Which atmopshere do you prefer?

[Kuu Lightwing]

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.

At which speeds? You do not push a Cessna through Mach 1 in a dive.

[godemperorzack]

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.

Exactly, I was aerobraking on Jool okay at 195K periapsis, but 190K would cause me to explode. Was going about 8 Km/s. No heat shield, but atmosphere starts at 200k! Such a low angle was catastrophic. People need to remember space travel is often incredibly high velocity. The game needs to be balanced at these high speeds as well.

[Klingon Admiral]

The new aero is fine /s

http://imgur.com/a/ImS1x#0 (credit to u/G1th)

[juanml82]

Please take the Stearwing D45 and fly it attempting to get into orbit. You will find that between 10k - 20k altitude the turbojets will loose thrust just at the same time as the wings don't provide enough lift for you to gain any speed or altitude, so there is absolutely no way to get high enough to jettison them and get into orbit. I tested for about 8 hours yesterday with several different engine mix and configuration that I could for a small 25 ton spaceplane to try and get into orbit and found that in no way could I do it, and I was building spaceplanes extensively since .20. I literally can't get anything into space unless it is using 8 RAPIER engines and 8-10k units of LFO, which pretty much makes mark2 parts useless.

This 30 ton spaceplane makes it into orbit

And the craft file. I thought it could make it without the central rapier, but it needs the extra thrust to break through the sound barrier

http://www./download/ymel3xbgy7g7zjx/SSTO_MK2.craft

[shadowfu]

I guess I can't vote, but I'd throw mine to 1.0.0

[Francois424]

While I do enjoy the new Atmosphere (well 1.0's, didn't have time to play with 1.0.2 yet due to lack of time) I preferred the old one. I'm sure in a few months I won't be saying this tho... A lot of it has to be just from getting used to it again.

Still, there was a reason why I never used far and Deadly Re-entry... Now Far has been shoved down my throat and there is no toggle to pick the old one back (most likely from all the engine changes). I was weary of the new atmo from day one it was announced, and most of my fears happened.

I still love 1.0, and I have 0.90 backed up if that should ever change. Too much good stuff in 1,0 to ignore it.

Still I really hate it when my rockets backflips while taking off... the worst part is, I was already doing textbook launches (following the prograde marker) in .24.2 yet in this new areo they still go crazy. Will have to try 1.02 tho, I heard the atmosphere is more "soupy" than 1.0, maybe it helps with that.

For me the fun is in space, not spending 463 tries to get that damn rocket/payload off Kerban.

Like I said, will most likely get better in the coming months.

[OhioBob]

I don't fly planes, I'm strictly a rocket guy. For rockets, I prefer 1.0.2.

Launch vehicles: Version 1.0 had more realistic drag coefficients, but I think 1.0.2 is a bit easier to fly. Flying a good efficient ascent profile comes more naturally to me in 1.0.2 than it did in 1.0. The drag coefficients are higher than real life, but I'm OK with that because I thought it was too easy to get to orbit in 1.0.

Reentry vehicles: The game doesn't make much of a distinction in the drag coefficient between blunt bodies and streamlined bodies. Blunt body drag coefficient in 1.0 was way too low. Version 1.0.2 is much better but could still be improved. Squad should consider modifying the drag coefficient for heat shields by increasing the Cd in the hypersonic region.

- - - Updated - - -

Will have to try 1.02 tho, I heard the atmosphere is more "soupy" than 1.0

Technically, it's the parts that are more "draggy". The atmosphere is no different.

[Farex]

For me 1.0 was better than 1.0.2, after some training I do not exactly miss 0.90 but it was Ok too (for me at least).

What's strange in 1.02: If I put my payload into a fairing the rocket keeps flipping over. If I remove the fairing and everything sticks out and is being unaeronomical the rocket is flying exactly how it should be.

[magnemoe]

For me 1.0 was better than 1.0.2, after some training I do not exactly miss 0.90 but it was Ok too (for me at least).

What's strange in 1.02: If I put my payload into a fairing the rocket keeps flipping over. If I remove the fairing and everything sticks out and is being unaeronomical the rocket is flying exactly how it should be.

Had a few problems with that too, it might be that wide stuff like medium sized rovers actually has less drag in the open as they has less surface area than the huge fairing around them.

[Jouni]

What's strange in 1.02: If I put my payload into a fairing the rocket keeps flipping over. If I remove the fairing and everything sticks out and is being unaeronomical the rocket is flying exactly how it should be.

That's what's supposed to happen, if the fairing is much wider than the rocket. Try building bigger rockets or smaller payloads.

Still, it seems that stock 1.0.2 is less forgiving with mushroom rockets than 0.90 with FAR. This went to orbit in 0.90, but now I can't get similar rockets to work in stock:

Maybe it's like OhioBob said. Maybe the difference between the drag coefficients of blunt and streamlined bodies isn't high enough in stock aerodynamics. Now that the drag of blunt reentry vehicles is about right, streamlined vehicles may face too much drag.

[yorshee]

I like the 1.0.2 atmosphere better than the 1.0 atmosphere, 3000m/s of dV to get to orbit was way too easy. However, the reentry heating is now too easy compared to 1.0, I end up barely even using any ablator on my heatshields and I don't even know if I really need a heatshield anymore because only small things, like ladders and batteries, actually end up overheating.

[soulsource]

I'd say: Best atmosphere is FAR, especially combined with the tweaked engine Isp values from 1.0.2. I've been playing 0.90 stock and honestly it has not even the worst aerodynamics model one can think of, it simply has no aerodynamics model at all. Building a plane in 0.90 feels like sticking a spoon in a cauldron filled with broth and trying to stir.

1.0 was nice, and 1.0.2 is still quite good (although, honestly, I didn't play it much), but both loose compared to FAR (development builds for 1.0.2). I'm not trying to judge realism, as my knowledge of hydrodynamics is limited, I'm just talking about how "right" playing with each model feels.

[Screeno]

Looking at the poll so far, its almos 50-50 for both 1.0 and 1.0.2 atmo, so I suggest squad patch it literally in the middle of the two! That would be great! Please everyone and we all shut up about it.

[Findthepin1]

i prefer kerbin's atmosphere

[OrbitusII]

i prefer kerbin's atmosphere

This man (or woman) speaks the truth. Atmosphere is significantly better than no atmosphere.

I have yet to experience the new atmospheres due to final exams, but I'm expecting that I'll enjoy the new stuff once I get the chance to play with it.