Must I give up on KSP? I do not want it :(

[sedativechunk]

OP, here is my take on this. I am a huge KSP fanatic, and I have played for a long time before the most recent updated to 1.0 and the realism overhaul. First of all, you knew you were playing a video game that has been in alpha/beta for years now and knew that it could significantly change. For that reason alone, you shouldn't be so upset and biased against the 1.0 update. Secondly, Squad has talked for months about updating the core gameplay in this fashion to KSP, including change the functionality of ISP on engines, the atmosphere, re-entry and more. For that reason alone, personally I stopped playing KSP for three months and forced myself to literally "forget" how to play the game because I knew things would be very different when I would come back....

That is what I recommend to you, OP. Do not quit KSP, especially if you find it fun and it makes you happy. Instead, embrace what Squad has done and relearn the game. What I recommend you do is do what I do. Start a brand new career mode with contracts and virtually no parts unlocked. From the very beginning you can get the feel for the new atmosphere by building small, rudimentary rockets. Start off small with experimental rockets and work your way back up to interstellar glory one rocket at a time. You will learn that launching rockets is not as simple as what you are thinking and is much different than what you used to be able to do.

Turning your rocket at an angle is now much different, depending on the mass, velocity, and general aerodynamics of your rocket things are much different now. You must learn to crawl before you can walk. Haven't you ever built a model rocket and flew it? They don't fly straight. That is how KSP is. You have to use aerodynamic fins and have a proper center of mass for your rocket to fly. For example, if your center of mass is near the bottom of the ship, the rocket can get lopsided easily and flip over in flight.

If you relearn the game from the beginning you will understand the new aerodynamics more and more. Personally I think it was fun and invigorating to start the game over as an amateur again. Instead of being a master-level pilot that can visit the worlds of Jool and other planetary bodies I now struggled just to get off of Kerbin again. Seriously, relearn the game and have fun with it, you should enjoy learning and being new at the game again because it only happens once.

[Landge]

Pffft farings. Who needs em? Launched my second Mun base contract, requiring a mobile lab and 2000 units of fuel today. I don't have the XL farings unlocked yet.

With a lot of parts facing sideways into the wind it was unstable as all get out. That is until I added some stabilizing tail fins. First just on the bottom but that didn't help. Adding the ones up top made it get through the rough part of the atmosphere smooth as silk. It takes less boosters than before too.

The only modding was to the transfer stage tanks to hold only LF.

Serenity Base. It's becoming a tradition with each release.

Cost to build was more than the contract payed out, nothing a few gravy jobs can take care of, but it earned a lot of science.

Edited May 17, 2015 by Landge

[Eric S]

What suprises me is that there are more posts on a thread complaining about the game then there are usually on a thread asking for help in learning the game.

Not me, usually when someone is looking for help, they say what they're problem is, we ask for screenshots and give generic advice, and they either come back with screenshots or saying that the advice helped, and if they came back with screenshots, we give more specific advice. It's not a debate, the OP isn't trying to convince anyone of anything, and they tend to be more open to what is being said, so it wraps up fairly quickly.

[little square dot]

I haven't played enough of 1.02 to have much of an opinion, however given the number of complaints I've seen about rockets flipping, people having to wait until 15000m->20000m to begin gravity turns, etc, I'm inclined to think that the new aerodynamics are significantly different, and not necessarily for the better...certainly not across the board anyway.

Regardless, clearly a lot of people are frustrated, and frustrated people don't need condescension, eye-rolling emoticons and uppity attitudes, and I'm seeing a bit too much of that here. If complaining annoys you, don't read/respond to complaints. Sometimes people need to vent...this shouldn't be news to any of us.

The new aero is easy seriously its not the game that has the issue its you, if you cant relearn how to play then you need to either stop complaining and give up or stop complaining and keep trying(I dont know how anyone is having any issues its so easy to get anything to anywhere in KSP.)

I'm not trying to single anyone out, but ^^this^^ sort of attitude ruins forums.

[Harry Rhodan]

people having to wait until 15000m->20000m to begin gravity turns,.

But they don't have to and people should really stop suggesting that.

[Temeter]

But they don't have to and people should really stop suggesting that.

In Fact, people have problems because they are trying this kind of nonsense.

[rtxoff]

And doing nonsense can be much fun just not in 1.x anymore.

I knew that this would happen. Yesterday i tried ma old SSTO concepts and none of them seem to work anymore.

I hate it.

[sisyphean]

Interesting, I just made exactly that craft in a stock 1.0.2 to see how stable it was and couldn't get it to flip. I did a 90 degree pitch maneuver at transsonic speeds after turning off SAS and capsule torque and it still tried to pitch back prograde as soon as I stopped trying to steer. And yes, this was after the top tank had drained, so the center of gravity issue was about as bad as it's gonna get while you're low enough in the atmosphere for it to matter. The only ways I finally managed to get it to flip was by either deliberately mounting the fins too high or just removing them. I think you're going to have to provide more details in order for us to have any chance of reproducing this (us as in forum readers, I'm not any kind of official representative).

