Space vs atmospheric stuff. What should be the priority

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

So recently there had been a lot of discussions regarding aerodynamics. I don't know about the rest, but I don't care about aerodynamics. KSP is a space exploration game, I spend very little time in the atmosphere, as long as my rockets go up and come down in a semi-realistic fashion, I'm a happy camper.

I understand that we have space planes since a long time and people got used to be able to build and fly planes, but I can't help to think that Squad gave in and lost focus here. Imagine what other cool things SQUAD could have been working on instead of aero. Imagine the possibilities!

So, simple poll, how do you feel about it.

[dryer_lint]

Hmm. I'm kind of with you on this, but still... all rockets have to start somewhere. The atmosphere is the first step to orbit.

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Yes, precisely. As long as the aero works good for rockets... I think that should be the priority, IMO of course.

BTW, option 5 is more of a joke. Don't get upset at me!

[Slam_Jones]

I think they should work on all aspects of the game equally... as a sandbox game, it'd be pretty silly to just up and get rid of a major attraction for a lot of players.

[Aanker]

They can't leave it as it is now - it's broken for about every spaceplane enthusiast. That said, it's not exactly a mutually exclusive thing, SQUAD could just easily revert the 1.0.1 drag changes or reduce the drag of spaceplane fuselage and wing parts and I'm sure they'd have time to work on rocketry, planets and everything else.

[Robotengineer]

I really can't blame people for not going beyond Kerbin's SOI, simply because everything beyond there is of little to no interest for most players. I think it is great that Squad has implemented aerodynamics that are more realistic than the previous generation, but I also hope they don't spend a huge amount of time trying to balance aerodynamics when they should be sprucing up the rest of the game.

[viktor19]

Hmm. I'm kind of with you on this, but still... all rockets have to start somewhere. The atmosphere is the first step to orbit.

My thoughts exactly. Orbit is a highway and the atmosphere is the onramp to it - once you get to space you're halfway to anywhere!

[Roflcopterkklol]

Aero is a huge part of the game, the whole problem at the moment with space planes is the fact that you can not get them into space because of the aero changes.

[Frozen_Heart]

It seems only minor tweaks and fixes are needed to get the aero nice. I've like to see it slightly more detailed (aka sweeping the wings does something) but I'm satisfied with it.

[pandaman]

Whilst the focus of the game is about space flight and exploration dealing with aerodynamics is a crucial part of it.

All spacecraft have to launch through the atmosphere initially and, depending where it's going, may well need to tackle other atmospheres too. For that reason alone the core of the atmospheric simulation needs to be as realistic as possible. Tolerances can, and should, be adjusted to make it playable as a game, but things should still behave in an essentially realistic way when passing through an atmosphere so as not to make mockery of the generally very good space flight simulation.

This can be a difficult balance, as we are seeing now.

[Vanamonde]

KSP has always been a space game. It always will be a space game. But due to popular demand, they have devoted a lot of time recently to replacing the aerodynamics system. This is not a change in the course of the game's development. It's just something they've been concentrating on recently. Once they have aero in a state they like, they'll go back to concentrating on the space side of the game again.

[Franklin]

1.0 has really divided the men from the boys on space planes, huh.

[r4pt0r]

More things for kerbals to do when they are stumbling around on other planets would be my prefered course of action.

[Frozen_Heart]

They should erase any and all planes related parts and code out of the game - 16.67%

Who the hell thinks that everything aircraft and atmo should be removed from the game? Even if you don't like building planes, pretty sure the space shuttle and Buran count as spacecraft.

[Franklin]

Who the hell thinks that everything aircraft and atmo should be removed from the game? Even if you don't like building planes, pretty sure the space shuttle and Buran count as spacecraft.

It's the, "I hate this game now, I can't win anymore. *flips game board off the table*" crowd. Don't worry about em.

[Alshain]

Keep in mind "atmosphere stuff" as you call it was WAY behind "space stuff". It's taken a few updates to get the Mk2 and Mk3 and atmosphere down. It's now just about caught up and probably won't need much more than a few tweaks here and there. It seems like they have been ignoring space just because of how far behind the rest was, but the first 23 versions were nothing but space stuff.

