Why was adding aerodynamic stability removed?

[Wanderfound]

Temp-gauge crashes are not inevitable, BTW. Had them open most of the way to orbit with this one:

[Roflcopterkklol]

Stop saying this, the amount of SSTOs that have been provided to you that do not fit this definition is absurd, I have seen all types of SSTOs in these threads from tiny micro ones to airliner sized ones, ones that don't use rapiers at all and ones that use a combination.

Also you understand that fun is an extremely subjective term right? As in it might not be fun to you but to others it might be the best part of the game. The same applies to words like ugly, stupid and no point.

Yes people have made under performing SSTO's like my white lightning, its still possible but there is no reason to do it anymore, aesthetics are gone in this game and it annoys me.

What ever, seems im the only one who cares, everyone else just seems to want to build generic carbon copies of craft that already exist, if that keeps everyone happy who am i to say otherwise.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Roflcopterkklol

[Dodgey]

Yes people have made under performing SSTO's

By a comparison to the old aerodynamics where jets could propel you up to stupid speeds.

like my white lightning, its still possible but there is no reason to do it anymore, aesthetics are gone in this game and it annoys me.

According to you there is no reason, just because you lost your motivation doesn't mean everyone else has, hence the amount of SSTOs in these threads.

What ever, seems im the only one who cares, everyone else just seems to want to build generic carbon copies of craft that already exist,

If your definition of "carbon copy" includes a wide range of diversity then sure. If it doesn't then you are ignoring the wide range of SSTOs that have already been posted in these threads only four days after the release of 1.0.2.

if that keeps everyone happy who am i to say otherwise.

At least you understand that you don't speak for everybody, considering that it seems that more people are disagreeing with you than agreeing with you it seems that most people don't think that there is a serious problem with 1.0.2 as much as you do.

But remember, if you really don't like the new aerodynamics you can always mod them how you like it or just stick with 1.0. It's your choice.

[KSK]

Yes people have made under performing SSTO's like my white lightning, its still possible but there is no reason to do it anymore, aesthetics are gone in this game and it annoys me.

Aesthetics are highly subjective. Your particular idea of an aesthetic design no longer works but I've seen plenty of alternatives in this thread alone that do and that I would consider extremely aesthetic. With regards to under-performing designs, there's a simple remedy for that. Stick a docking port on it, fly up a fuel tanker and dock them together. Presto - that under-performing design can suddenly go almost anywhere you want.

What ever, seems im the only one who cares, everyone else just seems to want to build generic carbon copies of craft that already exist, if that keeps everyone happy who am i to say otherwise.

As opposed to sulking because you can no longer build a carbon copy of your old design and dismissing any alternatives as 'hotdogs'?

[Kegereneku]

So much condescension & kneejerking.

Yet the point of Roflcopterkklol, Aanker and allmhuran were pretty simple : "we lost in creativity".

(the negativity of hotdogging didn't help though)

I have rarely built huge spaceplane, I have never built SSTO to Duna, and I don't dislike the new change in Aerodynamic, but I will verbally-fight for the ability to build Aesthetically pleasing or straight aerodynamically-unsound spacecraft even if I like that Skylonish-hotdog rocket work well.

I think custom made wingbody would have stayed a thing if back there some loud people hadn't insisted so much on "REALISM". SQUAD delivered what we asked, less what we actually needed.

But that's a classic in game-design.

Now of course, I'm big on gameplay & balance first.

As long as the parts are balanced, the plane are can be designed without a doctorate in Aircraft engineering AND are actually fun to design/fly, then we can -ultimately- mods-in advanced engine and lift/drag-less parts for aesthetic.

For now I won't judge before the pre-relea.... post-release tweak & balancing run settle.

Anyway I'm more bothered by the crappy grindy tech-tree.

[juanml82]

Yes people have made under performing SSTO's like my white lightning, its still possible but there is no reason to do it anymore, aesthetics are gone in this game and it annoys me.