To be honest, both of those rockets had more control surface area than the rocket you described, considerably more in the case of the V-2/A-4. And yes, in testing, even the V-2/A-4 could tumble out of control.

to start im not sure what your on about when you say the redstone had larger control surfaces

http://imgur.com/DbRSDEr

http://imgur.com/Sq8P7D3

this was done within 2 days of 1.0 launch so i dont know if there were changes between then and 1.02 , i litterally got bored with new stock quite quickly and went back to .90 RO (the only chalenge in stock 1.0 was getting past the irritating things such as the rocket flips and even then the challenge was little more than a minor irritation)

now before you start going on a lecture about aerodynamics, im not saying that the new aero is not better or that its less realistic i am simply saying that the realism and improvements it provides make unrealistic things happen because other parts of the game are modeled over simplistically (fuel tank COM shifts to name one) all i have to do to quash ideas that this newest version of the game provides realistic aerodynamics regarding rocket flight is point to the monstrosity in post number 63.

while im not saying the new aero is inferior to the old i simply contest the notion that its "realistic" is not accurate. simply because something is "more realistic" than something else does not make it the definitive "realistic"

Edit: just updated to 1.02 and that rocket does not have any issues so perhaps it was an issue with the first version to come out, but i do not retract my point that the aero is not actually realistic as so many claim.

Edited May 17, 2015 by sisyphean

[Frozen_Heart]

I'm loving the new aero overall. Yeah some parts of it still need improving but its much better than the souposphere.

Some parts of 1.0 feel less realistic such as the part balance. Before you had options over which piece to choose. Now its always one best option for each task and nothing else comes close.

[Temeter]

And doing nonsense can be much fun just not in 1.x anymore.

I knew that this would happen. Yesterday i tried ma old SSTO concepts and none of them seem to work anymore.

I hate it.

Then you should hate Kerbal Space Program to it's core, since it's a game with a million limitations modelled after real space-traven, that create challenge. It's one of the most restrictive games in this regard, compared to stuff like minecraft, space engineers or besiege.

And btw, SSTO's also got easier, because the DV requirements are a lot less punishing. Although I guess it's easier to just blame the game for your own mistakes.

[marce]

I experienced some strange behavior in the new stock aero, but can’t pinpoint what it is. Somehow things don’t work the way I expect them to work sometimes.

But, thanks to amazing ferram, that’s no problem at all. Installed nuFAR right away and everything flies like it should. (My point here is that I have less problems with FAR than with stock. People often think FAR is worse while it's not (for me)).

My tip: just use FAR since the stock atmo isn’t so forgiving any more anyway and nuFAR is still better.

[rtxoff]

Then you should hate Kerbal Space Program to it's core, since it's a game with a million limitations modelled after real space-traven, that create challenge. It's one of the most restrictive games in this regard, compared to stuff like minecraft, space engineers or besiege.

And btw, SSTO's also got easier, because the DV requirements are a lot less punishing. Although I guess it's easier to just blame the game for your own mistakes.

If it got easier then why all my SSTO space planes suck now? It's not only the atmosphere it's also the drastic nerf of the jet engines. My planes worked perfect in 0.90

Now they all useless pieces of crap. I want the old OP jet engines back. I don't care for them not being realistic.

[Mulbin]

I love the new aero... but to be honest I think squad have shot themselves in the foot with it. It's great for hardcore KSPers (pretty much the people who are active on this forum) but has set the learning curve very high for new / casual gamers.

For every one of us there are 10 customers who don't use the forum... players who just rely on the in game tutorials and don't expect to have to do scientific research to use a game (and why should they? - don't get me wrong, i love scientific research... but I'm not most people!).

I posted a link to KSP on my facebook feed and the reply's from my friends were along the lines of..

Tried it... impossible

Never got into orbit

You need a science degree

Unplayable

...and we're talking intelligent, professional 20-40 year olds, but not people who can plough 100 hours into a game before they learn it's intricacies.

And these people... and thousands more will play the game once, then uninstall it, which is a real shame.

KSP was never suppoed to be an accurate simulator, that's orbiter's job. It's meant to be fun first, science second. And while I absolutely love the new challenging aero (I add a stack of hard mode mods as well) it will ultimately lose customers for KSP.

The solution? Easy/authentic aerodynamics tab in the options. Everyone's happy.

Edited May 17, 2015 by Mulbin

[Dodgey]

If it got easier then why all my SSTO space planes suck now? It's not only the atmosphere it's also the drastic nerf of the jet engines. My planes worked perfect in 0.90

Now they all useless pieces of crap. I want the old OP jet engines back. I don't care for them not being realistic.

They don't work because they were designed to work in an atmosphere which was a vey poor aproximation of reality, now we have a better aproximation of reality to work with. If you don't enjoy the new atmosphere there are a few options open to you.

1. Stay with 0.90, no one said you had to update.

2. Use the debug console to change the atmosphere to your own liking.

3. Either create a mod or download a mod which changes the game to your liking.

4. Learn to play in the new atmosphere.

I mean it's not as if we didn't know that this was going to happen at somepoint.

