Public Service Announcement regarding Aero

[Kuu Lightwing]

According to Wikipedia~ aerocapture has never been tried.

MRO never dipped below 97km and the aerobraking comprised what looks like no more than 90m/s of maneuver, periapsis raising included. That is a much more delicate procedure than blasting into Duna's atmosphere at 15km to scrub off hundreds of m/s.

Wait, 90 m/s per pass? Or is it 90 m/s delta-V using engines? Well, I don't think many players would be happy aerobraking for months like MRO did...

[regex]

Wait, 90 m/s per pass? Or is it 90 m/s delta-V using engines? Well, I don't think many players would be happy aerobraking for months like MRO did...

Ah, you are correct, that was engine expenditures. According to this MRO scrubbed off @1.2km/s but, as you'll notice, it took 428 orbits.

Anyway, point being, I don't mind playing with high levels of atmospheric heating in KSP because aerocapture Kerbal-style is suicidal to begin with.

[Klingon Admiral]

The grand, overarching problem with going the easy route and changing the game physics is that we like to share crafts. I mean, we have an entire sub-forum dedicated to it. If everyone runs his own special little physics tweaks, the sharing of crafts becomes nearly impossible. I had more than enough problems by simply using FAR in past versions.

[Kuu Lightwing]

I don't know how it feels yet - haven't launched a huge interplanetary mission like I did before. I actually need to get somewhere else. Duna is nice and red and Ike is awesome, but uh.

Actually according to my Duna lander, heat isn't that much of an issue in 1.0.2. I got Duna landing and Science from Duna parts of the contract but not "Orbit Duna" ones - so it was just straight (re)entry with interplanetary speeds.

[regex]

Actually according to my Duna lander, heat isn't that much of an issue in 1.0.2.

You are correct, that's something that should be corrected along side the aerodynamic model.

[Violent Jeb]

I've been slowly getting used to 1.0.2. It does remind me of far, and it is definitely an improvement from 1.0 and .90. I think that jet speeds at different heights need to be fine tuned, but the atmosphere is a happy medium- it feels familiar to both stock and FAR

Per rockets, I have found that it is requires less dV to get into orbit, but the aerodynamics is very unforgiving. You need to fly very straight with rockets for the first layer of atmosphere.

The main issue is that it was called the release version. As others have pointed out, there needs to be more improvement in different places. Career mode needs to be worked over - the re-entry heat is still not much of an issue - but that's okay because the heat shields are still kind of awkward. I've been fairly consistant at keeping ships alive with no shielding, as long as I have sas to keep retrograde.

[baggers]

Hello.

I have try KSP long ago, in a demo.

I buy it at the 1.0 release on steam.

But I'm a bit troubled about all of this: when will be the final release?

Will it be many news changes? Forward, backward? When?

I usually don't buy early access or betas, so, it's a bit new for me.

I would like to start a game (as I already have ^^ Career/easy, but destructible facilities and Kerbals and 100% athmo, but keep the incomes bonus: I prefer that way) and go to "the end" whitout worrying about restart the game from the beggining or corrupted saves, or must redoiing to much of the "grind" (it's not a grind at present, just a pleasure ^^ Note: I have try to restart a game in science mode and feel the grind: so I have keep my save on career mode): is that possible in the actual state of this game?

I will profit of new features and community too, it's part of the game ^^ I prefer having the same and latest version of the game. But if it forces me to restart and regrind as versions changes, It will be annoying.

So, it's big or small changes? just patchs or erase all? Beta or release?

[Kelderek]

@baggers - this is the release version already. The changes that will happen from now on are just hotfixes and then there will be some more updates to add additional features such as multiplayer and a likely upgrade to a newer version of the Unity engine. This is not beta any more and there should be no compatability issues with your savegames going forward.

Some people are complaining and nit-picking, but the game is not broken, it has a ton of features and they all work great. There are a few small bugs that will be hotfixed I'm sure, but for the most part the game runs just fine.

