Should I invest time in learning 1.0.2 aero?

[r4pt0r]

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/119478

Do note that the movie you posted includes at least two of those cargo bays.

oh my. well that and the heat gauge memory leak should be the primary targets of 1.0.3 hopefully. cant see that being in stock for a normal 3 month update cycle. especially now we are a "released" game.

[technicalfool]

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/119478

Do note that the movie you posted includes at least two of those cargo bays.

That's a new one.

Ho hum. More stuff to fix. Yay.

[Guest]

oh my. well that and the heat gauge memory leak should be the primary targets of 1.0.3 hopefully. cant see that being in stock for a normal 3 month update cycle. especially now we are a "released" game.

Me neither. Once they're done with the planning session I expect a hotfix to correct some key issues. Hopefully we'll also see an atmospheric heating fix, but that's as fine a balancing point between planes and capsules as drag is. Still it's only config changes.

Personally, I can wait patiently because I have this fantastic debug screen and a config file full of values, and a pretty damn good aerodynamic simulation. If we don't get a hotfix after the planning session I'll be dragging out ye olde pitchfork.

Edited May 6, 2015 by regex

[technicalfool]

the heat gauge memory leak

You know, someone made a heat warning mod that was released within an hour of 1.0.0. It even has more features than the stock version, what with throwing up a pulse effect in IVA and map view, and having a rather loud audio alert too. To the best of my knowledge, it doesn't leak memory. Though of course, any testing is welcome.

That someone might also be trying to find a few hours spare to tweak and fiddle, come up with a config menu and maybe different thermometer styles.

Now just how would I know that, eh?

[Levelord]

There's a certain other block-busting blockbuster that KSP keeps being compared with. It hit its 1.0 back in 2011.

Strangely enough, it's still being actively developed. Last update as of the time of writing, April 17th 2015. Not bad for a "finished released game".

Nice edit. Came up halfway through me making the reply. You also seem to be confusing high drag with excessive body lift. The former is the cause of the <1.0 soup. The latter was caused when increasing drag because people complained about the low drag in 1.0.0.

It's nothing to do with any kind of soupy atmosphere, and I'm fairly sure the body lift values are already being looked at. Seriously, to even try to compare 1.0.x aero with old aero is to have not tried it at all.

Im sure Orbiter doesn't have legions of paying willing beta testers that they underutilized so if you want to make that comparison then keep that in mind.

Im also posting on my phone and have to search for that gif in a previous thread i remembered talking about the soupyness... so fogive me if i need to commit the sin of editing my posts when i eventually find it.

[Claw]

It's going to be interesting seeing what people try to build and fly in nuFAR. I suspect we're going to get a ton of complaining for another NEAR-equivalent.

I'd say this is pretty spot on. We can sit and moan about the system and whatever flaws it has...but the bottom line is that the system is pretty much built. One thing that should be noted about the "dramatic swing" from 1.0.0 to 1.0.2 is that the numbers didn't change all that much, but you can see how much of an impact that change makes. As a minimum, I'd say that the upper and lower bounds of the envelope have probably been found.

Personally I feel like 1.0.0 worked great for planes, but was way to slick for rockets. 1.0.2 feels good with rockets, but is a bit to draggy for planes (along with some other issues). My impression is that now it's a matter of working out something in the middle that works more broadly. I don't think the changes from 1.0.0 to 1.0.2 were of a fundamental mechanical nature. More of feeling a difference of how the changes to the global parameters affect the whole system.

Sure, we can keep complaining about how the shuttle can land at such a low speed. Great, we've seen it. Now it's a matter of finding out what works within the system to make that shuttle's response more believable. I'm pretty sure I can come up with values that make that shuttle work, but it's another story to do so without breaking everything else in the process.

This isn't meant to dismiss or belittle the complaints. I totally understand how frustrating it is (I'm right here with you). But perhaps we can move past the boisterous posts about the same problems with the new aero system, and maybe we can work together to find out what works better. I can guarantee you that dozens of threads complaining about what is wrong is much less helpful (and goes nowhere) than a single thread pointing out what's wrong...and potential ways to fix it. I've been working hard to try and explain the new system...in the hopes that if people can understand it better, we can play with it, exploit it, and find out what works better.

So with all that said, I realize how off topic this whole thing has become. So in regard to the original post's question, in light of my statements above, yes... I believe fully that you should go ahead and play with the new system. I don't think things are going to radically change between now and the next update. While some of it might be different, it's not going to be near as much of a change as from 0.90 to 1.0.