[Frozen_Heart]

It's not only the atmosphere it's also the drastic nerf of the jet engines.

Having jet engines that are slightly more powerful than real life is fine to make gameplay a bit easier. However magic jet engines that use next to no fuel and could get up to orbital velocity by themselves was completely ridiculous.

You could argue that having inefficient rocket engines that run out of fuel really quickly makes it less fun.

[rkman]

The problem with 1.0.2 is not excessive realism, the problem is that it is unbalanced.

In spite of "1.0", the game ain't finished yet.

[rcp27]

So I had my first encounter with a crazy wobbly launch today. Pretty much everything I have put up so far has been fine, and until now I had not really understood what the fuss was about. I decided I wanted to put a space station up as a single launch rather than sending it up a few bits at a time and constructing it in orbit.

The launch stage is a mainsail, and the upper stage is a poodle. Inside the equipment bay is a probe core and some batteries so that I can send it up unmanned.

This thing went crazy wobbling about when it hit around 8 km at around 160 m/s. The first thing I did was to disable all the reaction wheels, using only the winglets and the engine gimbal for control. This reduced the wobble a fair amount, and it did flip out a few times, but I managed to get it into orbit, though it was 5 degrees off and needed some re-positioning up there.

I then figured I'd attempt to make it more rigid, so I put a bunch of structural girders on radial decouplers and strutted up the main structure. That would sort out the wobbles, but not the aerodynamic problems. I figured the root cause of the aerodynamic problems was that those AV-R8 winglets were just not up to the job of keeping such a large rocket under control I therefore replaced them with Structural Wing A and Elevon 1 for control, to give it better stability. The result was this

The result was not pretty, but it went into orbit like a dream. I did my usual roll over 5 degrees at between 50 and 100 m/s, and fly it up with SAS off, controlling the ascent with the engine throttle.

In addition to the old KSP rules of "if it moves when it shouldn't, add more struts" and "if it doesn't move when it should, add more boosters", I think we need a new rule: "if it points the wrong way, add more fins"

[little square dot]

But they don't have to and people should really stop suggesting that.

After giving 1.02 the ol' college try for the past few hours, I would have to agree. It's quite a different beast now though, and it probably would've taken me quite a while to figure it out on my own...thankfully I'd picked up a number of key tips in the forums, however I still managed to flip my first few attempts.

I think part of the problem is that some of the changes are counter-intuitive to those accustomed to the previous aero model, ie. pre 1.0 it was advantageous to make rockets extremely bottom-heavy, whereas that's an excellent way to start flipping in 1.02.

The tips that helped me out the most:

1. Avoid excessively bottom-heavy designs. To steal someone's analogy, flying a bottom-heavy rocket is like trying to throw a dart backwards.

2. Watch acceleration/speed carefully in the lower atmosphere. It's certainly not the MOAR BOOSTERS free-for-all that it used to be. Too much speed + too much atmosphere = tons of drag on the nose and a very unstable rocket. Flipping often ensues. The terminal velocity ballpark is a good place to be.

3. Use nose cones at the top, fins/winglets at the base, and restrict the number of radially-attached components used. Apparently aerodynamics matter now.

RIP sledgehammer rocketry. **sniff**

[Temeter]

If it got easier then why all my SSTO space planes suck now? It's not only the atmosphere it's also the drastic nerf of the jet engines. My planes worked perfect in 0.90

Now they all useless pieces of crap. I want the old OP jet engines back. I don't care for them not being realistic.

Well, then it's actually the game. If SSTOs are too hard now, then how about using rockets?

[Oafman]

As a general comment on this and similar threads, simply complaining about how your rockets don't get to space is all a bit pointless unless you give specifics. Post pictures, describe your ascent and explain exactly when the problem occurs. If you do that I can guarantee you that someone will reply with an accurate explanation for why it didn't work, and a clear description of what you need to do differently to get it to space. Nobody can help if they don't know what the problem is.

[little square dot]

I think most of these threads are started by people looking to vent their frustration at the changes, hence the lack of specifics.

People know how to get help if they want it.

[NikkyD]

I really dont understand how someone can NOT get into orbit. If you just fly straight up until you have an AP of 100km and at the AP you turn 90° and thrust... you will achieve orbit with somewhere between 4k and 5k dV.

You could do this in .90 and still can do it. If you dont turn inside the atmosphere, its still as simple as that?!

[Temeter]

I think most of these threads are started by people looking to vent their frustration at the changes, hence the lack of specifics.

People know how to get help if they want it.

That's what i'm assuming, too.

[Motokid600]

@ rcp27 - Change your root part to one closest to your center of mass to significantly reduce wobble and increase stability.

[Wjolcz]

I felt like regex's Tear-o-meter was filling up more and more reading the OP.

The 1.0 aero system isn't that hard. You need to watch your speed when flying rockets. You just need to build that look more or less like real airplanes and rockets. As far as you do that you should be fine.

Or you can try reverting to the old and dull souposphere.