Why it matters that Squad picks an aero model and sticks with it

[mikegarrison]

First, let me say that I have tried out using the 1.0 aero parameters in 1.02, and I think it's better (for rockets, anyway). But ...

Here's the issue. Many of the other parts need to be balanced with the aero. dV to orbit, thrust, landing, fairings, heat, etc. etc. So if we all just pick our own personal favorite atmosphere, it's going to be hard to do that. And then we have the mod community. Just like the stock parts, many of the mods need to be balanced and designed to fit the game physics.

As an example, I put the 1.0 aero into 1.02 and flew some test missions with a Mk1-2 capsule. It was more steady and controllable on launch. It was rock steady on re-entry, too. I started out by coming in from low orbit at a shallow angle, then progressively stress tested it until I was coming in with Kerbin-escape trajectories and a 15km periapsis. That last one burned off more than half the heat shield, but I was still able to wait until I was sub-sonic before popping drogues, followed by mains. HOWEVER, the 1.02 main chutes are too small now for 1.0 aero. I needed one of the big blue ones on top and four blue radial chutes (plus four radial drogues) to get the capsule landing speed under 9 m/s (survivable for the heat shield). That's a lot of chutes for just a capsule! Which means that if I want to keep playing with 1.0 aero, I probably need to rebalance the chutes again.

So I think Squad needs to just make a decision and call it good. Personally, having tried it both ways, I wish they would settle on the 1.0 aero. They made some good fixes for 1.01, but I think they over-reacted to the complaints when they changed the aero. (But my guess is that the 1.02 aero is going to go forward, because they are probably sick of people arguing about it and just don't want to touch it again.)

[Dodgey]

Let me get this straight, you put the 1.0 aero system into 1.0.2 and are complaining about the balance of the parts in 1.0.2 with regards to the 1.0 aero system which you modded into 1.0.2. Is that correct?

[mikegarrison]

Let me get this straight, you put the 1.0 aero system into 1.0.2 and are complaining about the balance of the parts in 1.0.2 with regards to the 1.0 aero system which you modded into 1.0.2. Is that correct?

No.

I'm giving an example opposed to the "stop arguing about it and just use whatever atmosphere you want" crowd.

I mean, FAR/RSS is really a fascinating mod exercise, but you have to practically touch every part of the game to make it work. The splintering of the community was bad enough between FAR/RSS and stock. If there are a bunch of alternate "stock" user groups, then what happens?

Edited May 4, 2015 by mikegarrison

[NathanKell]

I would rather the takeaway Squad gets from this "keep trying to improve things" rather than "anything you do will cause a backlash."

Because the answer to "stop changing things!" isn't a better aero model. It's not having the new aero model at all, going back to the soup.

[mikegarrison]

I would rather the takeaway Squad gets from this "keep trying to improve things" rather than "anything you do will cause a backlash."

Because the answer to "stop changing things!" isn't a better aero model. It's not having the new aero model at all, going back to the soup.

Yeah, I guess so. It's just that the 1.0x change made it seem like Squad didn't have a vision for what the aero should be. I mean, it's good that they seem to care what their users think about the game, but I think they were a little too twitchy this time. If it hadn't been for the mistake with the heat shields, people might not have freaked out quite so much about the 1.00 settings.

[allmhuran]

"Just edit it to be however you like" has a few other problems too.

- It means you can't answer someone's question without asking them for all of their config settings, and even then you may not be able to answer it because you haven't played with a config like that and don't understand the effects.

- It means sharing your achievements, community challenges, etc, becomes fractured. "Here's my grand tour mission!". OK... what were your settings? Was your grand tour mission actually an accomplishment relative to the last poster who "only" managed to land on Duna? Or are the differences in your settings such that their achievement is actually much more impressive? Do we all need to download a specific config for a challenge? What if poeple don't like that config?

- It fractures the upcoming multiplayer. If there are many differently tweaked configs floating around, then the player base for any particular config gets much smaller. Plus you add the administrative overhead of providing a way to know whether configs are compatible.

- It runs against Squad's idea of a unified experience, which they feel so strongly about that even part upgrades have been off the table. Different physics configs effectively change the specs of *every* part.

- People who are learning the game for the first time are particularly likely to get frustrated. The game is said to have quite the learning curve, large changes to that curve certainly won't help.

