Squad is slowly reintroducing soup o' sphere with 1.01

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

I think the Aeromodel is a two-edged sword. Do you make it too soupy, you kill the realism (on a planet the size of a pebble compared to earth but still with the same gravity,blablabla) do you make it too biting into your surface area, you make it too difficult to ascent.

Yes, providing Squad with detailed Suggestions, Issue-Reports and stuffing them with Pictures, Videos and craftfiles helps.

Personally, i dont think there is anything wrong with the current Atmosphere.

It is different, yes. But waaay better than the soup we had before.

Edited May 3, 2015 by MalfunctionM1Ke

[Robotengineer]

I think that the 1.0 aero was a bit more realistic than 1.0.2, neither were very realistic, in 1.0 you could go mach 3 at seal level, and in 1.0.2 a Space Shuttle design was able to land at 25m/s. IRL, you can do neither.

[DoToH]

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?

Direct return from Jool, same ship (no heatshield). Hits Kerbin's atmo over 5000m/s. Still survives without any heat warning during reentry. Trying Eve right now.

Survivable? Sure.

balanced for most _everything_ the player does? If you meant not needing heatshields for anything but the most extreme return, yes, its balanced.

[Fleb]

1.0 was kinda ridiculous, I hit mach 4 ASL with my first plane without even trying to do it, and then I exploded! 1.02 seems nothing like souposphere to me, you could never do these kind of speeds.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Fleb

[tater]

Balanced for everything means that with any significant atmosphere, badly planned reentry/aerobraking should burn up the craft, or result in velocities that make chutes ineffective. If it doesn't do that, something needs to change. My gut feeling is that it all stems from the choice of size for kerbin, and having to arbitrarily muck around with physics as a result.

[klesh]

I am wondering if 1.0 aero was actually somehow a mistake? Like, did the entire testing and Q&A process happen with the 1.0.2 aero and then somehow we got a mis-uploaded 1.0 (I can't imagine them making that mistake)?

If that wasn't the case, how did they go through a months-long process of redoing aerodynamics, only to make a hotfix in one day that drastically changes what they had been working on for months? Surely the hotfix wasnt tested as thoroughly as the 1.0 aero? Something doesn't make sense about this process.

[DoToH]

1.0 was kinda ridiculous, I hit mach 4 ASL with my first plane without even trying to do it, and then I exploded!

Remember:

1- KSP jets engines are OP. (you reached mach 4 beacuse of it)

2- RL planes won't survive much at mach 4. Temperature or airframe stress makes mantained mach 4 flight only bearable with specialized designs.(AFAIK).

These two points make 1.0 more realistic than 1.0.2

[Fleb]

Remember:

1- KSP jets engines are OP. (you reached mach 4 beacuse of it)

2- RL planes won't survive much at mach 4. Temperature or airframe stress makes mantained mach 4 flight only bearable with specialized designs.(AFAIK).

These two points make 1.0 more realistic than 1.0.2

Well I totally disagree, but to each his own.

[MGCJerry]

I've only played with 1.0, 1.0.1, & 1.0.2 for probably 20 minutes each. Based on some of the stuff I tried, I like 1.0.2 the best.

[sal_vager]

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Cough.

[DoToH]

Well I totally disagree, but to each his own.

Disagree with point 1, 2 or both?

@NathanKell

Test from Jool to Eve. Hit Eve atmo @6000m/s. PE was 50Km. Landed ok. No heat warnings. Surely I can make the heatshield a need, but has to be o purpose, not on normal gameplay.

[Klingon Admiral]

1.0 was kinda ridiculous, I hit mach 4 ASL with my first plane without even trying to do it, and then I exploded! 1.02 seems nothing like souposphere to me, you could never do these kind of speeds.

What did you expect with a plane having a TWR of 2.5 at liftoff?

[panzer1b]

Ive gotten to the point that i just nolonger care about what peopel think is better, i enjoyed 1.0 so much more then the subsequent update, and i see no reason i shouldnt just load up the 1.0 physics.cfg and have some actual fun. Realism or not, the lack of soup (and more of a FAR feel without all the tediousness and annoyances FAR has) was just so much more enjoyable. 1.0 lowish drag aero ALL THE WAY!