What ever, seems im the only one who cares, everyone else just seems to want to build generic carbon copies of craft that already exist, if that keeps everyone happy who am i to say otherwise.

Why don't you check the physics.cfg file and/or the debug menu? If there is an option for wing drag (I don't know if it's hard coded or not), you could tone it down and you'll be able to use wings as decoration again

[Aanker]

If he wants to share his aesthetically crafted spaceplanes, for instance, that solution becomes a complicating factor. I think it's more important to fix the drag, add aero model features or adjust the way wings work in stock, than refer to the .cfg file. Even though it is a temporary fix, yes.

[John FX]

Temp-gauge crashes are not inevitable, BTW. Had them open most of the way to orbit with this one:

http://i.imgur.com/nm4VCPE.jpg

It's a combo from temp gauges and multiple overheating parts. Maybe the number of overheating parts on your craft was below the threshold.

My small financial unit of currency on the topic proposed by the OP.

This plane, the F-22A

has a top speed of around 2400kph

2410 kilometers per hour = 669.444444 metres / second so craft that look like that should have a top speed of 700m/s or so.

And this is indeed what we find in the game.

This is a really fast plane, notice the wing/fuselage ratio. Less wing, more fuselage.

The Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird holds the official Air Speed Record for a manned airbreathing jet aircraft with a speed of 3,530 km/h

3530 kilometers per hour = 980.555556 metres / second

This suggests that jet planes with the best tech should be operating only up to 1000m/s or so as a maximum.

This is a fast rocket plane, the North American X-15. Even less wing, much more fuselage relative to the size of the craft. You could even say it looks a bit like a hotdog.

The fastest manned aircraft is the North American X-15, a rocket plane that flew for the first time on June 8, 1959, launched from a NASA NB-52B mothership. On October 1967 it pulverized all records: 4,520 miles per hour (7,274 km/h)

7274 kilometers per hour = 2020.55556 metres / second

So to get up to 2000m/s you would need rockets and on top of that you will need to make a craft that looks like the craft in the picture.

This is just how air works.

You could make these even. They look much more like hotdogs although they are not very stable AFAIK.

EDIT :

everyone else just seems to want to build generic carbon copies of craft that already exist

The reason those craft already exist is because they work, and they work well in a realistic aero model.

I think you are banging your head against a brick wall if you want the old souposphere back. It was only a placeholder after all.

A suggestion : As it has been made easier for modders to adjust the aero model why not request or make a mod that does that?

Of course your craft would only work in a modded game but you could keep making them and be able to take advantage of the new features.

Edited May 4, 2015 by John FX

[Wanderfound]

Incidentally, NuFAR should be able to handle panelvan designs without any trouble. See http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/20451-0-90-Ferram-Aerospace-Research-v0-14-7-4-2-15?p=1870281&viewfull=1#post1870281

Mind you, that means that FAR will treat them realistically; a big draggy box is still a big draggy box. But the pieces within will be shielded, no matter what you construct the box from. A fuselage made from wing panels should be no worse than a single-part fuselage of th same size/shape/mass.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a combo from temp gauges and multiple overheating parts. Maybe the number of overheating parts on your craft was below the threshold.

Both wings, both RAPIERs, both Intercoolers, for most of the way from 10,000m to circularisation.

Are the folks having trouble covering their craft in dozens of surface-mounted greeblies? Even if there was no memory leak, there are good aerodynamic reasons to avoid that these days...

[Aanker]

Again, the issue isn't the wing area relative to craft size. It's that we can't build the wing area using smaller parts in the first place because the model currently just treats them as "more wings!"

I posted this earlier in the thread:

The difference between the two craft is 16 small wing pieces added on the right variant to 'panel together' the fuselage sections. That reduced the sea level top speed from 960+ to 400ish m/s. With a simple wing drag module solution as suggested in another thread, this wouldn't even happen. Heck, with a simple 'no lift, no drag' button the panels could be for purely aesthetic purposes (as they are intended to be) and not affect the flight characteristics noticeably. The distance of the engine fuselage sections relative to the centerline had no effect whatsoever. It was all down to those 16 small wing pieces (eight on top, eight on the bottom) gently fused together with the fuselage.

