Which atmopshere do you prefer?

[Alias72]

Oh no! Spaceplanes...

are broken....

In KSP 1.02!

Honestly stock craft are poor indicators for performance. Also flight profile is everything. Finally saying "try this and you will see it is messed" is no counter argument to "here are the numbers you are using, here are what they are being compared to, your conclusions are wrong."

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

I think what bothers me the most is reports that:

A) That the increased drag means the best launch profile is once again ascend to 10km vertically and then turn - which is really jarring because real life rockets turn almost immediately.

Heat shields are almost irrelevant because the atmosphere slows you down before the heating becomes too severe.

C) That you can't smash into the ground at supersonic speeds because that was quite fun (and also things do occasionally do this in real life; V2 rockets impacted at about 1000 m/s)

[problemecium]

I've found 1.0.2's atmosphere to be rather frustrating compared to 1.0.0's. Supposedly 1.0.0 had more aggressive reentry damage, but I actually had an easier time of it than I have in 1.0.2 since the addition of the parachutes burning up mechanic.

[Hodo]

No option for FAR.

So here is my vote.

FAR.

[Psycho_zs]

Well, just for the record, Apollo reentry profile: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/2661/what-was-apollo-11s-reentry-speed-at-parachute-deployment

If the capsule decelerates to subsonic around 10km, then the atmosphere is fine

- - - Updated - - -

...but then come the chutes, and these are overpowered. There should be a strength limit, like it was in DRE.

[Wren]

Oh no! Spaceplanes...

http://i1370.photobucket.com/albums/ag251/alexandercampbell1/screenshot20_zpsqvsn9mdf.png

are broken....

http://i1370.photobucket.com/albums/ag251/alexandercampbell1/screenshot22_zpsqhrobwno.png

In KSP 1.02!

Honestly stock craft are poor indicators for performance. Also flight profile is everything. Finally saying "try this and you will see it is messed" is no counter argument to "here are the numbers you are using, here are what they are being compared to, your conclusions are wrong."

Again, where are you using mark2 parts, and what good is a space plane that barely gets to orbit with no crew, no cargo space, no science capability, no anything besides getting that 1 kerbal up to 72k orbit.

[Klingon Admiral]

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.

Depends heavily on the craft. Planes in FAR profoundely refused to slow down without stalls/airbrakes/flaps, while planes in 1.0 onwards just fall out of the sky once the engine is turned off. It's rather frustrating.

1.0.2 allows for some rather terrible things (pulled from the KSP subreddit, like

- the 25 m/sec shuttle landing: https://gfycat.com/AbsoluteFrequentCanine (credit to u/Yargnit)

- Heatshields? Where we are going we won't need no heatshields: http://imgur.com/a/CBcbH#0 (credit to u/mad_hmpf)

- parachutes aren't needed either: http://imgur.com/a/kPwNh (credit to u/SuperLink243)

The 1.01 changes are pretty bad.

[Wren]

I'd rather have the more brutal shock heating and use the slider to offset that in difficulty, than have the drag and lift problems that don't have any sliders.

[GoSlash27]

I was a guru of capitalizing on .90's lollerdynamics to make turbojet/ OMS spaceplanes with outrageous payload fractions.

I was also a loud proponent of making that sort of thing impossible because it completely broke the game.

1.02 is more accurate and gives you a reason to use the other parts.

SSTO Spaceplanes are still viable, but no longer the only sensible choice.

Best,

-Slashy

[rkman]

none - i like the aerodynamics of 1.02, but i dislike the lack of meaningful reentry heat.

[georgTF]

I change my vote from 1.0 to 1.0.2

It's not perfect but i've finally found a measure of enjoyment in the game. Trying to play 1.0 is worse because it has multiple problems not being addressed which more than offsets the soupyness of the lower athmosphere.

If there was a vote for 1.0.3 or 1.1, i'd vote that because the 3 choices above are all imperfect.

[icecreamberni]

I like the 1.0.2 atmosphere. The 1.0 was a bit weird. But I still prefer FAR.

[Pixel of Life]

For me, it's a question of which one of them is the least bad. I honestly don't know - they're all pretty terrible. 0.90 aero was too draggy. In 1.0, wings generate way too much lift, and you can pull up from a 1300 m/s dive to straight and level flight at 150 m/s in less than a second without fear of a Rapid Unplanned Disassemblyâ„¢. Might be caused by KJR but I'm too lazy to check (although I seriously doubt it would reinforce joints that much). I sure as hell hope FAR fixes all the problems or it's no more KSP for me.

E: Oh, and turbojets generating over 700 kN of thrust? Ridiculous!

Edited May 3, 2015 by CaptainKorhonen

[Fel]

In 1.0, wings generate way too much lift, and you can pull up from a 1300 m/s dive to straight and level flight at 150 m/s in less than a second without fear of a Rapid Unplanned Disassemblyâ„¢.

Yeah, I tested the albatross plane in 1.0, got if flying fairly nicely; then stress tested it. The wings flopped like crazy, but it wasn't until several min of me banking the plane in a tight circle did it finally hit joint failure. 30 degree climbs? No. 30 degree falls? No.... something that big and that unstable really should have failed sooner. Been able to fly? Yes... but failed if pushed past 5-8 degree climbs

[Wanderfound]

Echoing many others: your poll is missing FAR.

