Why was adding aerodynamic stability removed?

[SkyRender]

You can still make some pretty ridiculously small SSTOs in 1.0.2.

Even with all of the changes, that thing can still reach orbit just fine, and it actually looks like a plane to boot.

[Alshain]

I'll post this image here too

Hmmm... I must be doing something wrong. Even my mid-tier space planes don't look like hot dogs. Quite frankly this update is the best thing to happen to spaceplanes since the addition of the Space Plane Hangar.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Alshain

[Tiberion]

Hmmm... I must be doing something wrong. Even my mid-tier space planes don't look like hot dogs. Quite frankly this update is the best thing to happen to spaceplanes since the addition of the Space Plane Hangar.

It's not realistic unless you use 150 wing parts in your design. Come on man, know the basics.

[Red Iron Crown]

Im getting to pointing out that the certainly did not fix the flight physics im about to abuse the heck out of the game and build things that should not fly but will.

"Fixed" in comparison to the old model. You're trying to make a pedantic point that the new aero is not a perfect simulation and some things can be done that can't in real life, but the idea here is that the new model is *more* realistic, not *perfectly* realistic.

the jet ATV is a great example, i never intended for that to ever fly so imagine what i can do in this aero when i put my mind to it.

They have made it so the spaceplane hanger is good for building low altitude planes, nothing else, SSTO's are no longer viable as i explained in the OP.

Why don't you get on the bolded part? Instead of making a new thread every few hours about how broken everything is in 1.0 (and posts in other threads besides), you could be spending your time learning the new systems and actually making them work for you.

As for SSTOs not being viable, that is demonstrably false. Lots of players have already made some cool and functional SSTOs, and even I, a rocket guy, managed to make an SSTO plane in under an hour of play. Forget what you knew before and start learning the new system.

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

10/10 Hotdog. Will eat again

[Redshift OTF]

Don't spam wingparts (or other parts)

I know it looks cool and it was awesome to build a shoebox and fly it into space like a jetplane, but don't do that, it doesn't work anymore. Even that jet in your 1st picture is overbuild

That's interesting because I did mention in the Realism vs Creativity thread that there would be a loss of creativity in 1.0 due to the parameters needed to get SSTO's into orbit becoming stricter. The general consensus was the extra rules would bring out more creativity. I think you have shown that this is not the case as the combination of parts that can be placed on planes for aesthetic purposes has fallen dramatically due to the latest wing drag update.

[Sidereus]

Hmmm... I must be doing something wrong. Even my mid-tier space planes don't look like hot dogs. Quite frankly this update is the best thing to happen to spaceplanes since the addition of the Space Plane Hangar.

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/39748012114704884/FB5A91FB87D21C91646FC75017C70D63AA6D0E45/

What mod allows you to offset the navball like that?

[Frozen_Heart]

I'm finding SSTOs easier than before for some reason. :/

[Aanker]

Hmmm... I must be doing something wrong. Even my mid-tier space planes don't look like hot dogs. Quite frankly this update is the best thing to happen to spaceplanes since the addition of the Space Plane Hangar.

You are using four wings. See the problem is, us people who like to build larger wings run into trouble because it's either lego the wings together (=massive drag) or use the flashy new large wing parts - which don't look good at all. Furthermore, wings have long been used for creative purposes to build aerodynamic shells around engines and other components. Obviously your small spaceplane wouldn't need that, it doesn't look too bulky what with only two externally placed fuel tanks along the sides, but for larger designs we can no longer cover up the ugly bits.

This patch caters to simple spaceplanes which conform strictly to the stock parts. That's fine for simple builds (which will then, inevitably, look like sausages with wings), but if I want to construct something that looks the way I want it to, I run into serious trouble now because creativity has been severely restricted.

