Squad is slowly reintroducing soup o' sphere with 1.01

[NathanKell]

Ok. That sounds quite survivable without a heatshield. Try 7km/sec at Eve.

Remember, stock parts have to be balanced for most _everything_ the player does. It'd be a pretty poor game if it were impossible to do aerocaptures at Eve, right?

[Robotengineer]

Is this evidence enough that soup is back? I was able to slow to about 38m/s before splashing down, and the top part survived.

[RocketPilot573]

I think the best option for the devs is too just go in between 1.0.0 and 1.0.1. Then it might actually be comparable to earth.

Seriously, I want proof that going straight up to 10 km is not the best option (delta-v wise, I don't care about debris falling, flipping rockets, etc).

[Roflcopterkklol]

Why yes, yes they are.

its so realistic guys (FYI part clipping works again)

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/118820-Now-this-is-podracing-V1-0-2

Edited May 3, 2015 by Roflcopterkklol

[Superfluous J]

Seriously, I want proof that going straight up to 10 km is not the best option (delta-v wise, I don't care about debris falling, flipping rockets, etc).

Yeah I hate to say it but I think I'm going to just go back to the old way to climb :/

I totally agree wiht NathanKell. Test it to see. I did, and 45@10km is the way to go.

Woo hoo for the new aero.

I feel like regex and I changed bodies or something.

[Guest]

Yeah I hate to say it but I think I'm going to just go back to the old way to climb :/

I totally agree wiht NathanKell. Test it to see. I did, and 45@10km is the way to go.

Woo hoo for the new aero.

I feel like regex and I changed bodies or something.

vOv

I mean, honestly, I'm having more fun with spaceplanes right now and they fly just fine. Plus, I can actually do a proper gravity turn without losing massive amounts of delta-V flying sideways (like in LOLAERO) so I literally don't care. If that's the price we pay for a bit of realism on #superdenseCeres then I'm all for it. Plus, if I'm less efficient, there's actually some incentive to build something other than SSTO rockets.

[Aanker]

So the unrealistic souposphere is OK, heck even the aforementioned X-W1 NG is OK, because it makes it more difficult to build spaceplanes that look cool and don't just mash together 20 parts? Ok.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Aanker

[sp1989]

It doesn't need fixing because it's not an issue.

It is an issue. If I put a plane into a full throttle dive it should not slow down! That's not a combo of realistic and fun. That's just stupid.

[Guest]

So the unrealistic souposphere is OK, heck even the aforementioned X-W1 NG is OK, because it makes it more difficult to build spaceplanes that look cool and don't just mash together 20 parts? Ok.

The atmosphere is only slightly unrealistic, a bit more drag as I understand it. The planet itself is what is unrealistic. As I've said, you're launching from an ultra-dense planet the size of Ceres with a fairly realistic simulation (insofar as how it works, parts may be a different matter) of Earth's atmosphere. Now, I'm all for correcting Kerbin's size to make up for this deficiency, but until and if that happens, SQUAD presumably wants to balance the atmosphere for gameplay reasons. Again, as stated, I can do a completely realistic launch in 1.0.2, unlike when using pre-1.0 atmosphere.

So then I decided to test this efficiency claim, at least insofar as how I launch. I have a ten-ton lander on top of a rocket with an orbital maneuvering stage for rendezvous. I put it through what I consider to be a fairly standard LOLAERO ascent: climb to 10km, lean over to 45deg, flatten out at 30km (I haven't done one of these in like, a year at least). Then I ran my standard 1.0.2/oldFAR ascent, which was to climb to 75m/s, pitch 5deg, and follow/nudge the prograde marker into orbit. Well, I kind of messed up the second launch, but...

Not like I care about efficiency, but it's pretty clear to me that I can do better realistic ascents than using the old "climb out of the thick" method. Adding horizontal velocity early is clearly better for the way I launch.

It is an issue. If I put a plane into a full throttle dive it should not slow down! That's not a combo of realistic and fun. That's just stupid.

