Aerodynamics Poll, should the devs change it back to 1.0?

[Norpo]

So with the whole aerodynamics thing going on, I wondered how many people had what opinion.

Discuss.

EDIT: Also, Maxmaps has said he's looking into it, somewhat indirectly:

Edited May 4, 2015 by Norpo

[sal_vager]

Nope, 1.0.0 was slippier than a teflon coated slide in a grease factory, the devs should make the default values right, not broken in another way.

[Robotengineer]

Other: Squad should negotiate terms with Ferram4 to integrate nuFAR into stock. I might as well ask that pigs fly, but PLS.

[sal_vager]

That'd suck for everyone who doesn't like FAR, people can choose to install FAR if they like

[Norpo]

My main complaint with the 1.0.1 aero is that heatshields are useless. I literally can't induce major structural failures on purpose,

Though in theory if heat production was increased overall that would help, so it's not completely linked to aero.

Both aeros had some flaws, old aero was too thin, new aero is too thick. I think an in-between change would be great, though I haven't personally changed it myself to test.

Whatever you do devs, please test it first with planes and rockets, and take re-entry into account.

EDIT: Also, on the topic of FAR, imo FAR is a little too unforgiving, especially for newbies, at least for the stock game. While I do agree it's great, it's definitely not for everyone.

[JedTech]

I'll support whatever Squad wants for aero. Although I think Squad needs to stop giving into the demands of the realism lovers. We all know their going to use NuFAR no matter what Squad does.

[Panzerbeard]

Haven't we had this thread already?

No, I don't think they should revert the changes. As Sal said, 1.0 was waay too slippery. It's far from perfect as it is right now, in my opinion, but it's better than 1.0.0 (although I did prefer re-entry heating in 1.0. 0.2 is too forgiving for me)

[Robotengineer]

That'd suck for everyone who doesn't like FAR, people can choose to install FAR if they like

When you think about the features people didn't like FAR pre-1.0, rockets flipping over, realism, aerodynamic failure, etc, new stock aero has most of these features, so going to nuFAR would just make it even better. I don't understand why the 'people can install x if they like' primarily applies to realism proponents, but stock fanboys rarely get told to deal with it and install a mod if they don't like a new feature.

[Guest]

Drag was increased from 6 to 8 to make pods work better, but that makes spaceplanes feel a bit "soupier", though not really by that much since other part drag went down. A decent compromise might be 7. I've been testing that myself after asking around about the aerodynamic heat settings but I need more time, especially on Eve and Duna. We need a good middle ground.

[sal_vager]

Stay on topic please, this isn't a FAR thread, I shouldn't have entertained the FAR comment myself either.

But like I said, Squad shouldn't change aero back, just tweak it a bit

[klgraham1013]

Nope, 1.0.0 was slippier than a teflon coated slide in a grease factory, the devs should make the default values right, not broken in another way.

This is about right.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll support whatever Squad wants for aero. Although I think Squad needs to stop giving into the demands of the realism lovers. We all know their going to use NuFAR no matter what Squad does.

I was seriously considering giving Squads attempt a fair shake, actually.

[John FX]

I voted to keep it the same. It seems to be a lot better than the old one which, as many complained about before, was just a placeholder.

I'd rather it was even more realistic myself.

[kcs123]

Other: Squad should negotiate terms with Ferram4 to integrate nuFAR into stock. I might as well ask that pigs fly, but PLS.

Second this.

They don't need to implement all of FAR features, it is possible to calculate only a few, so aero system is closer to arcade/fun play style. As sal_vager said, for us who search for more realism there is still option to install whatever version of FAR will be called in future. But what they should adopt is new voxelization system that solves a lot of issues, is some part cliped or not, only partly cliped, does some other part in front of airstrem protect part behind it etc.

Also collaboration with ferram could alow him to easier maintain his mod, whole KSP project and comunity could benefit from this. Why SQUAD still refuse to collaborate with ferram even when he offered support is mistery to all of us.

I doubt that money is issue, more likely it is stubbornness of some key SQUAD members.

Well, we only play this game, don't know if we are allowed to criticise SQUAD decision. Despite numerous positive and negative feedback there was little response from SQUAD that they even noticed those feedback.

[Robotengineer]

Well, we only play this game, don't know if we are allowed to criticise SQUAD decision. Despite numerous positive and negative feedback there was little response from SQUAD that they even noticed those feedback.

[Jouni]

Other: The aerodynamics model probably needs some tweaking, but I'm not sure where.

Squad should start the tweaking with the basics. Simple shapes, such as command pods and streamlined rockets without protruding parts, should have reasonable terminal velocities. After the baseline has been set, everything else should be built around it.

Some problems are likely to remain even after the tweaks. Part clipping can still produce unpredictable and/or unreasonable results. Low-speed gliding will remain due to powerful reaction wheels and the way stalling has been implemented. Kerbal rockets and planes are generally smaller than ours, so drag should be a bigger issue to them.

[NathanKell]

For the record: Drag was incredibly low in 1.0, something like 1/2 to 1/4 FAR's. 1.0.2 has FAR-level drag for blunt objects down low, has lower than FAR above 14km, but does have considerably more drag than FAR does for streamlined planes when down low and than FAR used to in the transonic (with proper area ruling in nuFAR, the latter may or may not be true anymore).

