I don't get the whining about 1.0.2

[tater]

Scale matters. It's not just the speeds (orbital speeds are higher for higher altitudes, so a 2X kerbin will have higher orbital speeds), though that clearly matters. It is also the time in the atmosphere for those effects to manifest themselves. You'd still need "gameplay" tweaks to make reentry matter in a 2X kerbin, but the magnitude of the tweaks would be lower, and it might be possible to achieve better balance. Currently, reentry needs to be set such that at lower velocities, it is meaningful with far shorter times of interaction. This will clearly have a negative impact on high speed flight within the atmosphere for planes.

It;s another example of where arbitrarily changing things (counter to realism) opens cans of worms. In a 1:1 scale, then we know what works, physics works. Kerbin would also work if it was properly scaled via reality (smaller Kerbin, but with lower gravity and less atmosphere). There might be some middle ground where Kerbin is slightly larger, and slightly less massive, I don't know.

EDIT: I'm in agreement with jouni's post above, BTW.

[Gaugeforever]

You are looking for a logical reason. There is no logical reason except that people don't want to learn the new system. This is a symptom of Squad taking so long to fix aerodynamics. Not that I'm blaming Squad for anything mind you, just that if they done this when there were less players it would have blown over rather quickly.

I have 200 hours in ferram. The people "complaining" have experience with more realistic aero models. No one expects a copy of ferram, but rockets that resemble real life rockets shouldn't flip end over end for no apparent reason. Arguably second stage is worse than first stage for flipping.

Completely unrealistic, godlike, reaction wheels, gimbal, and fins are mandatory now. Good luck getting a probe into orbit without these things. I feel sorry for the RO guys until Ferram gets fixed. Without godmode reaction wheels... I don't know. In this model the space shuttle would never have gotten to orbit. Just saying. That large fuel tank would cause them to flip no matter what they did, no matter how perfect it was. I also feel bad for new players, because this is NOT ksp. KSP is supposed to be realism until the fun stops. With the new aero model they abandoned fun altogether and went for only half realism.

Myself, I'm waiting for ferram so all my rockets work again. In the end, it's about what makes sense to me. The new aero model does not make sense to me, Ferram did. I had some learning to do with ferram, but at least ferram was intuitive. I can make rockets that "look right" and they have a reasonable chance of success at doing something other than flipping.

[tater]

I use FAR all the time except for new releases (partially waiting for an update, partially to test and give feedback here that might help squad out), and I don't have any flipping problems at all.

[falconek]

Generally I like this update. The more I play, the more I see, how well it's actually balanced (thrust, ISP, weight, tech tree etc. wise).

My only concern is too low reentry heat, but there's a slider for that. And aerodynamic flights are a minor part of my gameplay anyway... I spend most of my time in space.

BTW guys, your "realistic" rockets are flipping, because in KSP generally payloads are light, and engines and fuel are heavy. So the rockets are bottom heavy. You need to think about your rockets, like they were model rockets (engine on bottom, empty paper tube and parachute on top). Model rockets are bottom heavy, that's why they need fins, and KSP perfectly shows it.

Edited May 3, 2015 by falconek

[Superfluous J]

I don't have any flipping problems at all.

I know what you mean, but the implied self-censoring of this sentence made me smile.

[Renegrade]

I have 200 hours in ferram. The people "complaining" have experience with more realistic aero models. No one expects a copy of ferram, but rockets that resemble real life rockets shouldn't flip end over end for no apparent reason. Arguably second stage is worse than first stage for flipping.

What? That's one of the biggest complaints in the FAR thread: "my rocket swaps ends on ascent! argh! help!".

Aerodynamics being a pain in the patootie is perfectly realistic and is also gameplay.

(That and I just came back from putting a science probe in orbit. No fairing, 1.0.2, octo core, with an SRB first stage and little stubby 909 second stage. AV-R8s were my only guidance through half of the ascent, and the second half was JUST the 909's thrust vectoring. You absolutely do not need all three)

[Gaugeforever]

What? That's one of the biggest complaints in the FAR thread: "my rocket swaps ends on ascent! argh! help!".

Aerodynamics being a pain in the patootie is perfectly realistic and is also gameplay.

