Aanker

I agree. Notice how before you could build a nice aerodynamic shell around your plane? Not anymore - drag severely limits how you can craft wings and place fuselage parts. 1.0 was managable after introducing wing austerity, 1.0.2 just outright killed my spaceplanes.

Best looking design I've seen so far with 1.0.2, the question being what are the actual performance specs?

They're not mutually exclusive. One simple solution would be to lessen the drag of wings and aircraft/spaceplane fuselage sections. I'm advocating changes that would keep the community together, not split it apart. Arguments like "l2p", "get mod", heck even config switch solutions (as much as I appreciate the effort) are not sustainable solutions to keeping the community together and improving the game. Fix - not ignore - the issue.

Haha, ok. The sheer amount of threads and complaints would suggest otherwise. The arguments against the dragmatic hotfix changes are expansive, qualitative and at the very least reasonable. And one guy is able to off handedly dismiss it like that? By what right, I ask.

No. Spaceplanes are god awful now and limited to a very minimalistic layout - part count was already punished by calculation limitations - and now I can't build spaceplanes that look good or (ironically) aerodynamic. A fix is needed, badly.

In my opinion that is not what KSP is for. The style and tone of the game suggests it should be more like a fun physics and space exploration sandbox. Heck, it is even being marketed as educational for lower education levels. It's not a simulator, it shouldn't be, and it benefits from not being one. I play KSP mainly so that I can build up a cool spaceplane-orbital infrastructure. Now my spaceplanes all look the same because of the abhorrent drag changes in 1.0.1.

In 1.0. Only the Mk2 craft at the top is 1.0.2. No. Let's not brush this issue aside. Let's compel SQUAD to fix it.

QFT. Dragmatic 33% changes to the aero physics should not be delivered in a hotfix format, and the changes are not really beneficial to the game.

Riddiculous. I explain why the l2p argument doesn't work and you retort with the same tired, judgmental reply style that I've gotten used to by now for some reason. As is evident from the screenshots in this thread, the planes are basically sausages with two feathers glued to the side. That's not my idea of creativity, it means that the only configuration that really is going to work is non-aesthetic, doesn't look aerodynamic at all and - as mentioned before - is the result of something being taken away from the game. The thing is, we could have both. But for some reason, wing stacking and building visually pleasing spaceplanes is now somehow punished. Building wings and actually putting work into the craft to make them look good is something we simply can't anymore. These limits are totally unnecessary, and the drag increase was like pouring salt in an already deep wound. Let's change the rules again, so that they are better and offer more ability to build the spaceplanes we like. "Blah blah blah, you were using exploits, learn to play, hardcore is the way to go!!!!11"

I don't think the "l2p" counterarguments are entirely valid. If the new drag values impose such limits on construction that SSTOs post-1.0.2 all resemble sparsely winged sausages and are unable to perform any of the more demanding tasks that skilled spaceplane builders could accomplish in previous patches, then I think something has been taken away from the game and it isn't too much to ask that some mercy be had on us aircraft enthusiasts.

Thank you, I'll try that! At least it will be a good temporary solution. Thank you for clarifying, but the increased drag overall means we have to be even more rigorous in limiting the use of parts that cause drag - and so, wings suffer. Admittedly a craft cannot fly into the air - or, indeed, space - without fuselage sections.

How would a wing fix negatively affect your rockets? A functional and fun aerodynamic model is fully compatible with functional and fun wing parts - we can have both.

I'd much prefer that the vanilla game has a more lenient drag model for wings than having to use mods. I don't have anything against mods, heck I'm a former modder myself, but I truly believe the vanilla game would benefit from un-nerfing the wings. - in the meantime, is there any way to revert back to 1.0?

Seriously now. Wings were little less than drag inducing decoration in 1.0 and now with 1.0.1 they feel like drogue chutes attached to the plane without regard for their actual configuration. I feel frustrated as an airplane/spaceplane building enthusiast as I cannot produce craft that perform acceptably without plucking away all the feathers of my birds. I could manage in the previous patch, but now it has gone to riddiculous levels. Many of us build wings in the 'lego' style: adding strakes, delta and structural wings together to shape into being something that looks realistic and aerodynamic. I personally like to build "shells" over engine and fuel tank components to 'protect' them from the airflow - but now I can't. Building wings in this way is being severely, harshly and bluntly punished by the drag changes and I feel like something must be done to fix this. In a game about creating spacecraft, there should be some creative crafting space. Currently however, the only functional configuration is a big tube using the brand new "one size fits all" wing parts glued to the sides. Either add some sort of airflow protection for stacked wing parts (but limit lift) or revert the drag changes for wings altogether. Wing parts are some of the best creative parts in KSP as they are pretty much perfect 'building blocks' that can be rotated, offset and placed in such ways that their use extends way beyond just being practical. In previous versions I would build SSTOs and cargo aircraft with custom cargo bays made out of wing parts, but that kind of range of creativity just doesn't exist anymore. And 'in before' the inevitable accusations that I am just lamenting the loss of some exploit, infinite wing placement has never been an advantage, even considering the lift gains. I just want to be able to create realistic looking planes. Please fix.