Cheers,

~Claw

Edited May 6, 2015 by Claw

[technicalfool]

So with all that said, I realize how off topic this whole thing has become. So in regard to the original post's question, in light of my statements above, yes... I believe fully that you should go ahead and play with the new system. I don't think things are going to radically change between now and the next update. While some of it might be different, it's not going to be near as much of a change as from 0.90 to 1.0.

Cheers,

~Claw

What this guy said. The aero system itself is fine. It feels and plays like a flight sim, which is close enough. It's unlikely that much is going to change (except perhaps that cargo bay issue). Even if body lift gets tweaked, the overall feel of how aero works is going to remain pretty much the same.

So have fun, really. Kinda the whole point, no?

[Brotoro]

...Sure, we can keep complaining about how the shuttle can land at such a low speed. Great, we've seen it...

...This isn't meant to dismiss or belittle the complaints. I totally understand how frustrating it is (I'm right here with you). But perhaps we can move past the boisterous posts about the same problems with the new aero system, and maybe we can work together to find out what works better. I can guarantee you that dozens of threads complaining about what is wrong is much less helpful (and goes nowhere) than a single thread pointing out what's wrong...and potential ways to fix it. I've been working hard to try and explain the new system...in the hopes that if people can understand it better, we can play with it, exploit it, and find out what works better...

I am reminded of a post one of the moderators made when players disagreed with the announced repurposing of the Round-8, and we spoke out strongly against it. He said that our complaints about the Round-8 reminded him of all the complaining that people did when reaction wheels were removed from some probe cores...but, hey, a couple weeks later everybody had just moved on.

My takeaway from that was that if we ever shut up about a problem, it will be perceived that we are OK with that problem existing.

[Bekiekutmoar]

Well, I'm gradually getting the hang of the new aerodynamical model. Personally, I think there's no better place to learn the new atmospheric system than on Eve. The lander shown here is ALMOST able to achieve orbit around Eve from 3750 meters heigt, though I don't know terminal velocity yet so I might haven't yet discovered the optimal ascent profile.

EDIT: nailed it, with 0.70 fuel and 0.86 oxidizer left

Edited May 6, 2015 by Bekiekutmoar

[Superfluous J]

My takeaway from that was that if we ever shut up about a problem, it will be perceived that we are OK with that problem existing.

My takeaway was that having no reaction wheels in a probe core is okay, and maybe even a good thing. Therefore, the initial furor over it subsided. Likewise, the initial furor over 1.0.2's atmo is (or at least seems to be) subsiding as well. The Round-8, on the other hand, was wrong and evil and shows that it's possible to survive without a soul, so they changed their minds when we didn't relent.

I'm still torn on certain things. People seem to not like the mass of the fairings even though I seem to be able to get to orbit with less fuel with them on than without. I'm sure drag and lift and atmospheric density numbers aren't the absolute ideal and could be tweaked. Re-entry could use a kick in the pants so it becomes - if not deadly - at least something you need to think about. But these are all tweaks that are needed, not overhauls.

[Raptor9]

The new aero is like the first iteration of the science/tech tree...and the career contracts/strategies...and the tiered buildings. They got tweaked and refined in subsequent updates. Numbers of people post that they're unhappy with the new aero and follow-on tweaks, but seem to forget how those past features came to currency. Squad tweaked and balanced them...and then again. So I hope everyone doesn't think Squad isn't trying to improve it; they're people too.

[Claw]

My takeaway from that was that if we ever shut up about a problem, it will be perceived that we are OK with that problem existing.

I never said the complains were invalid. I am merely suggesting people maybe stop acting so defeated and taking over every thread with the same posts. I am proposing that we actually figure out how the system works, where it's "broken," and if people have found better settings.

For instance, this thread was asking "should I bother learning the new aero?" ... and here we are off topic again. I think there is a false belief that if we can manage to fill every corner of the forum with complaints, that's a good thing. I'm trying to say that we should fill the forum with constructive complaints and ways to fix it without hijacking every thread that's aero related.

So again, back to the original question, I see no reason to not dive into the new system, and tinker, and tear it apart to figure out how it works. I have no doubts that the feel of it WILL change again. However, I don't think it's going to be some radical ground breaking change that will force people to relearn everything. 0.9 to 1.0 is a much more radical shift that what's likely to come.