Not sure if im the only one, but until squad lowers the drag to something that isnt borderline 0.90 levels, ill stick to 1.0, at least the drag model of 1.0 worked, and was enjoyable (with the bugfixes and memory leaks they added to 1.0.2). 1.0 was also playtested far longer then this super rapid hotfix. The new thing actually makes aero feel worse, yes its easier to get bricks to fly, but it not like i care about getting bricks to orbit outside of a fairing It seems that squad got some complaint here and there, and what do they do: make the aero feel more like the old game, but without even compensating by buffing engines back to higher ISPs. I feel 1.0 was almost perfect froma balance perspective, stuff would get into orbit and be able to go roughly a similar distance as before, the ISP nerfs, despite not being a fan of them, were at least very well thought out, as it was much easier to get into orbit, but was also worse when trying to go interplanetary. Nukes were and still are the best general purpose long range engine, and that hasnt changed, ions have gotten a fair nerf at sea level where they really shouldnt work but are itherwise identical, and the rest of the engines are now pretty good, some exceptions exist like the new OMS having less ISP then the little RSC blocks and linear thrusters, but it works.

1.0.2 was kinda rushed, and it doesnt feel as balanced or playtested (realistic or not), until they actually bother to make it fun/balanced ill stick to what works, 1.0 physics.cfg!

Edited May 3, 2015 by panzer1b

[klgraham1013]

http://imgur.com/a/0zbe8

Cough.

Just because a game gives you a means to modify something doesn't excuse that something from being mediocre.

edit: I'm still not completely sure of my opinion on aero. What I do know is that Squad made major changes in less that a week which raises my skepticism a bit.

Edited May 3, 2015 by klgraham1013

[Fun1k]

Realism or not, the lack of soup (and more of a FAR feel without all the tediousness and annoyances FAR has) was just so much more enjoyable. 1.0 lowish drag aero ALL THE WAY!

This. I had been playing with FAR prior to 1.0 and while it is realistic and fun, it might be bit too difficult for some people because of sudden unplanned disassembly caused by stress, and I therefore liked 1.0 aero, which is FAR-like in terms of drag and whatnot, but without all that added difficulty that comes with that level of realism (i might check out nuFAR). I never managed to make a proper SSTO either in pre-1.0 stock (too slow due to the soup) or with FAR (stress breaking). I do mostly rockets, but with 1.0 aero I consider I might try to build a cargo SSTO because of how forgiving it is to those inexperienced with spaceplanes, i.e. I can actually flip/brake sideways and not blow up to smithereens. With new aero "fix" I find it more soupy and less enjoyable. Really Squad, it is too much to ask you to create an aero switch?

[Fleb]

What did you expect with a plane having a TWR of 2.5 at liftoff?

The plane I mentioned in 1.0 wasn't the one in the picture, it just had a single turbojet. I made the one in the picture to see how fast I could go in 1.02.

- - - Updated - - -

Disagree with point 1, 2 or both?

"These two points make 1.0 more realistic than 1.0.2"

I disagreed with this. I am sure it will all change again though, and all this bickering will start over again.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Fleb

[DoToH]

1.0.2 was kinda rushed, and it doesnt feel as balanced or playtested (realistic or not), until they actually bother to make it fun/balanced ill stick to what works, 1.0 physics.cfg!

+1 ... You showed me the way...

Just because a game gives you a means to modify something doesn't excuse that something from being mediocre.

[RocketPilot573]

Just because a game gives you a means to modify something doesn't excuse that something from being mediocre.

edit: I'm still not completely sure of my opinion on aero. What I do know is that Squad made major changes in less that a week which raises my skepticism a bit.

This, I don't care that we can change the aero, I care that the stock KSP is somewhat decent. Changing the settings of physics just doesn't feel right, why should I share an SSTO on this forums if it doesn't work by default?

[Klingon Admiral]

The plane I mentioned in 1.0 wasn't the one in the picture, it just had a single turbojet. I made the one in the picture to see how fast I could go in 1.02.

Turbojets are ridiculously overpowered. Their peak thrust is 1015 kN or so. Each engine on a 747-800 produces 296 kN, so a single turbojet at mach 3 can nearly out-thrust a goddamn 747.

[tater]

Reentry problems are not likely a thing with mini-kerbin, frankly.

The low stall speed shown in a gif on another thread is concerning, the stall of that shuttle requires a wing area about 10X+ higher than it is (I did some quick calks for wing area as a function of stall speed, and I assumed it was basically entirely empty (~22 tons)).

