How to revert to "Pre-1.0"?

[Zild]

I just do not understand all the difficulty... Then again, I was playing with Better Than Starting Manned and Deadly Re-entry before V1.0 which seemed to introduce similar challenges.

If your primary focus is on "getting something to go straight up" I say skip the fins and go for gimballed engines. And make sure they are manned, by a pilot. Without a pilot for SAS you have no chance. Long-term fins may prove a more efficient answer, but using gimballed engines will at least prove that things can go straight. You can worry about efficiency afterward.

[Netskimmer]

I just do not understand all the difficulty... Then again, I was playing with Better Than Starting Manned and Deadly Re-entry before V1.0 which seemed to introduce similar challenges.

If your primary focus is on "getting something to go straight up" I say skip the fins and go for gimballed engines. And make sure they are manned, by a pilot. Without a pilot for SAS you have no chance. Long-term fins may prove a more efficient answer, but using gimballed engines will at least prove that things can go straight. You can worry about efficiency afterward.

Reminds me of that old engineers adage: "First make it work, THEN make it work better."

[Camaron]

Revert to pre-1.0?

BLASPHEMY!

[G'th]

I am someone that is no stranger to realistic physics (FAR, DREC, and other realism mods were always perma-installs for me prior to 1.0), but even I can admit that I had trouble with the new physics. Even though technically my first launch in the post 1.0 KSP was a success all the way to orbit, once I started building the rockets I was used to building (even when it was pre-mades like FASA or KW), I found myself back in my beginnings with FAR with rockets disintegrating mid-flight.

The primary reason is that the physics between old stock, old FAR, and new stock and new FAR are all very, very different, and the same rockets will fly differently with all of them. Switching from one to another is going to be, essentially, a culture shock across the board. Where some players will have issues just getting into the upper atmosphere, other's such as myself will have issues with their gravity turn techniques being thrown out the window. Both situations can be and are just as frustrating.

All it really takes to get through it though, is to just keep flying. I had to crash a lot of rockets before I pinned down my new standard gravity turn techniques. (and I actually have a handy tip for that)

But anyway, for players having trouble, I recommend not changing much about your old rockets (other than ones that shouldn't be able to fly period. If your rocket looks like a reasonably realistic rocket, don't run off to the VAB just yet), and instead flying them intensively, experimenting with your ascent. It will definitely be important to learn the general idea behind a gravity turn, which will help you determine how to fly your rockets properly. No matter how the rocket may be designed (again presuming its at least semi-plausible), there will typically always be a way to fly them all the way to orbit.

The biggest thing, first and foremost, is to learn to keep one eye on the prograde marker. If your ship marker strays too far from this marker (Which is called having a high angle of attack, or, high AOA), you rocket is going to hit a wall of air that's going to force it down. Essentially what happens is your rocket goes from sleek flying machine to blunt brick, which is evident when you rocket is trying to travel upwards but is currently sideways. Having light fingers on the controls will help ensure this doesn't happen, and what you'll come to learn with well designed rockets is that you'll be able to drag the prograde marker with your ship marker as you fly (the same phenomenon will also occur with a perfectly designed plane. Rockets are more forgiving, however) if you handle the controls in just the right way. Having this ability gives you complete control over how your rocket flies, and getting to orbit presuming your rocket should otherwise be capable simply relies on how you manage your prograde marker's movement. From there, all you need to figure out is an ascent path, which is determined by that prograde movement.

To figure out which kind of ascent profile your rocket should use, experiment with how high up you let your rocket go before you begin turning eastward. Some rockets will be able to turn relatively early in the flight, other's will need to be a ways up before you can turn comfortably, and it also depends on how fast you turn. The reason for this is because of the interactions of your vertical (surface) and horizontal (orbital) speeds. If you're gaining too much horizontal speed compared to vertical, your rocket will go like a bat out of hell, but you'll never punch out of the atmosphere. Rockets are specifically designed to get the hell out of the atmosphere as quick as possible, so if you don't have enough vertical speed, it doesn't matter how well designed the rocket may be, you'll either end up with a missile or you'll waste gobs of deltaV compensating. The only time this situation is ever recommended is for SSTO spaceplanes, where the idea is to gain as much of your orbital speed as possible while also climbing out of the atmosphere, but this only works because wings and the super efficient jet engines compensate for the lack of vertical speed.

