Squad is slowly reintroducing soup o' sphere with 1.01

[Radam]

So old:

dragMultiplier = 6.0

dragCubeMultiplier = 0.06

angularDragMultiplier = 2

liftMultiplier = 0.038

liftDragMultiplier = 0.03

bodyLiftMultiplier = 8

New:

dragMultiplier = 8.0

dragCubeMultiplier = 0.1

angularDragMultiplier = 2

liftMultiplier = 0.055

liftDragMultiplier = 0.025

bodyLiftMultiplier = 10.7

33% more drag, 44% more lift

Really not insignificant.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Radam

[Wiseman]

Sounds like a positive change, to me. Drag was weirdly sparse before, what with planes able to hit plaid right off the launchpad, and there being practically no air resistance to rockets above 30k.

[Jovus]

If this is just a readjustment to normality, I'm in the camp of us all getting over it and moving on with building rockets. Unlearn what we learned in the last week and relearn something else, all that jazz.

[Guest]

Sounds like a positive change, to me. Drag was weirdly sparse before, what with planes able to hit plaid right off the launchpad, and there being practically no air resistance to rockets above 30k.

+1. This is a good change, feels much better.

[KerikBalm]

Hmmm, I haven't updated yet... I guess 1.01 and 1.02 came out already.... and I was just getting used to 1.0.

I guess I'll have to do that...

It would be nice to see the before and after values

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/1.0.1

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/1.0.2

" Aerodynamics

New values for physics global drag and lift multipliers."

Can anyone explain this? It was under thermal changes... what is occlusion as far as ther thermal system goes? Is it occlusion from aerodynamic heating?

"Removed node size from being taken into account for stack occlusion." - Does this mean a 3.75m part previously didn't occlude a 1.25m part? Does this mean that now a 1.25 m part occludes a 3.75 m part?

[EladDv]

ummmm there is MORE lift 0.055 against the old 0.038 less drag from lift and more body lift so in general there is just more drag for rockets high up in atmo and about the same for planes

[RocketPilot573]

So, can someone come up with the new most efficient launch profile?

[AbhChallenger]

Geeez! It is quite obvious just how little 1.0 was tested before launch. These are NOT small changes and break a good deal of the effort people have gone into updating their mods/crafts after 1.0 launched.

This is absolutely why public betas NEED to return. The experimental team is just not cutting it anymore. Especially if converting to Unity 5 is in store for 1.1

[RocketPilot573]

Wait, maybe the delta-V to orbit has not changed much at all, rather it may be the fact that my 20 ton fairing is no longer massless.

[StevenJ]

Sounds like a positive change, to me. Drag was weirdly sparse before, what with planes able to hit plaid right off the launchpad, and there being practically no air resistance to rockets above 30k.

That because the engines weigh too little and produce way too much power. There should be little air resistance above 30k.

Edited May 1, 2015 by StevenJ

[r4pt0r]

Geeez! It is quite obvious just how little 1.0 was tested before launch. These are NOT small changes and break a good deal of the effort people have gone into updating their mods/crafts after 1.0 launched.

This is absolutely why public betas NEED to return. The experimental team is just not cutting it anymore. Especially if converting to Unity 5 is in store for 1.1

I disagree, I think the problem is KSP didnt have beta releases, just one beta release. in my head we are at .95.2

[Jovus]

That because the engines weigh too little and produce way too much power. There should be little air resistance above 30k.

More than you might think.

[SRV Ron]

This 3 kerbal Mun orbiter now has issues with the radical coupler at burnout. Extra braces won't resolve the problem.

The single Kerbal orbiter, one on the Right, is flying with no issues.

I no longer have to throttle back so the air drag has changed at the mid levels.

Kerbal Engineering may not work properly until it is updated for 1.02

[AlphaAsh]

This is odd, in 1.0.0 I flew my rocket with a flight profile so that it was horizontal by 30 km. Now when I do that all vertical velocity bleeds off and the rocket falls back into the atmosphere (this is using the same exact rocket). Even at 2300 m/s drag in increased significantly.