[Franklin]

The aero/atmos overhaul has been long overdue. It's not that they've "shifted focus onto something other than space", it's that they're circling back and fixing [big] things now that all the primary elements have been added.

I'm sure they'll flesh out space and other elements soon enough. Aero's just the topic right now, and thank god for that.

[WOODY01]

Focus on space I say, get a descent enough aero model in place and then leave it at that.

I pretty much expect that things out of the air stream do not cause drag, it be an extreme challenge to get a SSTO that takes off from the runway working or able to carry large paylloads until very far into the tech tree, putting a pointy thing towards the direction of travel causes less drag than a blunter thing, if you design a plane that looks like real planes they should fly reasonably well, if I turn a rocket or plane to aggressively in the lower atmosphere it should cause bad things to happen. Basically I want a challenge getting to orbit but not so much of a challenge it is not intitutive for someone with a basic understanding of aerodynamics. So build a rocket with the things that can cause drag covered by a fairing you get better performance course, you build a rocket symeterical it will not be pulled one direction by being unbalnced by weight or drag.

Focus on the space part of the game I say, let modders tweak the aerodynamics once Squad thinks they got a good balance between game play and realism.

[Commissioner Tadpole]

More things for kerbals to do when they are stumbling around on other planets would be my prefered course of action.

Agreed. Deep Space Refueling is good, but I think SQUAD could aim for some new things in planets' surfaces. *cough* cave systems *cough*

[RayneCloud]

They can't leave it as it is now - it's broken for about every spaceplane enthusiast. That said, it's not exactly a mutually exclusive thing, SQUAD could just easily revert the 1.0.1 drag changes or reduce the drag of spaceplane fuselage and wing parts and I'm sure they'd have time to work on rocketry, planets and everything else.

Really? Every, single person, that makes spaceplanes agrees with you? Despite the multitudes of people showing working space planes in 1.x.x in threads where people swear up one side and down the other they're broken? You sure that it's not just you needing to relearn the game? Naw, that can't be possible at all. Everything is Squads fault right? This has nothing to do with giving proper feedback on ISP/Thrust/OverHeat/FuelUse all that IMPORTANT data..so let's just toss that out the window and keep raging on about how bad everything is and how it's entirely not our fault that oldschool planes that used bugs to be uber don't work anymore. I mean, these posts are really just getting plain old. If stuff is actually broken, and not subjectively "broken" do to your own perceptions? Great. Call them on it. Send them bug reports. But this constant "it's broke cause I say it is" nonsense just doesn't get us anywhere at all.

I have made plenty of aircraft since 1.0 come out and they are all great. I had to relearn things, you might want to try that.

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Yes, the old aero was pretty much a placeholder that had to be replaced at some point. But they also went and added SP+ parts for example.

I get it, it's fun for a lot of people to go build planes and having more parts wouldn't hurt, I my self been waiting until the game has good plane building capabilities and joystick support (and TrackIR now!) to start playing with them myself. But still, I'm in the "good enough" camp, if it makes my rockets fly like they should, re-entry as they should, then I'm happy for now. I'd rather have inaccuracies in the lift characteristics of my fins (more or less irrelevant from a rocket building POV) than having the rest of the game delayed because they can't get it just right and keep tweaking.

Again, I understand they still work in other areas as well, but it's gonna be slower for sure.

The 5th option, btw, is there to provide an edge case option. Just like the 1st that is ridiculous as well.

[klgraham1013]

Every part of the game should meet a certain standard. Aerodynamics are included in this.

[Wjolcz]

Every part of the game should meet a certain standard. Aerodynamics are included in this.

Yep. Also SSTOs are great if you have budget cuts in your space program. And good aero model is essential for those.

And don't forget all sorts of space-atmo manouvers like aerobraking and use of sky cranes on planets with air not being dense enough. In old aero you could just have enough chutes to land on Duna, which in real life it doesn't work like that.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Veeltch

[Brotoro]

... In old aero you could just have enough chutes to land on Duna, which in real life it doesn't work like that.

We don't have Duna in real life. Duna's atmosphere is actually very thick compared to, say, Mars.

[Wjolcz]

We don't have Duna in real life. Duna's atmosphere is actually very thick compared to, say, Mars.

Yep. But my point is that atmosphere shouldn't be left out unpolished.