Which atmopshere do you prefer?

[n.b.z.]

My wording was bad... with "falling from the sky" I wasn't referring to deorbit/reentry, but just things falling from 2000 or 3000 m height. (Things = what's left of my rocket after a failed launch).

I agree that "you aren't supposed to enter the atmosphere directly", and that "your craft SHOULD blow up ...from heat". Which is why I lamented that heating effects have been dialed back in 1.0.2 over 1.0.0.

So what I think is better in 1.0.2 is the low altitude air density, NOT the reduction of the heating. In 1.0.0, air at low altitude felt too thin. It is my understanding that if you are supersonic in a plane at 10km altitude, and then you start to dive down 25° while completely cutting the power, the drag should be slowing you down to subsonic somewhat quickly. In 1.0.0 it seemed that the dive would gain you almost as much speed as you would lose from drag, letting you go supersonic with no thrust almost all the way down.

[Superfluous J]

After getting a decent amount of time with the new (new) aero, I'm voting 1.0.2. It's harder, sure, but what did you expect from rocket science? Once I nosed to the grindstone and built an actual ship for an actual mission and figured out how to get it into orbit, everything is really coming together.

[DoToH]

I don't do splaceplanes, so viable SSTO are not my concern.

with 1.0 they introduced new aero. Reentry heat was part of it. And a new brand heating system.

Overheating was a problem with ISRU.

Overheating was a problem at high speeds

Reentry heat was ok, but heat shields were physicsless (bug).

1.0.1. - Overheating solutions.

Removed overheating from ISRU mechanics

Increased drag to prevent vessels reaching overheating speeds.

Direct interplanetary reentry without heat shields is possible. Heat shields are now useless.

Maybe the solution wasn't tweaking aerovalues but heating system ones.

Heatshields are the most usesless part ever in the history of KSP. They only were useful for 1 week, and were bugged.

PRo's - We can safely delete 3 parts to save precious RAM.

[Robotengineer]

1.0's atmosphere was to thin, but 1.0.2's is to thick, could we average them and get a Goldilocks atmosphere?

[DoToH]

Right now, FAR is the only logical option.

[StainX]

A mixture between 1.0.0 and 1.0.2 it is!

[eddiew]

1.0.0

Didn't have a lot of time with it, but stuff seemed to fly as I'd expected it would. The only issues were around capsule re-entry, and I feel like inbuilt air-brakes and better CoM alignment to keep the heatshield downwards were all that was actually required.

1.0.2 on the other hand seems to have made the lower atmosphere rather soupy again. I'm already eyeing up nuFAR instead, since it bears more resemblance to 1.0.0.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe the solution wasn't tweaking aerovalues but heating system ones.

That ^^^ The aero was a nice compromise, but the heat was overkill and we had no new parts to handle it.

[DirkLarien]

They can always contract folks like Ferram to help with this.

If they are struggling.

His NEAR was pretty good example of what they are aiming for i think.

I cant really judge i havent played it much yet.

Would love to play.....

But them constant patching is messing up the mods

So ultimately i don't care just make up your mind.

We will adapt somehow.

....people will mod it anyway. (hmm....this is getting my ultimate answer to everything :-) )

Edited May 3, 2015 by DirkLarien

[Xyphos]

to me, KSP is just a game. although it's supposed to be realistic, it's still just a game and nothing more.

I hate the new atmosphere. every single rocket I've built has gone into uncontrollable somersaults for no apparent reason when I try gravity turning.

I liked 0.90 better, because 1.0 forces me to spend too much time reverting back to editor and not enough time flying.

I wish there was an option in settings to turn realism off, cuz it's ruining the fun of commanding a fictional space program and exploring a fictional universe.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Xyphos

[georgTF]

You need fins on the rocket now. Fins are a must. Doing the g-turn at 10km is also not the ideal option, and some finned rockets can't even perform it. You can tilt the rocket 5-10 deg at launch and slowly turn the whole way up. Typically reaching 45 degrees around 15km and reaching 90 degrees around 35-40km gets a good ascent, though depending on the design of the rocket and amss and whatnot a 10km sharp turn yields more dV.

But yeah, it's fins.

[7499275]

Personally I like the new atmosphere. It feels more realistic, kinda like a bouncy flow feeling to it. I don't know how to describe it but flying a plane feels smoother lets say compared to the old soup o sphere.

Although, I haven't tried Eve, Duna, or Laythe yet.

[hcalves]

0.90 was a soup, and it was too easy to get to Mach 3 or more in 1.0.

1.0.2 has a good balance. Aerobraking actually pulls some Gs, and if your spaceplane is not well aligned when you hit lower atmo, you flip over.