***

What I'm considering doing as an emergency solution is to create structural versions of the current wings, massively reduce their drag and mass, but also remove their lift capability completely. I'm not a modeller, so aesthetics wise the only way to distinguish them from the real wings would be a different texture, but at least we would have some aesthetic parts that don't interfere too much with the performance of the spaceplane.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Aanker

[Roflcopterkklol]

i finished 1.0.2ing my pod racer, the realism, i can feel it

- - - Updated - - -

That's interesting because I did mention in the Realism vs Creativity thread that there would be a loss of creativity in 1.0 due to the parameters needed to get SSTO's into orbit becoming stricter. The general consensus was the extra rules would bring out more creativity. I think you have shown that this is not the case as the combination of parts that can be placed on planes for aesthetic purposes has fallen dramatically due to the latest wing drag update.

I find aesthetic parts cause drag but if designed correctly it is the kind of drag you want, white lightning it a good example of that, for a 72 ton plane it is stable as all hell.

[Lesbiotic]

I am totally fine with there being nerfs to pre 1.0 jets but the ones we have now seem weird to me. I must confess I do not know enough about the subject. I understand that jet thrust lowers the higher up you go but I don't understand how that relates to potential air drag/density. What I've seen in KSP since the update(s) is that the optimal altitude for reaching maximum speed with a jet is right at sea level and any point above that will result in a lower speed which seems weird to me. Do jets in real life work the same way? I was under the impression that the lower air resist at higher altitudes would provide some sort of benefit for airspeed (similar to what we experienced pre 1.0) outside of fuel efficiency/heat.

Most of my displeasure with the recent updates are from my idea that a jet plane built for speed would not behave at all like how it does with the current KSP mechanics. That and sea level speed jets are nowhere near as fun to make or fly.

[Redshift OTF]

I'm finding SSTOs easier than before for some reason. :/

Well flying hotdogs that can't carry much payload and barely have enough DeltaV to de-orbit themselves aren't exactly hard...

Sorry, that sounds kind of harsh.

On a plus point I will be trying to make an SSTO that can get an orange tank into orbit so that's something. I can't promise it won't look like a hotdog though.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Redshift OTF

[regex]

I'm finding SSTOs easier than before for some reason. :/

I'm actually finding them kind of tough, but that's mainly in finding enough space for the engines.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Finally got a Mk3 I like. You have to flutter the outboard RAPIERs to get it to orbit because the COM is a little weird but otherwise it flies about as well as a brick with engines. It was carrying 27 tons there, I could get it to orbit with 20, I'm sure (and it'd be easier to fly, might be able to get to Mach 2 outside of a dive).

Also, OP, Squad doesn't hate the spaceplane hanger, they just hate you.

[allmhuran]

Anyone saying "l2p" hasn't actually read the OP's post and is just knee-jerking. The complaint is that you can't make "sleek looking" designs using wing parts as hull pieces anymore, and that this is a bad thing. I agree that being limited in this way is a bad thing.

The only person who has put any actual thought in their response seems to have been adinfinitum, who said:

the problem isn't so much the drag, it's that wings now function much better as wings, so if you use them for aesthetics it's gonna mess up the plane. [...] A better option than changing the drag would be to add in more structural parts

To which I would only add "... that don't weigh much".

[WOODY01]

I am totally fine with there being nerfs to pre 1.0 jets but the ones we have now seem weird to me. I must confess I do not know enough about the subject. I understand that jet thrust lowers the higher up you go but I don't understand how that relates to potential air drag/density. What I've seen in KSP since the update(s) is that the optimal altitude for reaching maximum speed with a jet is right at sea level and any point above that will result in a lower speed which seems weird to me. Do jets in real life work the same way? I was under the impression that the lower air resist at higher altitudes would provide some sort of benefit for airspeed (similar to what we experienced pre 1.0) outside of fuel efficiency/heat.

Most of my displeasure with the recent updates are from my idea that a jet plane built for speed would not behave at all like how it does with the current KSP mechanics. That and sea level speed jets are nowhere near as fun to make or fly.

