1.04 Aero Discussion - It's really good for me

[selfish_meme]

I seem to have 0.90 craft coming back to life, some even better than before. As a test for something else I launched a 0.90 465 part 1336.1t Eve Mission craft yesterday (it used Procedural Fairings previously) that I updated with stock parts. To my surprise it made orbit, it had never done that before, even in 0.90. I have been testing a few others and they seem to mostly work too. Only the most un-aerodynamic craft seem hobbled. It's a somewhat pleasant surprise and I am liking it a lot.

Edited June 25, 2015 by selfish_meme

[Johnny Wishbone]

1.0.3/4 has definitely pushed the needle back towards the pre 1.0 aero model, and I actually like it.

I downloaded 1.0.4 last night and started up a new stock career game. I ran my usual first mission (sub-orbital hop into Booster Bay), and then built my usual ship for my second mission (launch into high Kerbin orbit). Imagine my surprise when this same rocket that could barely get me into HKO since 1.0 is now making it there with so much fuel leftover that I probably could have done a Mun flyby instead. I was quite happy to see that.

[Geschosskopf]

Judgment on the 1.04 air (or any version's air, for that matter) will have to await a thorough examination of how it affects aerocatpure at other planets (and returning to Kerbin from such places). Operations in the vicinity of Kerbin don't provide anywhere near the complete picture.

[rkman]

1.0.3/4 has definitely pushed the needle back towards the pre 1.0 aero model, and I actually like it.

A bit of a shame though, so much effort spent on more realistic aerodynamics.

[Harry Rhodan]

Don't like it. My 2.5m standard lifter with a 3,75m fairing on top can deviate 180° (!!!) from prograde at Mach 1.5 and is still easily recoverable.

Edit: But with stock fairings it flips like mad. That's more like it!

Edited June 25, 2015 by Harry Rhodan

[selfish_meme]

A bit of a shame though, so much effort spent on more realistic aerodynamics.

I guess what has happened is the needle has swung back towards fun but with more realistic consequences.

[Johnny Wishbone]

Stock aero is supposed to be less than realistic. Having to fly with realistic aero and physics can be quite daunting for newer or less experienced players and may turn them off to the game. If you want super-realistic aero, install FAR.

Before 1.0 came out, there was a whole thread on "Realism vs Fun", where a bunch of people jumped on anyone who said that more realism = less fun. Since 1.0 came out, with its much more realistic aero, I'm sure you've all noticed how the forum has changed, with an awful lot of people saying the game is less fun to play. I believe that the 1.0 (and 1.0.1/1.0.2) changes pushed things too far towards "realism" and the community responded with a lot of negativity. The 1.0.3/4 changes have been less dramatic, but have impacted the game enough to push that needle back towards a good balance. Hopefully, any future changes keep this balance.

[Nathair]

Before 1.0 came out, there was a whole thread on "Realism vs Fun", where a bunch of people jumped on anyone who said that more realism = less fun. Since 1.0 came out, with its much more realistic aero, I'm sure you've all noticed how the forum has changed

Sorry, I just didn't realize that it had to be said every single time. For suggesting that more realism means less fun consider yourself jumped upon. Go, and sin no more.

[SelectHalfling0]

How do aircraft handle now? I'm just gonna let someone else figure it out cuz I've relearned how to build them too many times.

[KerikBalm]

I still haven't tried it... I heard they made heating relevant again...

I don't want to restart my career mode, and I have a probe on the way to Eve, that was launched pretty far outside of a launch window...

The aeroheating is actually killing my craft if I'm not careful in 1.02 (the aeroheating destroys a mk2-> 1.25 m adaptor on many of my "simulations")

After establishing orbit, my rover deorbits with no heat shield (other than the fairing base, after the fairing has deployed to separate the orbiter probe for ISRU scanning and then a gilly visit)... and it takes careful orientation of it to reach the surface without its OX-stats and science instruments burning up.

I think it has no chance in 1.04.

I'm fine with actual deadly reentries (my current eve trajectory really shouldn't work with just mk2 fusalage parts and a fairing)... I just want some consistency at this point.

[Kerbart]

All I know is that you're now facing consequences for a 4000m/s re-entry at a 90°. In my book, that's good.

Next thing squad should fix is the ability to re-entry with pods that according to the in-game documentation do not survive re-entry (lander cans come to mind).

[herbal space program]

My first impression of this new air is that it was terrible, but after learning how to build and fly planes for the fourth time, it's looking quite a bit better to me. The "rebalanced" RAPIER engines now require quite a bit of nursing at low speeds and altitudes, and the lowered jet ISPs mean you really can't waste any time at all getting up there. But if you learn how to deal with all of that, the better high-end performance seems to more than offset the low-end nerfing. Anyway, I hope this is the last major overhaul of the aero system for a good while. Starting from scratch over and over again is getting rather tiresome, and I would really like to start flying my planes someplace besides to LKO over and over and over again soon.

- - - Updated - - -

I still haven't tried it... I heard they made heating relevant again...

I don't want to restart my career mode, and I have a probe on the way to Eve, that was launched pretty far outside of a launch window...

The aeroheating is actually killing my craft if I'm not careful in 1.02 (the aeroheating destroys a mk2-> 1.25 m adaptor on many of my "simulations")

After establishing orbit, my rover deorbits with no heat shield (other than the fairing base, after the fairing has deployed to separate the orbiter probe for ISRU scanning and then a gilly visit)... and it takes careful orientation of it to reach the surface without its OX-stats and science instruments burning up.

I think it has no chance in 1.04.