[mcdjfp]

I still have a preference for 1.0 over 1.02, but I have discovered that most of the soupy feeling I was getting from 1.01 and 1.02 actually came from sound barrier problems (which I have no complaint with). I ran across a Mach number display in a mod (looking for a power generation number) and turned it on. I discovered that most of my insane drag/no acceleration problems were hitting around the speed of sound. Once past that my space plane started accelerating almost too quickly. My rocket flipping problem also turned out to be happening at a Mach number of 0.98-1.02. It would be fine at 0.95, but then at 0.98 it would start to tip and once past 10 degrees or so it would flip backwards.

I am disappointed in the number of explosions on reentry in 1.02, and this is my main current reason for preferring 1.0

[Pthigrivi]

I didn't have much time during 1.0 but Im having a blast with 1.0.2. The balance between fun and challenge feels great, I just love tweaking things out to find that perfect turn. I'm pushing through career so I haven't taken a good crack at SSTO, but I agree it should be hard. I also agree we could benefit from a nice balance pass, both on ISP and heat tolerance. For new players default heat could almost stay where it is so long as maxing it out made heat shields necessary. They could also create more heat tolerance contrast between rocket tanks and plane parts.

Man though guys. Feedback is cool but the crazy negative tone here lately is completely absurd. 1.0 is so crazy good and the problems are so minor. Just give it a couple of weeks guys, they're shaking it out.

[Aragosnat]

You need fins on the rocket now. Fins are a must. Doing the g-turn at 10km is also not the ideal option, and some finned rockets can't even perform it. You can tilt the rocket 5-10 deg at launch and slowly turn the whole way up. Typically reaching 45 degrees around 15km and reaching 90 degrees around 35-40km gets a good ascent, though depending on the design of the rocket and amss and whatnot a 10km sharp turn yields more dV.

But yeah, it's fins.

If I where to do that with my rockets with fins where I'm at 45 degrees at 15 km up they would then just nose dive into the water/ground. But, for my profile that allows what I create to get into orbit with just about any of the earily starting fins. 5-10 degree so earily stages avoid hitting KSC like I have been doing since 0.18. At 10 km slowly bring it down to 85 (slow speeds, under 400 m/s) to 75 (high speeds) depending how fast I'm going. Then at 20 km up depending on how fast I'm going drop it down 60-65 degress. Then at 30 km up drop it to 45 or lower degrees, still depends on how fast I'm going.

I'm still getting used to the aerodynamics. Playing career mode so I get used to not only the parts. But, to not spoil myself with building the biggest fattest rockets.

0.90 and under was for myself th most fun for SSTO space planes. Yes. I loved abusing the hell out of it. Basic planes and how the handled. I do agree I hate them. Still could make and fly them. Just way to much work to keep up in the air. Rockets are well rockets. Always fun regardless of the atmosphere.

1.0 Changes to the lift made it nicer to play with place that is for sure. Never got the chance to really try and make SSTO planes. The few times I tried did not go to well due to the runways being bumpy and was only playing that version with mainly rocket.

1.0.2 Very fun to fly planes. Did some flying with stock plane with basic engine and could keep it at close to the same altitude with almost no input needed by me for 30+ minutes. I have the feling if I was not trying to do contracts at the time. The plane would just stay up in the air as long as it has fuel. Like how the engines drain fuel evenly even though that is a pain for when I was trying to make SSTO planes. They kept eating at the fuel and had no way to transfer the fuel back. No fuel lines or reasorce transfers yet.

But, over all. The thing I find most odd about the aero update is. That the first basic intake still had plenty of air in it, think about 0.17 to 0.23 left in it when the engine (only using one) cut out. At least my way of thinking. The basic should have flamed out a lot closer to 0.01 since the drain was about that. I understand that my thrust out put should be very little at high up due to lack of air going in. But, when placing 2 intakes the engine (using one still) shutting down is still about the same with the intakes having even more stored air in them. Which is what I find very very weird. While not expecting much gain. It is just weird that the engine still cuts out around the same altitude. Can accept that there will be some air still there as that is the pressure point for flame out. Just not when there is a tiny bit moar air left in. I do realize moar testing needs to be done. I'll try 3, 4, 5, 6, and up when I get the chance to. Certainly don't feel like playing in sandbox mode to find out nor redoing it over and over to find out.

Other then that. The effects for when doing high speed abusive turns is fun.

[Lord Aurelius]

My favorite atmosphere? FAR with a Kerbin rescale, 3x-4x is a nice size that is still feasible with stock parts, but your rockets need to be bigger. One of the issues I have with stock is that Kerbin is just too small so getting into orbit is never that much of a challenge, unless parts are arbitrarily limited or severely nerfed, or I'm trying to launch excessively large payloads.