[baggers]

Thanks, I'm a bit less troubled now ^^

[FleshJeb]

My other issue with post-1.0 KSP and the move towards realism: I no longer feel comfortable sitting down with an 8-year-old and having them build and fly rockets. Yeah, you can turn off aero failures and heating, but thrust scaling with ISP is a LOT harder for a kid to wrap their heads around.

I was about to introduce KSP to my nephew and my ex's kids, now I don't think it's viable.

Anyone else here have kids? Would you, do you still play with them?

[foxkill2342]

My other issue with post-1.0 KSP and the move towards realism: I no longer feel comfortable sitting down with an 8-year-old and having them build and fly rockets. Yeah, you can turn off aero failures and heating, but thrust scaling with ISP is a LOT harder for a kid to wrap their heads around.

I was about to introduce KSP to my nephew and my ex's kids, now I don't think it's viable.

Anyone else here have kids? Would you, do you still play with them?

Wat!? What are you talking about? Why would you need to introduce any of these concepts? Press space and then D until the rocket makes a circle around Kerbin. That's all you have to do.

[Laie]

Press space and then D until the rocket makes a circle around Kerbin. That's all you have to do.

My first launches happened a year ago and I can't quite remember how it went, but I'm pretty sure that even getting to orbit took a whole evening of try and error.

[MechaLynx]

My first launches happened a year ago and I can't quite remember how it went, but I'm pretty sure that even getting to orbit took a whole evening of try and error.

Yeah but that doesn't mean a kid will be turned off by that - I'm pretty sure I'd have stuck with it if I was 8 years old.

My other issue with post-1.0 KSP and the move towards realism

Probably in the minority here.

I no longer feel comfortable sitting down with an 8-year-old and having them build and fly rockets. Yeah, you can turn off aero failures and heating, but thrust scaling with ISP is a LOT harder for a kid to wrap their heads around.

I was about to introduce KSP to my nephew and my ex's kids, now I don't think it's viable.

And if I was 8 years old and gave KSP up, I would have done so even without the new aero, heat and isp scaling. What made you think KSP was viable for an 8-year-old to play before? As if there weren't enough complications with ÃŽâ€v calculations, centers of mass and lift, launch windows and lead angles, the oberth effect, staging, science. Pretty much everything, even back in 0.18.3 would still be overwhelming for an pre-teen child to take on by themselves. This hasn't changed, unless you feel that you're not comfortable enough with the new features that you can explain them to a child. But that's not an issue with the game - explaining even the basics in order for someone to play KSP at any level besides just pressing WASD when you tell them to, is going to require quite some teaching skill and imagination no matter how you cut it.

tl;dr if you thought it was viable before, it's just as viable now - the only thing that changed is how comfortable you are with the game. Give it 20-30 hrs of gameplay and then consider it again and I bet you'll find it just as viable as before.

[Hannu]

The grand, overarching problem with going the easy route and changing the game physics is that we like to share crafts. I mean, we have an entire sub-forum dedicated to it. If everyone runs his own special little physics tweaks, the sharing of crafts becomes nearly impossible. I had more than enough problems by simply using FAR in past versions.

There are always some default values. It should be natural to make an agreement that shared crafts, competitions etc. use stock physics. It is same for all. I do not see sense to ruin anyone else's possibilities to adjust physics to their needs. It is still problem that KSP is practically the only game in its genre and it has extreme difficult task to satisfy everyone's needs. It is impossible without possibility to adjust realism and difficulty of physics model.

- - - Updated - - -

But I'm a bit troubled about all of this: when will be the final release?

Will it be many news changes? Forward, backward? When?

Nobody knows. These questions have locked many threads. SQUAD do not release their deadlines. I think that it is very good. It is better to wait a week or two more and get more finished product.

So, it's big or small changes? just patchs or erase all? Beta or release?

It was risky business to introduce huge number of essential game elements on "final" version. Realist would say impossible. Their should have finished physics first and save visual candy to latest updates. Adjusting of physical parameters need some trial and error and it is not good thing that they have to make significant adjustments to "ready" game. It is even worse that they change mod interface so that there will be new versions of mods incompatible to 1.0 and players have to wait and download everything again, start new games and adjust parameters.

