Squad is slowly reintroducing soup o' sphere with 1.01

[Jouni]

Part clipping using the offset tool is also part clipping. My point was that when you use part clipping, the outward appearance of the craft may not have very much in common with how the aerodynamics simulation sees the craft. The 64 ram intakes in particular should be quite effective airbrakes on the way down.

[Redshift OTF]

Part clipping using the offset tool is also part clipping. My point was that when you use part clipping, the outward appearance of the craft may not have very much in common with how the aerodynamics simulation sees the craft. The 64 ram intakes in particular should be quite effective airbrakes on the way down.

Point taken but the only internal parts are 32 of the total 64 intakes. I'm not sure anyone is saying that too many intakes are part of the Aero issue being discussed. Also 2 intakes per jet engine is probably normal for most setups and this craft needs 32 engines so the scaling up of the number of intakes is in proportion to the weight of the craft and most crafts that would be flown imo.

[Jouni]

Point taken but the only internal parts are 32 of the total 64 intakes. I'm not sure anyone is saying that too many intakes are part of the Aero issue being discussed. Also 2 intakes per jet engine is probably normal for most setups and this craft needs 32 engines so the scaling up of the number of intakes is in proportion to the weight of the craft and most crafts that would be flown imo.

The visible intakes are also heavily clipped. Unless I'm mistaken, the engine pods are built around 3.75 m fuel tanks. That means you can place only seven 1.25 m parts in front of them without clipping, but you have placed 16 intakes and a nosecone.

I'm not sure about the specifics of stock aerodynamics, but because you've used cubic octagonal struts to attach the intakes and the engines, it may well be that no part in the engine pods occludes another. In that case, the aerodynamics simulation may see the pods as almost 10 m wide discs facing the airstream.

[Redshift OTF]

I see what you mean. I don't think any of the intakes are occluding each other. If they were and there was less drag then I guess there would be less intake air and I would have noticed flameouts during the ascent. Still, it would be possible to attach them in such a way that they weren't overlapping but it wouldn't look as nice. The Aero overlay seems to show they are all creating drag but I can add a non overlapping intake somewhere and compare the length of the red drag line to see if it is the same as the overlapping intakes.

[thereaverofdarkness]

What I'm worried about is that Squad spent a long time fine tuning the values for 1.0.0, but this 1.0.1 change may have been a rushed and not very well thought out change. Why? Because my planes cant break the sound barrier anymore. I get that 800 m/s is too fast but my plane with a TwR of 3+ can suddenly only go 300.

These people are right. Here's a taste of realism for you all:

The first plane to break the sound barrier: The Miles M.52

Its loaded mass: 3.5 tons

Its engine: Power Jets W.2/700

The engine's base thrust: 8.9 kN

Thrust with augmentor and afterburner: 17.8 kN

Thrust to weight ratio: 50.86%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_M.52

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Jets_W.2

[Cetera]

Let's just sum up, shall we?

After further testing, I'm ready to rescind my earlier concerns. Note: my only concern was that 1.0.2's atmo and/or part changes caused the old 45@10 gravity turn to be more efficient, or at best only slightly less efficient, than a proper gravity turn. My tests had been with moderately small, simple rockets that did little more than get into orbit. They were small enough and had low enough TWR that at 10km, a 45 degree turn was easy to do.

Not so with rockets with any sort of payload.

Also, I finally got a chance to build and fly a plane. It was a perfect blend of .90 stock's actual ability to control planes and FAR's actual ability to glide. Flying felt both real and possible. I said in another thread that it was glorious, and I can't think of a better word for this post.

In short, I'm much happier with 1.0.2 now than I was last night. Though I still need to perfect my gravity turn (something I'm happy to do) I can tell that this is going to be a fun, fun ride from here on out.

Crossposted, it's Interesting Factoid Time!

1. There was absolutely no change in the atmosphere from 1.0 to 1.0.2. There was a considerable increase in dragcube (i.e. not wing) drag, but a slight decrease in wing drag.