[Brotoro]

In general, I like the 1.0.2 aero better...but I didn't use 1.0 for very long before the updates started coming out, so I'm no expert.

I had some stuff that worked in 1.0 that no longer work in 1.0.2, but I think that may be because they nerfed jet engines (and RAPIERs in jet mode) again in 1.0.1 (they did, right?).

Reentry heating was a big concern in 1.0, but I find that I can basically ignore it in 1.0.2...so I expect that needs to get bumped back up a notch.

I wouldn't mind if the fairings were made slipperier and lighter (but not massless again!) to encourage their use by making them more effective.

[panzer1b]

I say a little more drag then 1.0, but DEFENETELY LESS THEN NOW!

Its not like im unable to adapt, but 1.0 felt better then 1.0.2, and while im not about to say what is more or less realistic, i feel that 1.0 was more balanced, fun, and actually didnt feel like soup. That, and i actually liked the challenge of 1.0's reentry heat, with a thinner atmo, it actually took some skill to aerobrake/whatnot, and heat shields made a difference, unlike now. 1.0.2 still far exceeds 0.90, but i feel it wasnt quite as good as 1.0, an update that was far more tested, and was actually balanced pretty well when it comes to engine ISP, performance, thrust, ect. Now its even harder to get into orbit, and with the all around ISP nerfs it makes it even harder to go interplanetary.

While im goingt o admit, im not happy that most of my interplanetary SSTOs are dead and will never return, i accept that, and i started making new designs. But now that its incredibly hard to achieve orbit in a SSTo that has enough dV to do a laythe roundtrip, and 1.0.2 just ruined my laythe roundtrip SSTO at that, i just dont like the fact that they keep increasing drag. Less drag gives a better feel, more fun, higher speeds, and lets you have a little less super efficient designs that can get to orbit.

I think KSP should stick to what is deemed more fun. For those that care about 100% realism (not that u ever get 100% but thats beside the point), there are mods: FAR, RO, ect. KSP was never intended to be a 100% real world simulator, and i sure hope it doesnt become one. I enjoy to make realistic craft on occasion, and i like that under new aero they act as you would expect, but i also enjoy making sci-fi whackjob designs, and i see no reason why they should be impossible to make anymore without resorting to cheats and debug menus.

[NoMrBond]

I get the feeling it is more like;

Behaviour is unexpected > tune existing simulation params to approximate desired solution > start coding simulation changes/extensions required to correctly implement solution

So what we're seeing is the best interim approximation of the intended solution possible until the necessary code is in place to offer the desired solution

[NathanKell]

That makes sense to me, NoMrBond.

[thereaverofdarkness]

I had been waiting for a long time for Squad to finally update the aerodynamics. I was very tired of flying in soup. Now I was a bit worried that whenever they did fix it (IF they ever did) that they might use something overly realistic or otherwise difficult to use, like FAR. I am figuratively blown away with what they did. Sure there are some bugs, but the stock aerodynamics in KSP 1.0 are the best aerodynamics I have ever used in any game. They are fairly realistic and easy to use, and the system just feels like it fits with the simplicity of the rest of the game.

I'm all for suggestions on how to iron out some of the kinks, but please don't even start to suggest that there is something wrong with KSP aerodynamics as a whole.

If you're struggling to make your space program work with the current aerodynamics, try discussing it with someone. You might be experiencing a bug, or perhaps you need help with your strategies. Maybe you're too used to the old system and old habits are kicking your ass. There's many possibilities. But please try to understand that the new stock aerodynamics are working very well for many of us. =)

[CodedThreat]

I think this poll, although a small sample size, is pretty accurate. Most of the posts I have read about the aero model, it seems the same few people are complaining, and a bunch say it is good the way it is now in 1.0.2 and then there is a slightly larger group who say it is good and just needs some fine tuning. I am in the fine tuning camp and I don't even think the aero really needs much tweaking. I think the drag models of some parts and the re-entry heating need more tuning than the aero at this point. But these are small changes and with Squad already saying they are working hard on a 1.1 update, I believe we will see these changes and a few other tweaks no one is even thinking about (like radiators so they can re-implement the heating from drilling for ore). Right now I am just having fun playing the game, just like I have with every release since I started playing back in .19, running into a few bugs here and there and installing mods until my hearts content.

Also it might help for some people to remember you are dealing with an indie company that is quite small and is self publishing this game. This isn't a Ubisoft or EA, which by the way, releases games after much in house testing, beta testing and day 1 patches and still end up with broken games that they sell for 2x what you pay for KSP.

[Cdr_Zeta]

Hello,

There is something that you are all forgetting...drag isnt the only variable here...I am making a complaint about fuel densities in a new thread...basically D/V and other variables may cancel each other in a non-linear fashion; this is what they have to work with but I dont think they are...but they are trying and I think that is important from a realistic point of view.

I plan on looking at some of this math in stream today...but mostly from game playability standpoint; I think realism was pushed over gameplay and 1.0 rushed to that extent.

I agree with one post that some people making big pretty looking ships are crying now because they are stuck in v90 and pre-90 KSP...they need to move on...their game play and our realism is in the balance...with more tweaking along these lines there will be a happy medium.

Zetadude