But this was their decision and hindsight is futile. Probably they have to make couple of minor adjustments to aerodynamics. I will wait couple of weeks that game is stable and start to adjust physics suitable for me after that.

[Renegrade]

My other issue with post-1.0 KSP and the move towards realism: I no longer feel comfortable sitting down with an 8-year-old and having them build and fly rockets. Yeah, you can turn off aero failures and heating, but thrust scaling with ISP is a LOT harder for a kid to wrap their heads around.

Uhh hello? How is this a problem that isn't solved with "moar boosters"? Isn't that basically KSP's subtitle? "KSP: Moar Boosters!â„¢"? Or at least the dominant, alpha meme?

I could see the aero and heating being a bit confusing (heat transfer was rough at first when I learned it in high school afterall, I'd strongly doubt an eight year old would have the patience or mental capacity to learn it).

Here's how to teach Isp / thrust relationship:

1. some engines are meant to be used in atmosphere.

2. some engines are meant to be used in space.

3. don't use space engines in the air. They have bad (small) numbers here where it says "Isp (atm)". Only use them in space. (they can learn the fine distinctions once they're older)

Or even simpler - "If this engine doesn't work, try another." "Moar boosters!:!KLJ~:ljkadfajsdasdfkljad"

[Landge]

I think the reason is a large number of people played KSP the way it's meant to be played, [stock] only, or just a few mods that didn't change the physics of the game as I did.

With the official release Squad did a back flip. What was in the game for nearly 4 years, changed almost everything in the game overnight, except gravity and water density on a tiny 600 km planet. Hence the unruly mob with pitchforks and torches.

[Roflcopterkklol]

I think the reason is a large number of people played KSP the way it's meant to be played, [stock] only, or just a few mods that didn't change the physics of the game as I did.

With the official release Squad did a back flip. What was in the game for nearly 4 years, changed almost everything in the game overnight, except gravity and water density on a tiny 600 km planet. Hence the unruly mob with pitchforks and torches.

Good way of putting it, i know i hate change...

once i stopped complaining though i did find myself having fun with the game again.

[karolus10]

I think that fully customizable atmospheric settings are the right way to go, it both allows to play with the configuration files for our own amusement as well as it may lead to find more realistic settings by community due to it's size and collective time spend on actual playing, which is far exceeding the time available for developers and testers... I'm optimistic !

[eddiew]

The customisable options are nice, but they kind of put a blocker on sharing ship designs. If we're not all working from a common point of reference, then one person's perfect ship may not work in another person's game at all.

Kinda seems in our interest to end up with the default physics options being the most popular settings

[hawk_za]

LOOK OH PEOPLE OF HOMELESS LAND I HAVE BUILT YOU HOUSES WITH RUNNING WATER AND ELLECTRICITY

(peoples response) awwww but now the view is ruined

(smaller % of people) THIS IS UNACCEPTIBAL look how you have ruined the grass and the mountain by digging up the rescores you needed and look at those nasty eyesaw cables

people will never be happy is just part of the human condition I guess

I don't get what all the controversy is about I could fly launch and orbit in .90

I can fly orbit and launch in 1.0.2 just flying seems a bit easier oh and now instead of straight up for 10km I must start my turn immediately (and do it SLLLLOOOOWWWWLY )

But then again maybe i'm just not very good at this game

[Roflcopterkklol]

I think that fully customizable atmospheric settings are the right way to go, it both allows to play with the configuration files for our own amusement as well as it may lead to find more realistic settings by community due to it's size and collective time spend on actual playing, which is far exceeding the time available for developers and testers... I'm optimistic !

My problem with that idea is your craft become your craft and no one elses, what works for you will no longer work for everyone which removes the need for a spacecraft exchange and that idea makes me sad

[regex]

which removes the need for a spacecraft exchange

tbh it's not like anything would be lost in that case. Honestly don't see the appeal of sharing craft when half the game is building stuff.

