imagine most of you thought #2 sounded pretty reasonable, right? If you picked #3 you're going to have to tell me what sort of things you have in mind... cuz i dunno fluid dinamiks. If you picked #1, I suggest you forget about KSP2 and stick to KSP1, and I take your choice personally and my day is ruined. But really why wouldn't you want something better? Anyways so I'm imagining most people would say #2 or #3, and I'm hoping the developers are going for #2... Going for #2. Funny. But #2 is the most reasonable choice and I doubt anyone disagrees. How far #2 goes towards #3 is a little bit harder to figure out, and lends some credence to AlmightyR's argument. Though I think two whole different flight models is the wrong way to go about it. Either way I don't think KSP1 cuts it... I honestly think if everyone had played KSP1 for the first time with a modern base game + a modern FAR nobody would have any complaints, but to switch over after you've gotten used to stock is different. And I just don't think being used to something is a reason to keep it when you have something better. So if I could pick I'd DEFINITELY pick a professional version of FAR over a redone KSP1 version of aerodynamics.

thanks for the reply. like i mentioned i already plopped it in the ksp matrix and was about to try it out. i just wasn't sure if it was supposed to be on there, so i figured i ought to mention it.

i can't seem to find this on ckan, even after manually downloading it doesn't show up in my list of installed mods. also... have you had any issues since? i'm about to start up ksp 1.11.2 with mauz aim flite so i was just wondering

thanks! super thanks! i started typing out a whole rant... but we all know what it's like to spend our "recreation" time driving across half a moon. can i have your autograph?

is anyone using this on 1.11.2?

did you ever try these out Neebel? or anyone who's reading this? i wouldn't think there would be any catastrophic results but... you. never. know. no really though i'll try it out at some point anyways, but it's always good to know. also thanks Grimmas for the link

https://www.dropbox.com/t/49SZ4MSJ0P9kK71V well there's the output log just in case anyone wants to look at it did you happen to notice the edit in my last post? any ideas? SUPER EDIT 3000: the description says it wants the ksp log not the output log so here's that https://www.dropbox.com/t/YIiYhNAmUwD9U6jA

yeah yeah yeah 1.2.3, double triple checked EDIT: more importantly at this point, why can't i delete those dll's?

also i can't delete the dll's, says they're open in another program... where are these buggers still being used after i close ksp? what a mess

yeah it's all up to date. i'm starting it up now without collisions on but i'm guessing that won't help anything will it?

hey sorry i'm a little late, i was digging around trying to find answers about the same problem Syltus was having (walking around above the ground, under it, general height related strangeness), so here i am. would turning off collisions fix this in the meantime? or is it unrelated? i'm going to try it anyways at some point but i was hoping maybe you might be able to fill me in a little

i believe i tried the manual install at some point as well... i really ought to remember but i'm not entirely sure. let me know if you want any particular information from me

you must have done a manual install? i have the same issue but i used ckan. it looks like the dll is there

did you install manually or with CKAN? i used ckan and i'm having this problem. i'm going to try downloading manually and seeing if the dll didn't get included EDIT: yeah it wasn't in there, at least not in the same place as it would be following the installation instructions in the readme. if you used ckan as well it seems like there might be an issue. anyone reading this used ckan to download afbw with no issues le me know