Seeing similar with 1.0.2. Rockets I'd just learnt to build and fly in 1.0 are now totally flip happy and that's following the tight ascent plans that I was using in 1.0 (as described by regex et al elsewhere in this thread).

Something has borked between 1.0 and 1.0.2. I am having serious issues getting anything into space right now.

[Temeter]

KER seems to have some issue with D/V calculation, but drag isn't calculated anyway.

[StevenJ]

More than you might think.

Does not necessarily apply the same, Kerbin is 10x smaller than earth.

[RocketPilot573]

So here is a question to everyone: Does Mach number actually do anything

From my observations, there is no change in drag, no change in speed, etc. Same with both planes and rockets.

[Radam]

Its a wall, it doesnt do anything

[Brotoro]

I notice a definite problem trying to get a plane through Mach 1. But once you get through that drag coefficient bump, you can really start to pick up speed.

"There was a demon that lived in the air. They said whoever challenged him would die. Their controls would freeze up, their planes would buffet wildly, and they would disintegrate. The demon lived at Mach 1 on the meter, seven hundred and fifty miles an hour, where the air could no longer move out of the way. He lived behind a barrier through which they said no man could ever pass. They called it the sound barrier."

Anybody got a stick of Beeman's?

[eldiabs]

I thought 1.0 was supposed to be an official game release.

Built a plane to this standard yesterday: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/52080-Basic-Aircraft-Design-Explained-Simply-With-Pictures

Flew perfectly in 1.0

All of a sudden today, I load up the game, plane flies like crap. Enjoys doing backflips at anything over 150m/s. Come to find out 1.01/2 changes things. Really need to disable auto-update on steam. Didn't realize we were still beta testing for the devs...

[RocketPilot573]

What I don't get is that we never needed another aero change, simply decrease the insane jet thrust at low altitude.

[Temeter]

SAS also causes planes to oscillate at physics timewarp again. 1.0 was actually stable. :/

[Jessie Arr]

Setting my minimum pressure to 0.5 on parachutes actually causes them to deploy later than the default as well. I tried to create a ghetto drogue parachute and it just got me killed waiting for it to open (at 8km altitude, lol.)

[Brotoro]

I was getting planes that oscillated in 1.0...in certain velocity/speed/altitude regimes. It seemed about the same in 1.0.1.

But the automatic pointing to markers (prograde, retrograde, etc.) is still embarrassingly goofy in 1.0.1. I would put that very high on the list of things that need fixing.

[Stormweaver]

Just posted this in another thread, it might beinteresting for the people here. I was having some trouble with the patcher, but before I gave up and downloaded it from the site I ran some tests. Then I ran some more.

Before and After the patches

http://i.imgur.com/1Bl31Zt.png

- Flat top
- 4364m, 495m/s
- 1.25m cone pointy
- 6538m, 656m/s
- 1.25m cone flat
- 5358m, 595m/s
- 1.25m chute
- 5246m, 504m/s
- 0.625m cone
- 7343m, 729m/s
- 0.625m chute
- 6887m, 665m/s
- antenna
- 7747m, 748m/s
- antenna with physics
- 7720m, 748m/s
- Strut
- 7636m, 747m/s

Flea test after:

- Flat top
- 3108m, 358m/s
- 1.25m cone pointy
- 3908m, 449m/s
- 1.25m cone flat
- 3441m, 393m/s
- 1.25m chute
- 3512m, 369m/s
- 0.625m cone
- 3224m, 368m/s
- 0.625m chute
- 3252m, 361m/s
- antenna
- 3118m, 358m/s
- antenna with physics
- 3118m, 358m/s
- Strut
- 3112m, 358m/s

Flea test before:

The above is the altitudes reached by a flea with a 1.25m flat probe, with 4 static winglets for stability, with various stuff on top. As you can see...some things were a lot more effective than others, and really shouldn't have been.

Of course it's a flea, so the sound barrier was breached in all the flights (there was significant extra acceleration after breaching it iirc) but the above might give you a rough idea of the scale of the changes.