I don't think that people shouldn't have to experiment with physics sliders to play.

[NathanKell]

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.

[Redshift OTF]

I posted the below in another thread but since it pertains to the current atmosphere model and some of you wanted tests I thought I would repeat it here if that is acceptable.

*********

Turns out I didn't need most of the wings after all.

Please note I did not specifically design this craft to look like a certain something. It just turns out that this is one of the most efficient way to make an SSTO that can deliver an orange tank into orbit. :/ I used 2 pairs of tails as wings and 1 pair of canards for stability. There are no wing surfaces offset into the fuselage. This is 285 tons of plane we are talking about here. It did need the whole runway to get off the ground mind.

The last picture is interesting. I am at 10km falling to the earth with no airbrakes at 262 m/s and I was slowing down.

Although it would have been easier to land this with more wing it is possible to glide it if you flair at the right moment. Wasn't even a runway landing.

Craft file if anyone wants to test it themselves.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Redshift OTF

[panzer1b]

This. I had been playing with FAR prior to 1.0 and while it is realistic and fun, it might be bit too difficult for some people because of sudden unplanned disassembly caused by stress, and I therefore liked 1.0 aero, which is FAR-like in terms of drag and whatnot, but without all that added difficulty that comes with that level of realism (i might check out nuFAR). I never managed to make a proper SSTO either in pre-1.0 stock (too slow due to the soup) or with FAR (stress breaking). I do mostly rockets, but with 1.0 aero I consider I might try to build a cargo SSTO because of how forgiving it is to those inexperienced with spaceplanes, i.e. I can actually flip/brake sideways and not blow up to smithereens. With new aero "fix" I find it more soupy and less enjoyable. Really Squad, it is too much to ask you to create an aero switch?

Not really a matter of difficulty, it was just tedious to have all the flap settings, menus everywhere (one thing i always hated with FAR+many other mods, too many menus and crap), and it want worth it imo back then. Right now there is stock disassembly too, its just not anywhere near FAR levels, if you try to pull up more then a bit at mach-3 you will explode, simple as that. I actually liked near the best, but didnt feel like loosing SSTO to laythe and beyond capabilities (yes im one of those that absolutely abused airhogging and jets being OP). Now that stock aero is more logical and jets are nolonger the instant get into space free ticket, im pretty much redesigning everything to work with the new system.

Im hoping squad takes a good look at what they did (and if they really insist upon teh new drag, then they should buff most engines by around 20% or so in the ISP department to compensate for the extra drag. Im not pretending to be a balance expert, but 1.0 felt spot on, this 1.0.2, not so much.

- - - Updated - - -

This, I don't care that we can change the aero, I care that the stock KSP is somewhat decent. Changing the settings of physics just doesn't feel right, why should I share an SSTO on this forums if it doesn't work by default?

This is my major issue with editing stuff in part.cfgs and even physics. Im assuming the majority will be running default, so i kinda have to make all my stuff work under default or near default settings. Also, it causes issues with DMP, where some get faster planbes, others slower, ect.

Edited May 3, 2015 by panzer1b

[Jouni]

I posted the below in another thread but since it pertains to the current atmosphere model and some of you wanted tests I thought I would repeat it here if that is acceptable.

Can you show the same craft without part clipping? As far as I understand, stock aerodynamics are not even supposed to produce any reasonable results with heavy part clipping.

[Redshift OTF]

Hmmm, the only part clipping I used was to add an extra 16 ram intakes inside each engine pod so I could attach them to the same cubic octagonal struts that the Rapiers were attached to. Everything else used the offset tool. It would take a while because the game doesn't like doing 16x radial symmetry and Mirror symmetry at the same time so I would have to rip off the engine pods, re-build one of them on the back of the plane, re-attach it in Mirror symmetry mode and hope the action groups still work for them. Oh the joys of building cluster engines. Or I could find some other way of attaching 32 ram intakes. The plane needs 2 intakes per engine I believe or you get flame-outs on the way up. At least, 1 per engine is not enough. I'm pretty sure the clipped intakes still have drag as they show on the Aero overlay I think. I don't believe any parts are occluded except inside cargo bays and fairings. If there's more of a demand or I feel masochistic I might move them.