There are a lot of things going on regarding drag, but I'm willing to bet you're changing your angle of attack way too fast and inducing far more drag than you expect. Then, since you've slowed down by changing your vector, your engine has to play catch up because it's not working nearly as efficiently. Someone who knows aerodynamic better can probably explain this better than I can. Also, you need to provide a picture of the aircraft because most of my craft pick up speed while diving, at least up until they smack into the transonic barrier, at which point I need engine power to punch through.

[Aanker]

I think you misunderstand. I don't want the 0.90 atmosphere back. But I do want less drag and soup in this new aero. At least for wings and spaceplane fuselages.

[Guest]

I think you misunderstand. I don't want the 0.90 atmosphere back. But I do want less drag and soup in this new aero. At least for wings and spaceplane fuselages.

I understand exactly what you're saying in this post but this thread is blaming the wrong thing. Parts are the problem, not the atmosphere. I have no idea why you people aren't lobbying for better parts/tweakables/modules and are instead blaming it on a fairly realistic atmospheric simulation. Honestly, it would be fairly trivial to add a part module to wings that would remove their lift module and add a box drag model to them (they have no drag cube), I have no idea why Squad didn't add one... As far as clipping is concerned I don't think Squad's sim is going to go that far, you may instead want to look into nuFAR.

[Superfluous J]

I understand exactly what you're saying in this post but this thread is blaming the wrong thing. Parts are the problem, not the atmosphere. I have no idea why you people aren't lobbying for better parts/tweakables/modules and are instead blaming it on a fairly realistic atmospheric simulation. Honestly, it would be fairly trivial to add a part module to wings that would remove their lift module and add a box drag model to them (they have no drag cube), I have no idea why Squad didn't add one... As far as clipping is concerned I don't think Squad's sim is going to go that far, you may instead want to look into nuFAR.

Thanks for doing the launches. I'm hoping to try some more tests soon with varying TWRs (So far all my TWRs have been similar and low, around 1.25-1.3) to see if it's better.

I'm like Venkman in Ghostbusters. I never studied. So, when you say remove the lift module and add a drag box module to wings, that sounds to my uneducated ear like it'd remove wings' ability to lift and add drag to them. That doesn't sound good on either count so I assume I'm missing something important.

[Aanker]

I understand exactly what you're saying in this post but this thread is blaming the wrong thing. Parts are the problem, not the atmosphere. I have no idea why you people aren't lobbying for better parts/tweakables/modules and are instead blaming it on a fairly realistic atmospheric simulation. Honestly, it would be fairly trivial to add a part module to wings that would remove their lift module and add a box drag model to them (they have no drag cube), I have no idea why Squad didn't add one... As far as clipping is concerned I don't think Squad's sim is going to go that far, you may instead want to look into nuFAR.

I frankly haven't had the breathing space to do that between all the accusations of being an exploit-abusing noob, wanting to reintroduce x-wings to the realism of KSP 1.0.2 and suggestions to just use a mod instead of highlighting the problem. Yes: this would be one solution that I would be happy to see. And I've explained that before.

[Cdr_Zeta]

Hello,

Going straight up should have more drag; maybe it is a revamp of getting into orbit efficiency; using same TWR for mk1/mk3 to test drag on parts; drag coef on parts should not be done; it should be fixed so players dont mess with it.

I am looking into it guess I need to upgrade KSP too.

Zeta

[Superfluous J]

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.

[klgraham1013]

Realism.

https://gfycat.com/AbsoluteFrequentCanine

/sarcasm

[travis575757]

If you don't think there are any problems with the new 1.01/1.02 update you should look at this.

A shuttle landing at 25 m/s (It's basically floating)

https://gfycat.com/AbsoluteFrequentCanine

People are saying heat shields are useless now and their right,

http://imgur.com/a/kPwNh

[Motokid600]

Ew....

[Fun1k]

It's ridiculous.