The inverse is also problematic, though it is more forgiving in terms of getting out of the atmosphere but far more costly in deltaV. Gaining too much vertical speed compared to horizontal will get you out of the atmosphere fast, but you'll end up close to doubling the dV you would need to establish an orbit. The only time this is ever recommended for crafts that are going to be burning straight into low solar orbits, such as crafts meant to hit Low Orbit of the Sun or even crafts headed for Moho.

Now, the other half of this problem is determining your turn rate. Typically you want to pull your prograde marker down, very, very slowly (I wouldn't recommend letting gravity do it for you at this stage) and try to keep your horizontal/vertical speeds going up at about a rate of 1:1.5 or so. (as you'll ultimately want more vertical speed during ascent. By the time you don't need it, you won't be facing any heavy aerodynamic forces, so you can start gaining pure horizontal speed)

To simplify this, a handy trick I figured out if you have a mod like VOID, KER, or MechJEB, is to begin your turn when your apoapsis matches up with the remaining deltaV of your first stage. For some reason, most rockets I've flown will fly really easy if I begin turning at this altitude (which will vary with each rocket), and at this point it merely becomes a matter of how fast you turn.

This depends on your rocket, but typically you want to tap very slowly. I typically tap every 2-3 seconds, increasing the frequency as I ascend about every 5km. You typically want to hit an altitude of 10km about 1/4 of the way to a 45 degree heading. By 18km or so, you want to be halfway there. From there I usually start increasing the frequency rapidly as this is around the time when I've pushed my apoapsis out of the atmosphere or am approaching it. Once your apoapsis reaches your desired altitude, make sure your rocket is oriented well into the center of the prograde marker (if you cut off your engines without doing so while also still relatively low in the atmosphere, you'll have problems unless you have something else to keep you on course) before you stage.

Your rocket's performance may vary, but without the know-how to specifically design a rocket to fly a certain way (which no one should expect any average KSP player to know), all you can do is experiment. Rockets with a high TWR on the launchpad will typically be able to turn earlier in the flight, and provided the rocket has good controls (Via engine gimbal, torque, or wings), you'll be able to do it a low altitude without rapid disassembly. Low TWR rockets need to do the opposite. Gain more vertical speed and TWR before gaining horizontal. Rockets with little or poor controls will need to presume a Low TWR ascent, with a very steady and patient hand on the controls.

If after accounting for all of this, and finding that your rocket still can't fly, the first thing to check in the VAB is your COM. If its not around or below the middle of your rocket, then your rocket is too top heavy and will need some very, very heavy controls to compensate for. What you need to do is reconfigure your stages so that the rocket follows a 3 > 2 > 1 power scale. Your initial stage should relatively large and powerful, and your last should be lightweight and fit only for space travel. Your mid stage(s) should fill in the gaps. However, if its your payload that's too heavy, then you'll need to simply increase the power of your stages across the board.

Next thing, if that fails, is more torque to begin with. You want to have your SAS modules as close to your engines as possible on all of your stages. What this will do is allow the SAS modules to augment whatever natural gimbal your engines have, and presuming your rocket follows the 321 scale, your SAS modules will be spaced well enough that they'll give you very good control over your rocket.

Next is wings. Much like adding torque, you want them as close to your engines on possible, but only on your first stage. (Possibly second. Depends on how high you get by the time you dump your first stage)

And after that, your rocket should fly unless its something that won't fly period. Block-like, asymmetric, and downright odd looking rockets aren't likely to fly, and you shouldn't be upset if you can't get them to fly. There's a reason rockets in real life don't typically deviate too much from the basic cylinder with a cone on top sort of shape.

Edited June 11, 2015 by G'th

[LtWhiskers]

If I have any concerns when launching I let the thing go straight up to 30km without touching anything (have SAS on). After that point the atmosphere has thinned enough where maneuvering for gravity turn is very easy without losing control. Good luck!

[Juicy]

Small rockets are fairly managable. Large rockets are an entirely different story. I'm sorry, but the game is loosing it's major factor: FUN. Whacky designs simply don't work anymore thanks to this "realism" garbage.