(That and I just came back from putting a science probe in orbit. No fairing, 1.0.2, octo core, with an SRB first stage and little stubby 909 second stage. AV-R8s were my only guidance through half of the ascent, and the second half was JUST the 909's thrust vectoring. You absolutely do not need all three)

As I said, I have tons of hours with Ferram and I've never had this many problems with it. Maybe I'm just not getting it but my conversion from ferram to this is not pleasant. To me it "Feels" like in Ferram the forces are applied to the "shape" of the entire rocket. In the stock model it "feels" like it is applied to each part individually and the parts are not balanced or something. I don't know, I'm not an aerospace scientist nor a modder. It's like an SRB with nose cone is getting DRAMATICALLY more drag than a pod with a parachute on top or something. Which shouldn't be the case.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Gaugeforever

[DuoDex]

As I said, I have tons of hours with Ferram and I've never had this many problems with it. Maybe I'm just not getting it but my conversion from ferram to this is not pleasant.

Go back to FAR then

Or, if you think some of the values are nonsense, look at this post about them, I put in a few screenshots showing how to in-game tune the values until they are "just right".

[Gaugeforever]

Thanks I'll take a look at that.

[raygundan]

And yes, it does look like a flying hotdog with a ton of clustered Rapiers.

Took me a second to figure out what you'd done with those engine/intake clusters-- that's a really clever way to make a "big engine" out of a zillion little ones. I like it!

As to flying hotdogs... I'm in complete and total agreement. That does seem to be the necessary design style. It's even what I called my test SSTO.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[klgraham1013]

Because you can't. You would have to have an Earth sized Kerbin with an atmosphere that mimics Earths, and roughly double the size of all parts, increasing their mass by 8. You'd then need to balance all the engines and parts to all this new stuff and when that was all done, it'd suck because taking 20+ minutes every launch is boring.

Sounds good to me. ...but I know I'm in the minority.

[DoToH]

Arbitrary game mechanics that are designed with specific gameplay in mind are a bad idea in sandbox games. Their interactions with other game mechanics often have unintended consequences that nobody can see in advance. If you just simulate physics and let the gameplay emerge on its own, the game mechanics will usually work better together. (There may still be unforeseen consequences, but they should be less common, because billions of people have been looking for them for millennia.)

Totally agree with this^^.

Given the reduced scale of Kerbin system and reduced speeds for reentry (you can reentry at Kerbin from Jool slower than a usual LEO reentry) there was no need of implementing any form of reentry heat mechanic. Since devs made a reentry heat mechanic, is fair to think that they want it to have some kind of impact in gameplay. Right now, there is no difference with 0.90's reentry cosmetic effects. I'm ok with not having reentry heat. I'm not ok with devs breaking it because of their 1.0.1 drag overhaul which I don't like either.

And about arbitrary game mechanics, increasing drag to prevent planes overheating due to OP jet engines is also arbitrary. They could have nerfed jet engines (as you said: "just simulate physics").

As of 1.0, too many game mechanics were designed with specific gameplay in mind and changing them to fit another specific gameplay is not a good idea.

[tater]

Best might be for people to accept that reentry is meaningless on mini-kerbin. When RSS is out I'll mess around with stock, but at 2X, 3X, etc. It might be interesting to see where it starts to matter.

[mythbusters844]

https://gfycat.com/AbsoluteFrequentCanine (credit to Yargnit from Reddit)

Not to mention that the engines are still glowing even though they're turned off.

[Redshift OTF]

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.

- - - Updated - - -

Took me a second to figure out what you'd done with those engine/intake clusters-- that's a really clever way to make a "big engine" out of a zillion little ones. I like it!

As to flying hotdogs... I'm in complete and total agreement. That does seem to be the necessary design style. It's even what I called my test SSTO.

http://imgur.com/a/iNaUP

7 parts? Blimey. Works well though considering no wings or parachutes.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Redshift OTF

[Bomaye]

I'm astonished that people complain about 1.0.*. The 0.9 was so bad for SSTO I had to get FAR mod to build a good craft. Next week I will finally get to test 1.0 with my FAR crafts..... And I got ca 90 tons to orbit with stock parts ;-)

[Superfluous J]

Not to mention that the engines are still glowing even though they're turned off.

Hot things glow, even when they're not actively being heated.

[DoToH]

I'm astonished that people complain about 1.0.*. The 0.9 was so bad for SSTO I had to get FAR mod to build a good craft. Next week I will finally get to test 1.0 with my FAR crafts..... And I got ca 90 tons to orbit with stock parts ;-)

1.0 was good. Only needed a bit of polishing.