[Guest]

I frankly haven't had the breathing space to do that

[arkie87]

If you don't think there are any problems with the new 1.01/1.02 update you should look at this.

A shuttle landing at 25 m/s (It's basically floating)

https://gfycat.com/AbsoluteFrequentCanine

People are saying heat shields are useless now and their right,

http://imgur.com/a/kPwNh

1.0.0 aerodynamics and heat shielding seemed fine at times, but other times, would appear completely unrealistic. I've had crafts explode at 45 km at 1300 m/s during ascent, and 65 km during descent. Something appeared to be wrong with the convective flux term. In 1.0.2, they fixed certain bugs (like craft overheating in water) etc... which leads me to beleive that 1.0.0 was buggy.

It would make sense then that they had to turn down aerodynamic heating in 1.0.0 due to these (then unknown) bugs since craft were exploding when they shouldnt. I think after fixing these bugs, aerodynamic heating can be turned up...

[georgTF]

1.0 aero - Dead On Arrival?

I would like to know wheter dragless 1.0 aero was the intended feature which was refined and tested for a long time period. Because if it was, it was thrown away VERY quickly with the 1.0.1 patch. The sudden re-emergence of "soup" makes me wonder if it's a temporary fix or the direction development is headed in. Aero in 1.0 and 1.0.x feel very different and at times the 1.0.x feels artificial (understandable since it was a hotfix).

I can see low altitude soupiness making the game easier for new players the full release will attract, and agree with comments that 1.0 felt too digital and made the athmosphere of Kerbin a lot more like that of Duna in 0.xx releases. But the 1.0 model was touted as a major improvement, yet it barely lasted a few days.

It seems very strange that a major feature of a now finally finished game would get discarded like a spent solid fuel booster. Surely that could not have been part of a plan, unless there were divided opinions about it within Squad even before release. Or maybe they went back to the aero that wasn't generating so many complaints as a temporary solution.

- Did Squad get it wrong with aero in 1.0? (If not, will we see it again?)

- Was the storm of complaints too significant to ignore for several months before the first update/patch?

- Can we ever have a workable aero model without soup in it?

- Is customers building LOL-planes any reason to berate the aero model as unrealistic? (Should Squad kill ways to make bricks fly or let it go?)

and finally...

- In light of KSP 1.0 lasting only a few days, should we all play the hell out of KSP, accumulate a small ocean of complaints/bugs, and give Squad a much more detailed and precise list of imperfections to sort out?

1) I didn't get to spend enough time with it.

2) Probably not if all that was fixed were the LV-N and parachute bugs, but development progressed beyond that stage i guess.

3) I hope. Probably will take a long time to perfect. Realism v light/fun doesn't matter as long as it isn't tedious.

4) They are hillarious, sometimes awesome and a great source of exploits or ingenuity. KSP is for everyone who wants it, so why not?

5) Yes but...

Over to you.

[Troubletcat]

I think people are massively exaggerating the difference in aero modelling between 1.0 and 1.0.2. All my rockets that I made in 1.0 still work pretty much exactly the same, and if you listen to what the devs are saying very little was actually changed in terms of DV requirements for orbit and stuff like that. I think saying that "soup" is back is an incredible exageration as well. 1.0.2 aero is extremely similar to 1.0 and nothing at all like .90 and earlier. Getting to orbit and flying planes are both (in my opinion) far, far easier, more intuitive and more realistic than they ever were in stock before.

The only thing that's harder is spaceplanes (since you lose air to keep jet engines running at much lower altitudes) but honestly they were absurdly overpowered before.

Tl:dr; Change from 1.0 to 1.0.2 was small. New aero is good (not perfect, but good) and I have no idea why people are flipping out.

[Pthigrivi]

There are already like 100 whiny threads about this.

[Frozen_Heart]

1.0.2, while denser than the 1.0 atmo, is nothing like the 0.90 souposphere.

Personally I'd like something in between the 1.0 and the 1.0.2 one.