It's quite telling that mechjeb is becoming more and more popular. It's peoples' way to work around the failing change of the new aerodynamics (and the not completely updated parts affected by it). MechJeb allows players to skip the frustrating part, get to the FUN part.

KSP is starting to rely on the mods. Without them, it's becoming less and less playable. Quite a few mods should come standard with the installer by now. Infernal Robotics, MechJeb, ScanSat, Firespitter.. Just the parts of some of those would make a players' game a lot more enjoyable already.

[TheFactory]

Small rockets are fairly managable. Large rockets are an entirely different story. I'm sorry, but the game is loosing it's major factor: FUN. Whacky designs simply don't work anymore thanks to this "realism" garbage.

It's quite telling that mechjeb is becoming more and more popular. It's peoples' way to work around the failing change of the new aerodynamics (and the not completely updated parts affected by it). MechJeb allows players to skip the frustrating part, get to the FUN part.

KSP is starting to rely on the mods. Without them, it's becoming less and less playable. Quite a few mods should come standard with the installer by now. Infernal Robotics, MechJeb, ScanSat, Firespitter.. Just the parts of some of those would make a players' game a lot more enjoyable already.

I have to agree with this, I have completely abandoned the game until the devs announce they are finished messing about with the aero. I do not believe it is realistic or fun.

Can somebody answer why rockets made with the early tech are so much more unstable than the ones with similar designs made with the larger tanks? It doesn't make any sense.

Too many people on here want this to be a hardcore sim, the rest of us want a game. We bought this in early access and since then I believe a fundamental mechanic has been changed. Its not fun for me the way it is now, I want to be able to launch large monstrosities!

[Docsprock]

Then you never actually learned flying rockets and you should've if you have 1700 h worth of game.

I'm actually completely baffled by your statement, I can hardly believe you can't establish orbits anymore.

I can hardly believe it either. Its quite depressing. Oh, and I have a lot of previous interplanetary experience. So yes, I did learn to fly rockets.

But of course, if I were to use mods, I might have as much success as the rest of you.

Now, I have, (just last night), got a spaceplane to orbit! It has no function, but its something.

[G'th]

If you build your rockets right and fly them properly, then there should be no problems no matter how large the rocket is. Like I said in my last post, it may be hard to get used to the new aerodynamics, but it takes perseverance, and trust me, the game becomes that much more rewarding when you relearn how to fly your rockets. And mods really have little to do with it. It isn't hard to build a proper rocket in stock and be able to get to orbit.

And as for launching nonsensical contraptions into space, while they certainly have their place in KSP, fact of the matter is that sort of thing wasn't really intended. Whackjobian inventions, while spectacular, are not something that should ever actually work in the atmosphere. And besides, nothings stopping you from launching nonsensical contraptions anyway. You might fail more, but how many times did you fail before you got into orbit the first time? Landed on the Mun? Etc etc?

Now, all that being said, nobody would be upset if there was a difficulty option for Aerodynamics. After all, FAR was in essence 1.0's Aero (though harder), and its become extremely apparent that FAR was not a very widely used mod.

[Levelord]

-snip-

I appreciate the post, but with SQUAD changing the nature of the aerodynamics almost every update, the biggest problem players face (at least for me) is trying to master a certain type of aerodynamics, only to have it invalidated and entire ship designs obsolete next patch. I can deal with realism, but I can't deal with the nature of reality changing on a whim. This is why I've stopped playing for the moment until SQUAD has come to a permanent decision on what it wants it's aerodynamics to be, otherwise I'm just wasting my time learning and trying to master the game.

[G'th]

Well its not like we're getting updates every couple of hours you know, and regardless, the only thing thats changed for me through the 1.0 updates are my ascent profiles. Just because the aerodynamics change doesn't mean the rockets do. A well designed rocket will fly in the old aero just as well as in the new aero, and be more efficient at that.

Simple fact of the matter is, no matter what Squad does with the aero (Short of throwing some bizzare new atmosphere at us that breaks everything no matter how well designed it is), all it will ever take to fly a proper rocket is what I laid out in my big post up there. Doesn't matter if we're talking old aero or new or in FAR. Flying that way is just plain efficient and safe.

While I can understand the frustration that come with new aerodynamics, I don't believe that too many people are really putting effort into learning how to fly.

