Squad is slowly reintroducing soup o' sphere with 1.01

[rodion_herrera]

All of the aircraft (atmospheric, and SSTO) I made in v1.0, flew mostly the same with v1.0.1 and v1.0.2, so I have no idea what some of you are suggesting or implying that your craft behave differently per version.

[Temeter]

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.

SAS was goofy for a long time. Somewhere around the first big upgrade (~0.23) stability assist was reliable, but after some changes it can't even even hold a small capsule with SAS module steady when you add a single radial parachute.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Temeter

[NathanKell]

Stormweaver: a bug in the occlusion code (where tiny parts would fully occlude stuff under them) was fixed for 1.0.1. That's why the variation is so high in those "tiny part" cases.

[Brotoro]

All of the aircraft (atmospheric, and SSTO) I made in v1.0, flew mostly the same with v1.0.1 and v1.0.2, so I have no idea what some of you are suggesting or implying that your craft behave differently per version.

In 1.0, if I flew my spaceplane really badly, I could get it butting up against the transonic drag barrier, and getting nowhere fast. I had to limit its climb rate to 33°, and then it could even crack the Mach on its way up. Once over the drag hump, it sped up nicely.

In 1.0.1, the spaceplane refused to push through the transonic wall in a climb. So once I got to where the air was thinner and conditions were good for the RAPIER, I leveled off and was able to blast through the transonic drag divergence and begin seriously gaining speed.

Perhaps your 1.0 designs just had better thrust than mine, in which case I expect you wouldn't notice a difference. Or maybe you were already climbing to altitude before leveling off to do a speed run back in 1.0.

[Stormweaver]

Stormweaver: a bug in the occlusion code (where tiny parts would fully occlude stuff under them) was fixed for 1.0.1. That's why the variation is so high in those "tiny part" cases.

Aye, that's what I was testing - hence the antenna being there in the first place :3 The general reduction in altitude across the more sencible nosecone parts was the bit I felt might be relevant here.

[AbhChallenger]

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

No I mean actual beta. As in the one you have to deliberately activate in steam to access. Along with rules regarding requirements to post issues in a beta forum along with rules about how mods are handled.

Will it lead to some chaos? Yes. Yet it beats what we have now where OBVIOUS bugs were spotted by streamers less than 24 hours before launch.

[cantab]

My two cents is that regardless of whether aerodynamic tweaks are "realistic", "fun", or whatever, they shouldn't be made in a minor update! The minor updates coming through a few days after the major one should be limited to fixing bugs that negatively impact the game. Balance chances, and even correcting exploitable/helpful but otherwise benign bugs, should wait for 1.1.

[FlowerChild]

My two cents is that regardless of whether aerodynamic tweaks are "realistic", "fun", or whatever, they shouldn't be made in a minor update! The minor updates coming through a few days after the major one should be limited to fixing bugs that negatively impact the game. Balance chances, and even correcting exploitable/helpful but otherwise benign bugs, should wait for 1.1.

Do you seriously want to put up with months of "put an antenna on it!", or "put a cubic strut behind it!" being the be all and end all of aerodynamic solutions? It would have largely defeated the point of having a new (and more reasonable) aero system in the first place.

I think it's awesome that they caught this while people are still learning the new systems, and before it became the standard way of playing for a whole new wave of KSP players.

[georgTF]

The soup is madness. I'm happy that chutes break up now, but the aero can behave very unrealistically in some cases. Maybe 1.0 did not allow air and drag to affect returning rockets (i'll ignore planes because i 've no dog in that fight) but the 1.02 is "weird" and inconsistent. Maybe the new fins are buggy or my head is screwed on improperly but i have never seen KSP change laws of physics mid-flight before. I don't know how to fly anymore.

[AbhChallenger]

Do you seriously want to put up with months of "put an antenna on it!", or "put a cubic strut behind it!" being the be all and end all of aerodynamic solutions? It would have largely defeated the point of having a new (and more reasonable) aero system in the first place.

I think it's awesome that they caught this while people are still learning the new systems, and before it became the standard way of playing for a whole new wave of KSP players.