OldStock was horrid, NuStock (either version) is tolerable, but if you're into aircraft you want the full monty.

[FlowerChild]

If there was a vote for 1.0.3 or 1.1, i'd vote that because the 3 choices above are all imperfect.

Hehe...yeah, I was about to say something similar about preferring the 1.0.3 model

Whatever it is, I just hope it at least somewhat stabilizes soon and we get to a point where we know that "foo" is the aero model and will remain that way. From everything I'm seeing on the forums, I'm getting the impression we're not there yet, and the longer the revisions go on to such a fundamental system, the more disruptive it's going to be to the community.

Would be cool if people could pass designs around and such without a constant "oh...but that was in the 1.0.7 aero model and might not work anymore". With a lot of new players coming in, that's bound to cause confusion if say a decent tutorial for how to get a rocket to orbit can't be written without it being immediately invalidated.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that things got changed from 1.0 to 1.0.1, I just don't get the impression Squad is done yet, and I hope they get this sorted sooner rather than later.

Edited May 3, 2015 by FlowerChild

[AlexinTokyo]

I was starting to get used to the quirks of the 1.0 atmosphere when 1.0.2 dropped (I missed 1.0.1 completely). I haven't noticed a big change in the ÃŽâ€v to launch, but I haven't really been pushing the envelope yet, either, and even the same design is showing large variance due to piloting issues. Although I must say I'm loving 1.0.2 parachutes; they feel somewhat realistic for the first time ever.

However, I do think that atmospheric heating has been turned down too low. I just deorbited a piece of debris (LV-909 'Terrier', mostly-empty FL-T400 tank, and spent TR-18A decoupler). 77 x 24 km orbit, totally uncontrolled. I expected it to burn up and explode in the atmosphere, but it didn't. The instant before it splashed down (at about 149 m/s) the debug thermal data indicated that no part was over 385 K. It's better than when the Science Jr. would explode from residual launch-heat after exiting the atmosphere, but it probably does need to be tweaked back up again.

Admittedly, this was with the difficulty setting at 100%; it might be that raising it to 120% (if that's still the max) might resolve this. I just haven't had time to test yet.

Note: I don't do planes at all, so can't comment on that area.

[Warzouz]

Plane are more fun to pilot in 1.0.2 than 0.90. But there is really nothing to do with them now. Even the survey contracts are very hard due to high altitude requirements.

So I built a nice little plane which I flight to the island, visit the base. Now I don't think I'll do some more plane stuff. Sad.

[Kirondoll]

This.

Has a real world SSTO even been managed yet?

Where FAR is hard is getting big payloads up there. Small stuff that you can make look like a rocket isn't bad.

Single launch Mun bases? Hard.

How many men visited mars? and venus? how many on jove moons? or just in orbit around jove?

Stop to use the IRL when you talk about a game that is minecraft in space.

[allmhuran]

Not sure how things were in 1.0 but in 1.0.2 dihedral appers to be very unstable. If you turn on aero forces you can see them completely inverting with the slightest changes of AoA.

[Temeter]

Not sure how things were in 1.0 but in 1.0.2 dihedral appers to be very unstable. If you turn on aero forces you can see them completely inverting with the slightest changes of AoA.

I think i had some bugs where dihedral control surfaces developed insane lift in editor and game.

[Jouni]

However, I do think that atmospheric heating has been turned down too low. I just deorbited a piece of debris (LV-909 'Terrier', mostly-empty FL-T400 tank, and spent TR-18A decoupler). 77 x 24 km orbit, totally uncontrolled. I expected it to burn up and explode in the atmosphere, but it didn't. The instant before it splashed down (at about 149 m/s) the debug thermal data indicated that no part was over 385 K. It's better than when the Science Jr. would explode from residual launch-heat after exiting the atmosphere, but it probably does need to be tweaked back up again.

Atmospheric reentry isn't too dangerous at 2-3 km/s. Increase the speed to the 8-11 km/s real spacecraft face, and you have much more energy to get rid of. Alternatively, try aerobraking with bigger ships with mostly full fuel tanks, and the heat shields might become necessary.

[theend3r]

This.

Has a real world SSTO even been managed yet?

Where FAR is hard is getting big payloads up there. Small stuff that you can make look like a rocket isn't bad.

Single launch Mun bases? Hard.

Launching large payloads is easier than launching small ones for me.

When I try to launch small craft, FAR goes crazy: http://imgur.com/a/rGJy5

[n.b.z.]

I voted for 1.0.1/2

1.0.0 was great, but the air at low altitude felt a good deal too thin. Things falling from the sky on Kerbin behaved almost as if it happened on Tylo. I'm no aero engineer or fixed-wing pilot, but this feels just right now.

But I think that the speed at which heat builds up has been dialed back too far... my planes built for 1.0.0 now perform much better, as they can be roasted longer, picking up more speed while airbreathing and looking like a meteor. Also, reentries are too harmless.

[foxkill2342]

Things falling from the sky on Kerbin behaved almost as if it happened on Tylo.

No they didn't. If you re enter with a periapsis of 25Km on Kerbin your craft slows down and lands. You would miss Tylo entirely if you did this. Why don't people understand you aren't supposed to enter the atmosphere directly? Your craft SHOULD blow up if you go straight down. Not from impact like on Tylo, but from heat. That's the whole point of adding re entry heat.