Actually, that would make for a nice difficulty slider, being able to choose the system scale. That would add actual difficulty to the game, not just adjust the grind like the difficulty setting do currently.

I haven't played extensively with the new update (I'm waiting for Squad to finish fixing the hotfixes and for mods to be updated to fix what Squad doesn't), but given the buggy behavior so far in the new aero system, I would say .90 was more fun, even if it was unrealistic. That will likely change once the new aero system becomes more solid.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Lord Aurelius

[Masetto]

1.0.2 is the best yet. 1.0.0 was, uh, bugged and easily exploited, so...

Seriously, 1.0.2 is the first time aero has felt like proper aero, where it takes into account all potential drag along the entirety of your ship. 1.0.0 simply didn't do that, that's why it was fixed.

I love ascents and reentries more than ever now. Planes are funner than ever to fly, especially at high-velocity low-altitude. Spaceplanes were nerfed, yes: as they should have been. This game isn't about designing an X-Wing that can travel willy-nilly to all the planets, that old Beta stuff was a bit ridiculous.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Masetto

[jarmund]

This poll will remain biased: Those who prefer 1.0.2 are busy flying instead of voting

[Gaugeforever]

Where is the ferram aerospace option?

[georgTF]

If I where to do that with my rockets with fins where I'm at 45 degrees at 15 km up they would then just nose dive into the water/ground. But, for my profile that allows what I create to get into orbit with just about any of the earily starting fins. 5-10 degree so earily stages avoid hitting KSC like I have been doing since 0.18. At 10 km slowly bring it down to 85 (slow speeds, under 400 m/s) to 75 (high speeds) depending how fast I'm going. Then at 20 km up depending on how fast I'm going drop it down 60-65 degress. Then at 30 km up drop it to 45 or lower degrees, still depends on how fast I'm going.

Yeah, i criminally ignored velocity and mass and gave just a very basic anwser. What i personally do, being limited to lower tiers in carrer mode, is tilt at launch, punch through the air as fast as possible while throttling down in case of going too fast then after heat is no longer an issue i try to sort out the apoapsis and climb into a circular orbit. I'm not fuel efficient but at the moment fuel is the cheapest of my concerns. The T-30 is a pretty damn good early LF engine for lighter rockets.

[Brotoro]

...but I have discovered that most of the soupy feeling I was getting from 1.01 and 1.02 actually came from sound barrier problems (which I have no complaint with). I ran across a Mach number display in a mod (looking for a power generation number) and turned it on. I discovered that most of my insane drag/no acceleration problems were hitting around the speed of sound. Once past that my space plane started accelerating almost too quickly. My rocket flipping problem also turned out to be happening at a Mach number of 0.98-1.02. It would be fine at 0.95, but then at 0.98 it would start to tip and once past 10 degrees or so it would flip backwards...

^^THIS is what I found out as well. The increase of drag in the transonic region was having a BIG effect on my vehicles.

With spaceplanes, my plane would get stuck bumping up against that drag-increase spike and simply couldn't push through to the promised land where the drag coefficient drops again. But, by getting to the correct altitude and flying horizontally (some planes can benefit from a bit of a dive here, especially if their TWR is low), I could get the plane through the barrier and speed would increase rapidly.

For rockets, I found that the drag bump in the transonic region was causing my rockets to tumble because the drag forces on the nose that are the cause of the tumble increase rapidly then. So, after launch (upon hitting 80 m/s) I pitch over pretty aggressively (still keeping the heading pointer close to the prograde marker). But as the ship reaches the mid-300 m/s speed, I pull back my heading pointer close to the center of the prograde marker until the rocket's speed has gotten up into the 400+ m/s region and increasing...then I go back to increasing pitchover.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Brotoro

[Fleb]

1.02 feels more like what I have experienced in most flight sims so far. 1.0 was ridiculous, it was like there was hardly any atmosphere at all.

[foxkill2342]

Have you ever pitched down 25 degrees in a plane? You accelerate pretty quickly even without thrust. In 1.02 your plane decelerates with full thrust 25 degrees nose down.

[Superfluous J]

Have you ever pitched down 25 degrees in a plane? You accelerate pretty quickly even without thrust. In 1.02 your plane decelerates with full thrust 25 degrees nose down.

I tilted my nose down 25 degrees and accelerated. Like you, I won't disclose how fast I was going or my altitude at the time.

[Beowolf]

Poll needs 1.0.3 as a choice.