Cheers,

-Claw

[EtherDragon]

I have been experimenting in Sandbox with the new Aero (as of 1.0.2). I had a couple designs that were (just) able to reach orbit in 1.0 that could not in 1.0.2. But the difference was literally 50 units of fuel, so I added a couple Round-8s, and all was well.

Learn 1.0.2 any future changes to the atmospheric envelope will be minor, and probably aimed at making splanes feel a tad more plausible (both in ascent and landing).

[Matt77]

I have been experimenting in Sandbox with the new Aero (as of 1.0.2). I had a couple designs that were (just) able to reach orbit in 1.0 that could not in 1.0.2. But the difference was literally 50 units of fuel, so I added a couple Round-8s, and all was well.

Learn 1.0.2 any future changes to the atmospheric envelope will be minor, and probably aimed at making splanes feel a tad more plausible (both in ascent and landing).

I just built my first 1.0 orbiter when 1.01 and 2 hit. I didn't read the change log and it still hits orbit just fine. It must have been slightly overbuilt, but the changes were not that big.

In 1.0.2 I love how my rockets fly the gravity turn with almost no input from me. 2 degrees toward 090 at launch, a bit more once above the clouds, then wait to circularise.

Big change to my designs is I no longer ignite an engine with the same keypress as a separator. Be as close to prograde as possible, Separate, stabilise any unwanted spin, then ignite.

Back on topic, yes, learn the new aero.

[Fleb]

To the OP, just build some simple low part aircraft that are easy to balance to get a feel for it.

[Pthigrivi]

My takeaway from that was that if we ever shut up about a problem, it will be perceived that we are OK with that problem existing.

Or alternatively if we whine and moan ad nauseum about every little aero-quirk and fairing separation with equal weight the devs may no longer be able to discern a legit problem from a senseless gripe on this board and cease to take anything we say seriously.

Im personally having a blast with the new aero model. Honestly all I find missing are a few heat-tweaks on parts that make heat-shields necessary and still let me land a space plane from LKO.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[Gerandar]

Good question. I don't think anyone knows, but I would suspect if 1.03 is as different as 1.02 was from 1.0 there will be hell to pay.

what are people going to do? cry ..... and moan? Squad already got your money if you tryed the new areo and didnt like it they couldnt care less.

[EtherDragon]

I just built my first 1.0 orbiter when 1.01 and 2 hit. I didn't read the change log and it still hits orbit just fine. It must have been slightly overbuilt, but the changes were not that big.

In 1.0.2 I love how my rockets fly the gravity turn with almost no input from me. 2 degrees toward 090 at launch, a bit more once above the clouds, then wait to circularise.

Big change to my designs is I no longer ignite an engine with the same keypress as a separator. Be as close to prograde as possible, Separate, stabilise any unwanted spin, then ignite.

Back on topic, yes, learn the new aero.

Yea, that's kinda my point. If I hadn't been building this splane so close to the margins, I might have never noticed. Indeed, I had built a new splane after 1.0.2 (but before retrying my old one) and I didn't notice the difference until I went back to the old one to see how it performed.

[mrclucks]

I'm not sure why it seems that everybody in the forum thinks that 1.0 has worse aero than 1.0.2 but I was able to figure out how to gravity turn with 1.0 after a few launches and with 1.0.2 it took me about an hour of trying to launch something using gravity turns( launched fine with 1.0) before I said screw it and just launched straight up and tried to orbit from outside the atmosphere.

Initial launch profile have been 50-100 m/s then 5° turn and follow prograde, with some slight variations and throttle controls to see if maybe I'm almost there. My problem has been that about a minute or so after launch my rocket will dip below prograde and then flip out of control. I've tried playing with gimbals, RCS, different SAS configurations, struts, and not much changes on the flipping out part. Before anyone asks, yes my rocket is aerodynamic and has fins on the bottom and is not very complicated.

For this reason I've scrapped my 1.0 saves and blocked 1.0.2 and I'm just gonna continue with .90 for another month or two and try again later.

Tl;DR 1.0 is awesome and so is its aero but 1.0.2 doesn't work no matter what I do, so I'm going back to .90 and my precious mods

[Frostiken]

I'm not sure why it seems that everybody in the forum thinks that 1.0 has worse aero than 1.0.2 but I was able to figure out how to gravity turn with 1.0 after a few launches and with 1.0.2 it took me about an hour of trying to launch something using gravity turns( launched fine with 1.0) before I said screw it and just launched straight up and tried to orbit from outside the atmosphere.