/is already ignoring defense of craft sharing (seriously, I don't care)

Anyway, I'm sure they're working on better default aerodynamic and heating settings, if Max's tweet is anything to go by.

[Wallygator]

When I read the OP and checked the link I did not come away with the impression that the devs have publicly stated that KSP is a game in favour of a sim.

What I perceived was that they wanted to prioritize FUN.

In the context of a sandbox game, IMHO "Fun" arises from a predictable play system that allows an individual to create and explore in an open environment. That said, the foundation (the sand in the box) of KSP is physics and the assumed predictable nature of the model and its analogue to a player's perception of reality. However, if a player has no grounded perception of reality, then any simulation will likely fail to impress - in other words, if a person purchases KSP and they have no idea at all about the world around them, then it is likely they will be disappointed and set the game aside because it is "too hard to play". KSP is not for the faint at heart- it demands a certain level of commitment and willingness to learn specific skills (some of which actually require a player to do a bit of study rather than just press a FIRE! button repeatedly).

KSP must continue to press forward with increasing affinity toward a predictable and reliable physics based implementation of both atmospheric and space flight. If suddenly there is a change that drives a simplistic and easy-ified element, then KSP will fade away from its core root.

This game has a very unique target market - And that target market also exemplifies the brand -------> BUILD ON THAT!

When someone says "I play KSP", it should imply a higher level of play and a sincere commitment to learning new skills.

Please, don't dumb it down. Stay true to a common physics framework for all players.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Wallygator

[hazard-ish]

Although the customisation of the aerodynamics is good, I still feel that it doesn't actually help solve the problem. If everyone began altering the atmosphere to be exactly how they wanted, what is going to stop them from then editing the config files for engine thrust or resource fuel weight? It is frowned upon to change the thrust or efficiency of engine parts in the game because it makes launches much easier, but changing the drag model from 1.0.2 to version 1.0 will save several hundred metres per second of delta-v in order to get into kerbin orbit. To some extent, I see no difference between this and putting on infinite fuel for part of the burn.

I'm not complaining about the 1.0.2 model, I just think that there should be one aero that everyone uses so craft files can be exchanged and other peoples achievements/accomplishments can be appreciated.

[allmhuran]

I agree wally... fun is pretty important in a game!

One thing to consider is the requirements if we try to make things "too" realistic. Real aircraft and rockets tend to have lots and lots of flight instruments, and they're not just there for funsies. here is the cockpit of a cessna 180, which is a pretty simple aircraft.

In KSP we have a navball that's meant to provide most of the information. You'll also be using the altimeter, and throttle indicator now and then, and more advanced players might look at their vertical velocity and g-meter once in a while. That's not sufficient instrumentation if you want to go a long way down the realism path,

We're already pushing the limits of the instrumentation we have with 1.0.2 physics. A "pretty standard" rocket will want to flip if it's very slightly away from prograde when passing through mach 1. You can add fins to correct for this, but "real" rockets don't all have fins. The best you can do in KSP (if you want to fly it manually) is "try to keep it pointing prograde". But the navball doesn't provide information at a high enough resolution for you to know that you are a fraction of a degree away from porgrade, which means you can't fly it "manually" with the available instrumentation.

Is that bad? Well, only if we want KSP to be a game where you can fly your rocket manually with the instrumentation available. If we don't want that... ie, if we want a realistic simulator, we'll probably need to add a lot more realistic instrumentation, and maybe have all our launches be computer controlled. But is that still KSP, or have we just remade orbiter at that point?

This already happens in KSP by the way... people who go with mods that add realism also tend to have more realistic instrumentation (FAR is the obvious example). It seems to me that this is the right way to do things: the basic game should be, well, "basic". Simplified instrumentation, simplified controls, and along with that an appropriately simplified flight model. If you then want to press that towards a simulation, go with mods that add these features. it makes a lot less sense for the devs to spend a huge amount of time making a high fidelity simulator, and then have players download mods to simplify all of that.