So the new golden standard for SSTOs appears to be a Turbojet-RAPIER mix. The design below isn't particularly good, but it does get a simple ion satellite to orbit on an 'interesting' 35-45 degree ascent throughout. CTA-10B Valkyrie The low drag version (with like, 50% of the wing parts removed) burns up in the atmosphere on a 40 degree ascent (as in, I'm holding +40 degrees from takeoff through the ascent): But it did (mostly) make it to orbit:

Procedural wings would be one solution to this problem, so I don't see the issue you're getting at. The problem is that the new aero model simply, arbitrarily and bluntly favours less wing parts. As a replacement, we have been given large wings which don't blend well with the other parts and can only really be used when they fit the design perfectly. Many of us (me included) have previously used wing parts to smooth out what would otherwise look as a 'frankenplane' or a not very aerodynamically looking spaceplane. These new restrictions have only negative effects, and they are completely unnecessary, and they can be addressed in future patches without a substantial part of the spaceplane builders having to resort to mods (some of which, by the way, aren't even supported on my x64 system). Interesting misinterpretation of what I was getting at: the wing restriction doesn't add realism, it doesn't add fun, it doesn't improve the creative aspect of the game, and it certainly doesn't "balance" wings - so why defend it? Why not just ask Squad to fix this aspect of their new aero model. I like everything else about the aero physics, but this is just sad.

To achieve a shape that was decidedly more aerodynamic looking than the now optimal configuration. Don't be so judgmental. That's the point, trying to build something that looks aerodynamic, using wings to build a "shell", is actually punished. Exactly. It's a step in the right direction but improvements are needed. We need the tools to make aircraft look less like tubes with wings and more like the high speed "darts" envisioned by actual engineers*, or we need an aerodynamic model that allows us the creative space to 'fix' the current optimal look of a spaceplane without punishing us. The previous aero model didn't exactly favour wing part count either, but it was compensated for by the overpowered jet engines. Now all we need is a way for drag to not drastically increase as soon as we stack wings even in sensible ways. * You speak of creativity as if it is something bad, yet the core of KSP is building your own rockets and spaceplanes. As a game, there should be a range of viable designs and approaches, from frankencraft to finely crafted darts. Even if that does not translate into the most realistic approach. If a player desires 100% realism, then perhaps that person should turn to, you know, a real space program or use any of the realism mods available. The irony being, of course, that the current aero model isn't particularly realistic with respect to part - or, specifically, wing - placement.

Exactly what I'm going for. Currently (and ironically) my most aerodynamic looking designs are also the most useless. As broken as the previous aero physics were (and no, I wouldn't want to go back to that), they did allow the builder to shape into being spaceplanes that looked as if they could fly in real life, as opposed to large flying oil drilling rigs.

What annoys me personally is that the new aero system does not like planes with lots of wing parts, and does not consider the actual layout of the wings. For me, aesthetics are almost more important than the actual practicality of the craft, and the problem with restricted wing usage is that I can't really build what I want. Instead everything becomes a tube with engines and two efficient swept wings along the sides. That's ugly, nobody wants to fly that kind of plane and it limits creativity. I think the system should try to check the layout of the wing placement, as many of the designs I make certainly look more aerodynamic than what is currently favoured by KSP aerodynamics.

Speaking of visual improvements, KSP needs more than just clouds. It needs better water, actual reflections as well as multiple light sources and more detailed ground environments. It currently looks kind of muddled, barren and grey-ish, I think there's a lot of room for improvements not just in graphics detail but also in environment tone and effects. I love the game and I don't mind graphical shortcomings too much, but it IS 2015.

That's the problem though - optimal for who? Certainly not for the species of bacteria which went extinct from the increased oxygen levels in the atmosphere and oceans. The fact is, life just is: just like other phenomena of nature, it doesn't really have an end goal or purpose. Sure, an individual bacterium may seek to reproduce, but then that is hardly a process that occurs because said bacterium wants it (or has a sophisticated opinion on the matter) as much as it is a question of the right chemicals aligning in the correct amounts and patterns. I mean, I guess from a systems perspective life seeks 'balance', but then so do atmospheres, chemical cycles, orbits... it becomes a bit of a meaningless term.

It is a bit of a fallacy to claim that evolution/life always seeks the optimal solution. Just to mention two examples - for billions of years on Earth, bacteria would cyclically produce oxygen in a carbon dioxide rich environment, saturate the atmosphere with O2 and then massively kill themselves because of it. Secondly, there have been many species on Earth which defied the principle of optimal biology, with large colourful feathers or exaggerated spinal bone plates for display. Life develops in whichever ways it can develop, depending on constraints imposed by the environment. But we should be able to speculate within reason based on what we know from life on Earth, of course. At least we know that the forms and dimensions of life we see on Earth are possible, and if we then find similar environments to these alien worls on our own planet we could imagine what scope of creatures would live there.

In fact I like the idea of people making multiple entries.. it allows you to learn and be inspired by others and also compete in several categories.

Sorry for my long absence, was in Death Valley and Las Vegas over the weekend. I will look into splitting up the challenge into several different classes. - updated scoreboard with new entries - updated scoreboard with new class categories, based somewhat arbitrarily on the number of bombs - changed worldwide coverage limit to 25km Also: XB-707 Excalibur (point tally coming soon)

@jrodriguez: ok so regarding tweakscale, based on the information provided, you're allowed to use it but you will be added to a 'miscellaneous mods' scoreboard. I want to keep the vanilla scoreboard as vanilla as possible. I hope you understand.