[WOODY01]

Can somebody answer why rockets made with the early tech are so much more unstable than the ones with similar designs made with the larger tanks? It doesn't make any sense.

Early Rockets usually have lighter payloads. You want the heavy end at the top.

Less control or less powerful control options: gimbaled motors, reaction wheels, control surfaces/fins

More likely to build shorter rockets. Tall and thin is better.

Smaller tanks make the COM shifting more drastic.

[Levelord]

Well its not like we're getting updates every couple of hours you know' date=' and regardless, the only thing thats changed for me through the 1.0 updates are my ascent profiles. Just because the aerodynamics change doesn't mean the rockets do. A well designed rocket will fly in the old aero just as well as in the new aero, and be more efficient at that.

Simple fact of the matter is, no matter what Squad does with the aero (Short of throwing some bizzare new atmosphere at us that breaks everything no matter how well designed it is), all it will ever take to fly a proper rocket is what I laid out in my big post up there. Doesn't matter if we're talking old aero or new or in FAR. Flying that way is just plain efficient and safe.

While I can understand the frustration that come with new aerodynamics, I don't believe that too many people are really putting effort into learning how to fly.[/quote']

I was prepared for the expected changes from 0.9 to 1.0 which introduced a myriad of things such as re-entry heating in addition to the aerodynamics. As expected I had my entire 0.9 fleet obsolete and had to re-design them (they weren't air hogging or aerodynamically draggy) due to the changes to engine ISP, engine weight changes, reduce wing count, and to account for the fact that tubular tanks now contribute to lift. I also changed my ascent profile accordingly to a steep one to avoid overheating.

Come 1.01, 1.02, SQUAD changed the aerodynamics again with new drag values and re-entry heat. My ships had to go through another round of re-designs from scratch (to remove further wings) and my ascent profile had to change to a radically different one with a shallower climb. While you may regard as the aero changes as small, they do impart very large changes to ship design and ascent profiles. I'm mainly a SSTO builder so these changes are very noticeable in crafts that operate within very narrow margins.

Knowing that the aerodynamics is still incomplete and not in it's final form, I have heard that 1.03 may have yet another aero tweak again. If not in 1.03 it's a definite certainty that the aero will still change somewhere down the line later, and that always means that I will have to put my career mode on hold halfway to fiddle around in sandbox mode trying to get things to work from the drawing board again.

I know it's not addressed to me, but I think you might underestimate how much time some players like myself spend trying to master the new aerodynamics only to realize that this becomes pointless in an aero model that is still subject to changes every few months.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/122688-Something-doesn-t-seem-right-here?p=1965188&viewfull=1#post1965188

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/122688-Something-doesn-t-seem-right-here?p=1978057&viewfull=1#post1978057

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/122574-Radial-mounted-parts-on-atmospheric-flight-performance

Edited June 13, 2015 by Levelord

[TheFactory]

Early Rockets usually have lighter payloads. You want the heavy end at the top.

Less control or less powerful control options: gimbaled motors, reaction wheels, control surfaces/fins

More likely to build shorter rockets. Tall and thin is better.

Smaller tanks make the COM shifting more drastic.

Like I said, rockets of similar design. The only thing from your list that makes sense as an answer is the last point, but I do not believe that is the case. I seem to be able to fly the rockets made with bigger tanks at steeper angles/more aggressively without any issues.

And there are other issues, the ridiculous heat system that is yet to be patched being one. I mean, seriously you add a heat mechanic but no sensible way to mitigate it. On top of this it also makes the game crash! And STILL no patch.

The changing aerodynamics as mentioned above is a joke, we are at release now - this is a fundamental part of the game and should NOT be changing after release.

Im sorry but SQUAD have messed up big time in my eyes. I don't want to hear any groupies telling me how im wrong and playing the game incorrectly - this is how I feel.

The devnotes since release have been a joke.

Im not playing the game until these issues are sorted, glad I didn't pay full price at release and have had many many hours of enjoyment out of it pre 1.0.

[Harry Rhodan]

Like I said, rockets of similar design.

Because mass or volume rises with a cubic function while surface area rises cuadratic. That means the smaller you get the less favourable the ratio between mass (inertia) and surface area (that the aerodynamic forces can attack) will get.