Initial launch profile have been 50-100 m/s then 5° turn and follow prograde, with some slight variations and throttle controls to see if maybe I'm almost there. My problem has been that about a minute or so after launch my rocket will dip below prograde and then flip out of control. I've tried playing with gimbals, RCS, different SAS configurations, struts, and not much changes on the flipping out part. Before anyone asks, yes my rocket is aerodynamic and has fins on the bottom and is not very complicated.

For this reason I've scrapped my 1.0 saves and blocked 1.0.2 and I'm just gonna continue with .90 for another month or two and try again later.

Tl;DR 1.0 is awesome and so is its aero but 1.0.2 doesn't work no matter what I do, so I'm going back to .90 and my precious mods

In 1.0 my simple asparagus rocket worked fine. In 1.0.2, the thing rapidly wobbles out of control and almost instantly flips end-over-end if I touch it in the slightest.

Having to add FINS to all my rockets is ridiculous.

[MoridinUK]

I have to say that I don't think I have the time, I'm struggling to understand how to build my launch vehicles now, certainly with anything that looks like a payload. I fear I should have installed FAR yonks ago when I was learning the game full stop.

Now I'm just so fed up with trying to get even to orbit. I mean I've done it, but I'm looking at the Mun contracts and pondering if I stand any hope of pulling it off. I guess I prefered needing 4500 delta V over building a aerodynamic rocket which doesn't try to flip over on re-entry...

I've also found re-entry not a problem, the parts seem to survive as long as I'm able to keep the airflow relatively streamlined!

[Jouni]

I'm not sure why it seems that everybody in the forum thinks that 1.0 has worse aero than 1.0.2 but I was able to figure out how to gravity turn with 1.0 after a few launches and with 1.0.2 it took me about an hour of trying to launch something using gravity turns

That's basically the reason why I prefer the 1.0.2 aerodynamics over the 1.0 aerodynamics. In 1.0, my rockets just ignored the atmosphere, while I have to pay some attention to design and piloting in 1.0.2. It also helps that 1.0.2 feels more similar to FAR, which I used for almost a year before 1.0.

[stevehead]

In 1.0 my simple asparagus rocket worked fine. In 1.0.2, the thing rapidly wobbles out of control and almost instantly flips end-over-end if I touch it in the slightest.

Having to add FINS to all my rockets is ridiculous.

Asparagus staging is a thing of the past. The fuel efficiency on paper that you would have got from the old aero model is negated by the extra drag from the boosters, not to mention complications from the thrust lost from shedding these boosters early in the ascent. Best advice for rockets in the new aero, just like FAR, is to design your rockets like real world rockets: Tall and sleek, and design your rockets so that any boosters added are for providing extra thrust early on, not as a means to add extra dV.

As for the fins, that's just something that may or may not be required depending on how much control your rocket has (engine gimbaling, reaction wheels, RCS, etc.) or how tall/short it is (shorter tends to require more fins). Real world rockets these days typically do not have tail fins because much of their stability comes from the engine gimbaling. But the Saturn V had fins because they had to sacrifice a bit of the gimbaling capabilities to have the thrust needed to get the rocket off the launch pad, plus the S-IC was very massive and lowered the center of mass of the rocket significantly compared to other rockets. Again, it will vary between rocket designs.

Edited May 7, 2015 by stevehead

[theend3r]

Asparagus staging is a thing of the past. The fuel efficiency on paper that you would have got from the old aero model is negated by the extra drag from the boosters, not to mention complications from the thrust lost from shedding these boosters early in the ascent. Best advice for rockets in the new aero, just like FAR, is to design your rockets like real world rockets: Tall and sleek, and design your rockets so that any boosters added are for providing extra thrust early on, not as a means to add extra dV.

The beauty of asparagus is that as long as your TWR>1 it will always give you more power. Even if the new atmo made pancake designs climb at 1 m/s untill they shed all boosters the fact remains that you end up with a streamlined rocket like you would normally start with but instead of starting at the pad at 0 m/s you start above it at more than 0 m/s.

[stevehead]

I'm not saying it doesn't work, I'm saying its now more efficient to not use it. Every time you shed those boosters, you are losing thrust, and having to spend more time going vertical (gravity loses) and spending more time in the deeper part of atmosphere (more drag). You're better off to use the same design but without asparagus, that way when you drop the boosters, your main stack has a higher TWR than what you would had on the launch pad with full fuel and no boosters (in other words your TWR is always increasing until you get to your second main stack stage); you can punch through the earlier part of the atmosphere quicker while doing a proper gravity turn to get yourself horizontal.