2. 1.0's (and thus 1.0.2's) atmosphere is thicker than .90's, and so to compare drag at a given place between .90 (presumably with FAR) and 1.0.2, you need to compare density altitudes. 0.5kg/m^3 occurs around 14km in 1.0 (and thus 1.0.2). Note: In FAR, set density to ABS mode, it starts in REL mode.

3. 1.0 had much, much less drag than FAR (on .90) did. Terminal velocity for the Mk1 pod was ~100m/s in FAR in .90 near sea level, and 170+m/s in 1.0. Up high, say at density-altitude 0.1kg/m^3, you could get an extra 500m/s off the same thrust on the same craft. Delta V to orbit in FAR was about 3400, minimum, 3600 average; in 1.0 it was 2800 and 3300 respectively.

4. Even in 1.0.2, there's less drag up high. Top speed at 0.1kg/m^3 for the same craft with the same thrust is ~100m/s higher in 1.0.2 than in FAR-0.90. Down low, however, drag is much higher in 1.0.2 than in FAR.

I encourage people to stop speculating and stop going off perception and to actually test stuff.

Klingon Admiral: It's a good thing jets aren't rocket engines then, right? Because if they were rocket engines, that would be their thrust all the time, whereas as jets, what you're quoting is called static thrust for a reason.

As for the shuttle--it's the compromise KSP makes for not modeling wing sweep or aspect ratio. Either shuttles don't glide like that and gliders become impossible, or shuttles do have OP glide but at least perform like shuttles should at higher speeds, and gliders perform like gliders should at glider speeds. Certainly I play FAR, but I think it's a decent compromise for not needing to model wing shape at all.

Thank the Maker! Seriously, are we done with this yet?

1.0 wasn't perfect. 1.0.2 isn't perfect. 1.0.2 is the best compromise I see anyone making, ever, and Squad should actually be commended for pulling it off.

Let's all remember this part here, people, because it is IMPORTANT:

The very best thing about KSP (aside from the awesome concept of the game) is the ability to be modified, and the developers support for these mods.

No user is stuck playing the game they don't want. If it doesn't appeal to you (and guaranteed, pieces and parts will not), then CHANGE IT. There is a mod for that. nuFAR will do what most of you want it to. If you don't want all the headaches of nuFAR, then maybe convince Ferram to update NEAR too. If you ask really sweetly, he might just do it. I've played a lot with both FAR and NEAR. I preferred FAR. I like the 1.0.2 compromise of the atmosphere. It isn't realistic. But it is a reasonable approximation. At some point, those of you that want more really just need to step up to FAR, and learn to play with it. It is challenging, and difficult. It will take a lot of reading and learning. But it is undeniably awesome when you get it right. nuFAR promises to be very, very cool with the vexel calculations of drag and lift.

Stock KSP straddles an amazingly difficult line here. It teaches, it simulates, it illustrates, and it provides a very good framework that an amazingly large number of people a pretty gosh-darn good time. It gets people thinking "out there," beyond themselves and their iPhones and iWatches. People are dreaming big, thinking about space, looking at the moon with a new understanding and wonder, and IT IS GOOD. Being a stock game, it has to try to cater to the largest population of folks. It has done a very good job in this, all things considered. However, Squad knowing how obsessive and focused and detailed and knit-picky I am, as well as a significant portion of their fanbase, they made a decision to make modding the game a fully supported feature for those of us who want to do different things to be able to do so.

Take advantage of this. Squad isn't perfect. They may very well revisit the aero again, and again we'll have these arguments. But it is really, really pointless. If you don't like them, change them. We have an entire community built around the development, release, and support of software designed to do just that. I don't know if you really understand this, but the modders that are here and do this for free do better software development, and offer better support and customer service, than just about any organization in the world, and they do it in their spare time, for free. Take advantage of them. They are there for all your needs to tweak a little, or a lot.

- - - Updated - - -

BTW, thank you, Nathan, and also others for taking the time to really break things down and explain this for folks. I really appreciate it. I would love for a much more detailed, quantitative analysis of it all someday. Ferram could do it, but won't, and that's OK. He's busy, and he wants as real as possible, and I appreciate that.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Cetera