It should have been caught in experimentals. Along with many other very obvious things.

[FlowerChild]

It should have been caught in experimentals. Along with many other very obvious things.

I don't disagree man and have been rather vocal about the whole "release" thing.

Things being what they are though, I'd much rather they fix things like this now rather than just let them slide for months.

[cantab]

Do you seriously want to put up with months of "put an antenna on it!", or "put a cubic strut behind it!" being the be all and end all of aerodynamic solutions? It would have largely defeated the point of having a new (and more reasonable) aero system in the first place.

Well FAR used to suffer from exactly that kind of issue and nobody seemed to mind much, indeed it was rarely even *mentioned*. Though I'll grant that most FAR users prefer to make realistic craft rather than exploit the aerodynamics.

But the fix to part occlusion isn't even the biggest issue, after all that's only likely to bother certain exploity or otherwise goofy craft. The change to basic physics parameters, on the other hand, has affected how *everything* flies. It's pulling the rug from under players who were just starting to get used to the new aerodynamics and who now find their previously-working craft suddenly don't perform any more. That is not something I or I think anyone expects from a "#.#.1" update.

[FlowerChild]

But the fix to part occlusion isn't even the biggest issue, after all that's only likely to bother certain exploity or otherwise goofy craft. The change to basic physics parameters, on the other hand, has affected how *everything* flies. It's pulling the rug from under players who were just starting to get used to the new aerodynamics and who now find their previously-working craft suddenly don't perform any more. That is not something I or I think anyone expects from a "#.#.1" update.

Yeah, that is a fair point. I was largely focused on the antenna exploits and such, as I really hate stuff like that, and would have hated seeing months of screenshots of flying bricks with antennas all over the place

Not entirely certain that one could have been fixed without the other however, as it sounds like occlusion was pretty broken overall and that was affecting the performance of everything.

[Wintersdark]

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.

I'm not Particularly Smart with regards to these things, but I definitely am in agreement. It seemed bizzare how easy it was even for basic rockets and jets early in my career game to be hitting such insane speeds so fast.

A simple jet with a basic jet engine, single intake and fixed wings breaking Mach 1 before the end of the runway, basic rockets pushing mach effects then going totally horizontal at 35km and that being an efficient launch profile... It didn't seem right.

[georgTF]

I would not mind having to readjust to a new model so soon, if it were a better model. This is a different model and not neccesarily a happy one for all. Right now i'm too butthurt to offer a valid opinion, but i can at least say that making parachutes destructible is a good thing. There are a few more issues to sort out regarding drag at low altitudes or possibly the new fins are buggy.

The merits of finned rockets descending to low altitudes aside, it is surreal that a rocket pointing upwards sheds velocity, while the same rocket accelerates towards the ground when pointed down. Having a parachute attached but not fully deployed seems to have very very little effect. I don't know what is going on. Is this some bug with the new fins?

Here is an example (480p on stream, not the greatest quality but you should be able to see m/s. might need to squint):

http://www.twitch.tv/frumple1/v/4589148

Another low altitude oddity. Once again parachutes behave oddly.

http://www.twitch.tv/frumple1/v/4588651

Edited May 2, 2015 by georgTF
video links added

[panzer1b]

Yeah, that is a fair point. I was largely focused on the antenna exploits and such, as I really hate stuff like that, and would have hated seeing months of screenshots of flying bricks with antennas all over the place

Not entirely certain that one could have been fixed without the other however, as it sounds like occlusion was pretty broken overall and that was affecting the performance of everything.

I think that bug shouldve never made it into the release, but that aside, the patch was good that it fixed the occlusion bugs (well most of them, there are still ways to bug out drag, but its nolonger instant 100% dragless flying bricks).

Also, new drag model actually doesnt feel very good, before the atmo cut off at 45kmish, which was reasonable, now its turned into another souposphere where drag actually makes enough of a difference to notice all the way to like 60km (very similar to how 0.90's souposphere felt). Im happy that you can go faster at lower altitudes and that there isnt a sorta hard cap (like there was in 0.90), but it still feels too thick and draggy for me. That said, i dont exactly know what is deemed realistic and what isnt, but the 1.0 aero (occlusion exploits aside) felt much better and was just more pleasant overall.