I have seen differnt results with higher tier plane parts, keep in mind I have very limited knowledge and piloting skill. I recently designed a plane that seems to be able to go faster at an altitudes of around 3-4 k then it does at sea level. This was 1.0 and not with the recent patches. The design had two basic jets, the intakes after the circular ones in the tech tree, and the delta wings. It flew faster at lower altitudes then previous designs which were basically the same except using intakes and wings from lower tech tiers. It could also get to higher altitudes.

I was going to run further test but decided to focus on rockets until I am sure Squad is not going to make anymore changes to the aero model.

[Frozen_Heart]

Well flying hotdogs that can't carry much payload and barely have enough DeltaV to de-orbit themselves aren't exactly hard...

Sorry, that sounds kind of harsh.

On a plus point I will be trying to make an SSTO that can get an orange tank into orbit so that's something. I can't promise it won't look like a hotdog though.

You must be very poor at de-orbiting if 1k dV on orbit isn't enough to manage it And I've only tested very simple SSTOs so far but I'm pretty sure I can make larger ones.

And define a 'hot dog' SSTO?

[RayneCloud]

Yeah, they hate spaceplanes....

Despite hiring on C7 to bring space-planes in to the game back in the day. Hiring on porkjet to bring his entire mod in to the game as stock, adding new IVA, mk3 parts, cargo bays, all the work C7 did way back when and the new runway, plus a secondary runway on the island, the new landing gears, modular wings that now have fuel... Jeebus man, these guys HATE spaceplans soooooo much...

[Red Iron Crown]

Anyone saying "l2p" hasn't actually read the OP's post and is just knee-jerking. The complaint is that you can't make "sleek looking" designs using wing parts as hull pieces anymore, and that this is a bad thing. I agree that being limited in this way is a bad thing.

In fairness, the OP chose a thread title that seems meant to elicit such a knee-jerk response. Had it been something like "Are wing parts no good for hulls anymore?" I'd imagine the response would be much different.

[regex]

And define a 'hot dog' SSTO?

Basically what I posted. Apparently that's not "sleek" enough.

I agree that wings should be able to be toggled to structural parts. OTOH, I get told that procedural parts don't belong in KSP, and here we are arguing for them.

[Skyentist]

Hot dog is pretty legit though

[SpaceLaunchSystem]

You can still do hypersonic flight, but the FX are a little bit unrealistic (and block you from seeing your craft). Also re-entry from LKO seems just a bit faster than it should be...

[Frozen_Heart]

Does this count as a sausage? It must do as it has a good payload and plenty of dV in orbit. Took all of 5 mins to build and I'm an awful SSTO pilot and builder. Orbit first try.

I can keep coming up with new examples to show that SSTOs are just as easy as before.

[regex]

Does this count as a sausage?

It does, you haven't boxed the fuselage in with a bunch of wings to make it look ~sleek~ (personally I find the boxed-fuselage to just look ... bad, if we're being diplomatic).

E: I might copy your design there and see if I can add a crew compartment to it, looks really nice.

[allmhuran]

Does this count as a sausage? [...] I can keep coming up with new examples to show that SSTOs are just as easy as before.

Right, and here's my simple design. It's also pretty sleek... ah, but it does look pretty much the same as yours. I have another one that is... well... pretty much exactly the same as yours. It's A Mk2 pod with 3 Mk2 fuselages, and exactly the same double-intake, bicoupler, tank, bicoupler, double engine outriggers.

And that's the OP's point, which you're missing. You can't get as creative with the *look* of your aircraft anymore, because using wing pieces as hull is extremely punishing. Again, adinfinitum is on point here when he says that perhaps what we need are structural "hull" pieces to replace that capability (or as regex suggets, keep using wing parts but provide a tweakable to switch them into structural mode, disabling their lift but also greatly decreasing their drag).

[Frozen_Heart]

Right, and here's my simple design. It's also pretty sleek... ah, but it does look pretty much the same as yours. I have another one that is... well... pretty much exactly the same as yours. It's A Mk2 pod with 3 Mk2 fuselages, and exactly the same double-intake, bicoupler, tank, bicoupler, double engine outriggers.

Ok off to continue proving my point.... Expect pics of something mad soon.