1.0.1 .... mmmm ... do you like drag??? ...

[Jouni]

And about arbitrary game mechanics, increasing drag to prevent planes overheating due to OP jet engines is also arbitrary. They could have nerfed jet engines (as you said: "just simulate physics").

Drag wasn't increased to prevent planes from overheating, but to fix drag for everything other than planes. Now the terminal velocity of rockets and other craft without any parts that implement the ModuleLiftingSurface module seems about right, while it was too high in 1.0.

[makinyashikino]

KSP Aero was meant to be fun, not realistic, and with 1.0.2 it is more fun than any other version, as the higher drag makes for a more predictable flight. Drag isn't off the charts or broken in any way, it is tuned up from being way too low in 1.0.0.

What? You can't just say what's fun and what isn't, fun is subjective. Some people prefer more realistic aerodynamics, you might not find that fun but I do.

[martinborgen]

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

http://i.imgur.com/u4EColC.jpg

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.

http://i.imgur.com/RJhuN1T.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/fXB0V0E.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/klwIRXq.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/t0VzKkV.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/02uqBew.jpg

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.

http://i.imgur.com/1uUTGNa.jpg

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.

- - - Updated - - -

7 parts? Blimey. Works well though considering no wings or parachutes.

I'm interested how you managed to place all those engines and intakes like that. I tried to reverse-engineer your design, because it looks great. But the only way I know is octagonal struts, but those leave a gap. Also, my raipers started overheating.

[CloudlessEchoes]

I'm not sure what the benchmark for "realistic" is that's being used here. Most of the people throwing that word out there have no idea what that means. What it means is that in real life, you can't just build rockets and planes out of an erector set and expect not to blow up or have something go horribly wrong. Planes that break the sound barrier and rockets with landers that can go to the moon take the work of hundreds of thousands of people and billions of dollars of development, not someone scrounging in a box of parts and saying "how about adding this one?" The real thing is designed from the ground up by experts in many scientific fields and they all have specific tasks. If this game was anywhere close to realistic almost no one would be playing it. So you should enjoy it for what it is: a fun game that takes some of the general concepts of space and air flight and applies them to the degree where people and kids of all ages can have a sandbox and be successful in it.

[Superfluous J]

I'm not sure what the benchmark for "realistic" is that's being used here. Most of the people throwing that word out there have no idea what that means. What it means is that in real life, you can't just build rockets and planes out of an erector set and expect not to blow up or have something go horribly wrong. Planes that break the sound barrier and rockets with landers that can go to the moon take the work of hundreds of thousands of people and billions of dollars of development, not someone scrounging in a box of parts and saying "how about adding this one?" The real thing is designed from the ground up by experts in many scientific fields and they all have specific tasks. If this game was anywhere close to realistic almost no one would be playing it. So you should enjoy it for what it is: a fun game that takes some of the general concepts of space and air flight and applies them to the degree where people and kids of all ages can have a sandbox and be successful in it.

You forgot about how each rocket follows a proscribed path set in motion by precise engineering and computer control, honed by years of experience.

Not tapping the "d" key a couple times every few thousand meters and hoping you remember to hit spacebar at the right time.

[Redshift OTF]

I'm interested how you managed to place all those engines and intakes like that. I tried to reverse-engineer your design, because it looks great. But the only way I know is octagonal struts, but those leave a gap. Also, my raipers started overheating.

I use the Editor Extension mod that lets you use x16 radial symmetry.

[White Owl]

I've been very gradually working my way through a career mode game, because I've never actually done that before and now seems like a good time. So I have a couple small, very simple airplanes for gathering science and doing survey missions.

In 1.0 aerodynamics, that small plane with the big straight wings was very difficult to slow down for landing. Too difficult, IMHO. I've flown small airplanes with big straight wings in real life, and they simply don't retain energy like that. So I thought drag in 1.0 was too low.

In 1.02 aerodynamics, that same airplane is much easier to land because it slows down in a believable, predictable fashion. Good move, Squad!

On the other hand, I just reentered a small pod without a heat shield... it flew in the correct orientation (thank you Squad) but the temperature never rose above 500. Seems implausible. So I think the reentry heat needs turned back up some. Maybe not quite so hot as 1.0, because that was making SSTO airplanes a little tricky. Maybe atmospheric heating needs to be about halfway between 1.0 and 1.02 values.