[panzer1b]

However when it comes down to either having a proper simulation or allowing you to build a flyable Star Destroyer, the simulation should win.

i vote star destroyer over 100% realism, sci-fi beats real life anyways any day of the year....

[NathanKell]

I vote no drag at all. All it does is limit your creativity amirite?

[sal_vager]

I vote solid atmosphere, when I need to make a cup of tea or visit the bathroom I should be able to set the throttle to zero and the plane should stop where it is until I'm ready for it.

[Robotengineer]

I would really like it to be in between the two above.

[PotatoOverdose]

I'm not a huge fan of the old model where any design was workable as long you had enough jets and an absolutely ridiculous amount of intakes. The current model kills those designs, which is good.

Aesthetics be damned, if you want to just make neat looking SSTO's with no regard for "the simulation", press alt-f12 and disable gravity. Congrats, now anything can be an SSTO - go and fly your star destroyer.

[tater]

If scifi is a goal, mod in anti-grav or use EL to build in space---or do you think star destroyers achieve orbit via asparagus staged orange tanks?

[Wjolcz]

I'm not a huge fan of the old model where any design was workable as long you had enough jets and an absolutely ridiculous amount of intakes. The current model kills those designs, which is good.

Aesthetics be damned, if you want to just make neat looking SSTO's with no regard for "the simulation", press alt-f12 and disable gravity. Congrats, now anything can be an SSTO - go and fly your star destroyer.

This.

Or you can actually learn the new aero and build nice things once more. It's possible. It's easy to build ridiculous things in non-realistic aero model, but it's even better and more satysfying to make eyecandy designs in 1.0 aero.

Or you can keep whining, I guess.

[Aanker]

Wait, you mean to say that the new drag model increased realism?

1. Look, the problem here isn't that we're trying to build unrealistic stuff. To be honest, my most aesthetically-minded designs (inspired by for instance the SR-72) look a ton more realistic than something I threw together in ten minutes and still makes orbit (see the X-wing).

2. Why can't we have both realism and aesthetics? As suggested in the wing drag module thread. Or is it something about building cool spaceplanes that goes against your gaming 'philosophy'? I get it. You just want me to be forced to play this game the way you like it, don't you? Because it's 'hardcore'.

3. 16 small wing parts fused together with the fuselage should not knock off 550 m/s sea level speed.

4. Of course any complaint about the new drag model is just whining. Of course it is.

This type of immature 'you mutht jutht learn the game, you are thimply a noob!" gets us nowhere nearer a better and more freely creative KSP.

[Tarheel1999]

Both wings, both RAPIERs, both Intercoolers, for most of the way from 10,000m to circularisation.

Are the folks having trouble covering their craft in dozens of surface-mounted greeblies? Even if there was no memory leak, there are good aerodynamic reasons to avoid that these days...

It seems to get worse when the gauges turn red and the parts start glowing. It happened to me on re-entry from the Mun. 4 landing legs and two flood lights seemed to be the main cause but I also had some solar panels, parachutes, and two experiments higher up.

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

It's almost as if the new aero has major bugs that the two weeks of testing didn't catch. As for SSTO's: They are still completely possible.

[Red Iron Crown]

I don't know why that X-Wing is considered unrealistic or unaerodynamic. Sit it on its tail and it's just a rocket with oversize fins, and it has enough thrust to fly even if it was an unstreamlined mess (which it isn't). Is it because it has a superficial appearance similar to a sci-fi ship?

[Whirligig Girl]

Let me introduce the future of spaceplane SSTOs:

http://i.imgur.com/C07xxmPl.jpg

Seriously. I built this as a joke, but it turned out to be one of my most successful designs in 1.0.2.

There is absolutely no need for wings anymore.

You might think that this thing would drop like a stone when landing, but nope; it floats slowly through the air like a blimp.

Reminds me of Aerojet's proposed "High Performance Spaceplane."