Edited May 4, 2015 by allmhuran

[Wiseman]

So I think Squad needs to just make a decision and call it good. Personally, having tried it both ways, I wish they would settle on the 1.0 aero. They made some good fixes for 1.01, but I think they over-reacted to the complaints when they changed the aero. (But my guess is that the 1.02 aero is going to go forward, because they are probably sick of people arguing about it and just don't want to touch it again.)

1.0.2 just fixed the parachute drag and a bug related to the thermal system's interaction with water. They released the aero in 1.0, changed some of the settings in 1.0.1, and that's where we've been for barely a handful of days. The splintering of the user-base between different configurations for the drag/aero physics doesn't have a ton to do with SQUAD not being able to make a decision on the what they want to implement. The freaky, friction-less 1.0 atmosphere enabled particular play-styles and discouraged others, just like the old souposphere did. 1.0.1 tweaked the numbers such that, once again, different play styles were enabled while others were made more challenging, and players are reacting in their usual exaggerated way. It's a brand new system with a lot of new variables, so I expect any turbulence leading to whatever the "final" settings are to calm down in the coming weeks.

[mikegarrison]

1.0.2 just fixed the parachute drag and a bug related to the thermal system's interaction with water. They released the aero in 1.0, changed some of the settings in 1.0.1, and that's where we've been for barely a handful of days. The splintering of the user-base between different configurations for the drag/aero physics doesn't have a ton to do with SQUAD not being able to make a decision on the what they want to implement. The freaky, friction-less 1.0 atmosphere enabled particular play-styles and discouraged others, just like the old souposphere did. 1.0.1 tweaked the numbers such that, once again, different play styles were enabled while others were made more challenging, and players are reacting in their usual exaggerated way. It's a brand new system with a lot of new variables, so I expect any turbulence leading to whatever the "final" settings are to calm down in the coming weeks.

Pun intended?

[Wiseman]

Possibly

[Temeter]

Honestly, who cares?

Yesterday I, after two years of neglecting that little iceball, finally got to made my Eeloo mission. Part inefficiency and part betrayal by mechjeb left my with to little fuel, and I could only return to kerbin, but not actually slow down. So, as an experienced KSP player, what was the sensible option?

Aerobraking of course. From an Eeloo trajectory, with the whole mothership, around 3800m/s. What could go wrong?

Turned out 30km periapsis wasn't as reasonable, tho. Slowly, one part after another, the frontal docking section started melting, while the central mk3 parts survived just a bit longer. However, as the first radial engine section broke off, it sent the whole ship into a brutal spinning motion, flinging that little crew section around like a toy, while one stressed part after another finally conceded to their fiery death.

The mothership did one good thing: It succesfully slowed the flight down, shielding my pilots just enough, so their capsules could survive the harshest part of the heat and aerodynamic forces. When the docking port finally broke off and their safeboat was tossed away from the dying ship, it stabilized itself after a few seconds of tumbling, shooting like a bullet through the atmosphere and somehow just remaining below melting temperature.

When it left atmosphere, the apoapsis was 400 km and the periapsis around 25km, which would put less strees on the capsule during the next, and final, reentry. Allowing my pilots, and not least their bounty, to survive.

So, was that realistic? Not in a million years.

Will the next balancing update make that kind of thing impossible? I'd bet on it.

Do I repent surviving by dirty tricks and luck? I'm playing KSP, of course not.

Was it fun? Hell yeah it was!

The point (and tl/dr) is, I can only give the advice to just stop worrying about what slight adjustment Squad is doing next patch. Just play the game, KSP was always a bit unrealistic and weird, so some small misstep during balancing won't ever break it. Everything in the game has its margins and possibilities to overcome problems with a little bit of creativity, and that's actually a great thing about the game.

As for your aerodynamics hack, of course it throws off the balance harder than every small issue. I'm not sure why you'd prefer that to continual balancing. If you want fullblown realism, then go for FAR, which to my knowledge aready has a beta. Just remember that mod also took a while to balance, even with it's straight adherence to realism. Did it kill the mod? No, looks better than ever.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Temeter

[Dodgey]

No.

I'm giving an example opposed to the "stop arguing about it and just use whatever atmosphere you want" crowd.

I mean, FAR/RSS is really a fascinating mod exercise, but you have to practically touch every part of the game to make it work. The splintering of the community was bad enough between FAR/RSS and stock. If there are a bunch of alternate "stock" user groups, then what happens?

I see what you mean now and my opinion is who cares, each to their own. If someone wants to modify the atmosphere so it has the density of water all the power to them. I really don't care what people do in their own game.