Luckily i still have a save file of 1.0, and can always pick the old aero what im in the mood for some fun.

Edited May 2, 2015 by panzer1b

[Vaporo]

Coming from someone who didn't really experiment with planes in 1.0, the aero in 1.0.1/1.0.2 still seems rather forgiving.

I'm not sure how well this would work in Ferram Aerospace (which I've been using for quite a while), but this kind of speed seems absolutely insane to me.

[Aerindel]

I think it much better now in 1.02. As unhappy as I was with 1.0 I'm that much more happy with 1.02. Its like night and day, 1.0 was badly broken, 1.02 feels like a whole different and much better game.

[malkuth]

Guys ssto is not impossible in fact it's easier in 1.02.

You have to practice. Some of us got our practice when we dropped the stock areo year ago with far and near.

I can get an ssto into space as fast as a rocket now. It's crazy.

Take off full speed start seeing Mach effects pull up until you barely notice. Once the Mach effect disappears drop your AOA until it starts up barely. Keep doing this until you fire rockets.

This method can be a little harder but at least you have some visual cues.

[StevenJ]

Guys ssto is not impossible in fact it's easier in 1.02.

You have to practice. Some of us got our practice when we dropped the stock areo year ago with far and near.

I can get an ssto into space as fast as a rocket now. It's crazy.

Take off full speed start seeing Mach effects pull up until you barely notice. Once the Mach effect disappears drop your AOA until it starts up barely. Keep doing this until you fire rockets.

This method can be a little harder but at least you have some visual cues.

With MKII parts yes but the MKIII parts have way too much drag. Even with high TWR to get MKIII parts supersonic with 1.02 is extremely difficult.

[Aerindel]

With MKII parts yes but the MKIII parts have way too much drag. Even with high TWR to get MKIII parts supersonic with 1.02 is extremely difficult.

Well, it seems like it should be pretty hard to get something that size supersonic. I don't believe there are any real world craft close to that size that go super sonic in powered flight, other than the space shuttle (RIP) which was rocket powered.

[cybersol]

Well, it seems like it should be pretty hard to get something that size supersonic. I don't believe there are any real world craft close to that size that go super sonic in powered flight, other than the space shuttle (RIP) which was rocket powered.

At the height of the cold war, there were several huge strategic bombers in the Mach 2-3 range. For example, the Tu-160 went mach 2 and had a loaded weight of 267 metric tons. Of course the did this only when 12 km up

[somnambulist]

At the height of the cold war, there were several huge strategic bombers in the Mach 2-3 range. For example, the Tu-160 went mach 2 and had a loaded weight of 267 metric tons. Of course the did this only when 12 km up

XB-70 -- Mach 3.0. Never went into full production because SAM technology advanced enough where the XB-70 would have been extremely vulnerable.

[Vurucore]

The point I believe he was trying to make is that the Mk3 parts aren't shaped to go supersonic while the Mk2 parts are.

[StevenJ]

Well, it seems like it should be pretty hard to get something that size supersonic. I don't believe there are any real world craft close to that size that go super sonic in powered flight, other than the space shuttle (RIP) which was rocket powered.

As others have noted here, XB70 and I didn't know about the Tu-160, the B1B is huge to and can go to 1.5 times the speed of sound as well. Can't forget about the Concorde also, that was mach 2 plus with numerous passengers. Skylon will be the size large airliner and is designed to fly in atmo mode at mach 5.25. Yeah drag values on MKIII need work. I also discovered more drag bugs. MKIII fuel sections directly in front, and especially behind, a cargo bay produce insane drag. Sorry stock aero still needs work.

The point I believe he was trying to make is that the Mk3 parts aren't shaped to go supersonic while the Mk2 parts are.

Skylon's rough shape is the MKIII with smoother longer nose cone for less drag. Maybe there really needs to be a stock hypersonic SSTO cockpit for the MKIII.

Edited May 2, 2015 by StevenJ