[Merandix]

I can fully understand that you miss building spaceplanes with more creative freedom. However, you can't blame the game for making wings work more like wings. In pre-1.0 those wings generated a stupidly tiny amount of lift. Therefore FAVOURING craft like yours, because you actually needed a ....ton of wings to generate some useful lift. Hell, I can't build craft like you do because I'm me, and I had to build a 30 meter long plane with a 53 meter wingspan to get it 'sort of' into space. Now we get more sensible and predictable wings. And spaceplanes get to be fun for beginners too.

Functionally, we just have to get used to this again. Payload values are already shooting up again... and I've already spotted the first spaceplanes making excursions to the Mun and beyond. I'm a slow learner, and I get spaceplanes up there reliably again, with a payload. Functionally, we'll get there with learning

Aesthetically, I'm totally with you that for the people who loved building like that, we need new low-drag structural lego-like parts. But I very much dislike how you, the topic starter, and some other people complain about this issue. It is very counter-productive to what you want. The main problem is that you do not have any parts to use as structural components anymore. Previously, you could use wings for that, because they generated too little lift, and so a ....ton of wings on a plane could actually be very beneficial, thus supporting designs like yours. Your problem now however is that wings work like intended, generating a lot more lift and drag. Thus the only components you could use as body panels for a more freeform approach to plane designing, now generate too much drag to be useful in this way. So, instead of saying everything is broken, why not get to the core of your problem? With the new aerodynamics, you have lost the only parts that allowed you more creative freedom in plane construction. Instead complain about that loss, and make the completely reasonable request to fill in that void.

Squad wanted a slightly more realistic atmosphere, not a realistic one. So proving that it is still unrealistic doesn't do anything to prove your point.

[Cdr_Zeta]

Hello,

I am guessing there is something wrong with drag in the game...there are formulas for drag and lift; in fact there is a coefficient for it; I wonder how that is modeled; I should know I was a real pilot once but I never got into too much detail; there are relationships...drag, weight (and Mass which are 2 totally different things), speed, distance, time...

I may toy with this in my stream this morning...thing is for example the LV909 is practically useless now; but is this because of drag? I am in career mode and seemingly have to have the 120's now in Basic Rocketry; the packrat rover fails; and the jeep I had isnt around anymore; I can get to the mountains to get my Science to finish my tiers.

Maybe the drag/lift ratio is buggered up...and another topic is fuel density - I think it is wrong but I cant fix it or it makes things worse, not better; I am posting this problem in suggestions.

Cmdr Zeta

[Aanker]

I don't know why that X-Wing is considered unrealistic or unaerodynamic. Sit it on its tail and it's just a rocket with oversize fins, and it has enough thrust to fly even if it was an unstreamlined mess (which it isn't). Is it because it has a superficial appearance similar to a sci-fi ship?

I don't think, under any circumstances, that wings with that shape would be viable for a spaceplane.

Yes. The superficial resemblance to a sci fi craft is also what bothers people. Numerous posters have said, "I dont want x wings in the game/I dont want 80s cheesy sci fi spaceplanes in the game" - well, you can already have those, so why shouldn't I be able to add 30ish more wing parts that are out of the airstream, actually make the craft look more aerodynamic, should not contribute to drag or lift, and are not intended to exploit the aero model? I don't even want to build X Wings, because they look unrealistic. But I can. So why can't I build my more detailed and fleshed out spaceplanes?

It's because a few players feel like everyone should play the game in their way. They think aesthetics building is cheesy, or lame, or unrealistic (which as I've demonstrated over and over again, it isn't)... and so think it's fine to limit creative freedom.

Well, it isn't. Because we can have both realism and more creative freedom than 5-minute X-wings. We can add drag modules to wings. We can add structural parts without either lift or drag. We can turn down the drag value a notch or two. We can specifically reduce the drag of wing parts... see what I'm getting at?

And no one has so far managed to produce a good counterargument to any of those suggestions. Why? They're too busy accusing me and others of whining or being newbs or whatever.