I'm fine with actual deadly reentries (my current eve trajectory really shouldn't work with just mk2 fusalage parts and a fairing)... I just want some consistency at this point.

I found that when I was de-orbiting a MK2 plane at Kerbin in 1.0.2, pitching up hard as soon as the atmosphere starts to bite would allow me to skip like a stone across the top of it, losing lots of speed without heating very much. I could re-enter from LKO without even generating any flames. And going up to orbit in with an SSTO 1.0.4, it seems like my problems with heating are now significantly less and not more. Do you have no choice but to come in very steeply?

Edited June 25, 2015 by herbal space program

[Violent Jeb]

I will echo the sentiments that the "un-fun" aspect of all of this is new installs and re-learning the atmo.

I think the present aero is at least a "realistic enough" starting point, assuming 1.03 is quite the same as 1.04.

Then again, I'd been thinking that the last 7 updates i've done.

Went from .9, to .9 FAR, to 1.0, to 1.01, to 1.02, to 1.03 then 1.04 in the last 60 days or so.

In 1.0, the crafts HAD to go up 10km before turning.

In 1.2, you can control the rocket on the first 10km,

1.3 I played for around 6 hours, and your parachute window was ~10 seconds in most cases. As soon as I turned off the game, 1.04 was available.

New observations, new techniques required.

I am quite tired of starting a new career, and redesigning crafts to accomplish these goals. With the absense of clear communication, it is hard to know when you should dig your teeth into a new career. Sure, I can start one now, but what if 1.05 comes out monday?

Failing that, if I wait a week or two, 1.1 might roll out a week into a new save.

I was just preparing to try some 1.02 challenges right before TWO back-to-back patches. So i've moved on to a different game for now, not because i don't want to play ksp but because i have no idea when it will change again and I just want to play the newest build without issues. Thought this was a finished game, as denoted by the 1.0 sticker.

Just prepare the release, and test it. Test it for months. It is clear that 1.04 had less than 24 hours to test. So when the problems of 1.04 are found, PLEASE - fix them carefully. Wait months, and ensure all subsequent bugs have been squashed before 1.05. When 1.06 comes out, do the same thing. Do not test for 24 hrs.

FWIW,

.9 was 0.9,

1.0 should have been 0.92

1.01 should have been 0.94

1.02 should have been 0.96

1.03 should have been 0.98

and maybe 1.04 would have been a suitable 1.0?

[Vanamonde]

A number of posts have been removed from this thread for a) going off-topic, and devolving into personal attacks. You are free to disagree with each other, but please leave the insults out of it, and try to remember that your fellow forum members are not enemies.

[KerikBalm]

I found that when I was de-orbiting a MK2 plane at Kerbin in 1.0.2, pitching up hard as soon as the atmosphere starts to bite would allow me to skip like a stone across the top of it, losing lots of speed without heating very much. I could re-enter from LKO without even generating any flames. And going up to orbit in with an SSTO 1.0.4, it seems like my problems with heating are now significantly less and not more. Do you have no choice but to come in very steeply?

Its not a spaceplane (it was launched from a spaceplane that never left kerbin SOI).... Its a LV-N+Mk2 parts (LF only fusalage, of course), a dockingport, a fairing base, a small orbital probe with the ISRU scanner, and a rover with some monoprop+parachutes.

Aerocapture itself is hard to accomplish without overheating the 1.25->mk adaptor, as it is, my passes fail to aerocapture (insufficient torque to "pancake it" through the atmosphere, it goes in relatively streamlined), and I need a capture burn with the LV-N. But... I'm coming in at over 5km/sec... so....

After that, its a jettison of the fairing shell, the orbiter goes to a polar orbit at apoapsis, and the rover probe continues to aerobrakes to a near circular orbit, and then deorbits. Just deorbiting from a circular orbit is difficult to do without cooking off an instrument or solar panels....

I would have designed it differently... but I designed it for the mechanics at the time, and I do a lot of stuff in kerbin's SOI while the interplanetary missions are on the way... so... I assume now if I upgrade, that the mission is doomed... at least the rover is.

The LV-N ferry (which I planned to send back to kerbin) could use more fuel to slow down for the capture... but the rover... its screwed.

It doesn't even have reaction wheels, and when the RCS runs out (as it might spending a lot of time holding its orientation in the atmosphere), it will just tumble until its chute deployment time.

Obviously, eve reentry is worse than kerbin re-entry.

[LittleBlueGaming]

A number of posts have been removed from this thread for a) going off-topic, and devolving into personal attacks. You are free to disagree with each other, but please leave the insults out of it, and try to remember that your fellow forum members are not enemies.

John: Yeah, I love space and rockets and stuff.

Bob: Oh yeah, me too! Have you ever heard of Kerbal...

John: Space program? Yeah, I love that game!

Bob: I know, going to space and blowing things up, all with a large amount of humor, I love it!!!!

John: Awesome, we should do a KSP party.

Bob: That would be awesome. This sounds like the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

John. Hehe, yeah. You know, I especially love the more difficult aero they just released.

Bob: You're a moron, I hate you, die in a fire.

On-topic, I like the direction they took, although I still like to vamp-up the heating. I sent a mk1 command pod up around the Mun and back, 20km periapsis, no shielding, and it survived re-entry(just barely though)... seems like you should need a heat-shield for anything other than shallow re-entry from LKO.

[herbal space program]

Its not a spaceplane (it was launched from a spaceplane that never left kerbin SOI).... Its a LV-N+Mk2 parts (LF only fusalage, of course), a dockingport, a fairing base, a small orbital probe with the ISRU scanner, and a rover with some monoprop+parachutes.

Aerocapture itself is hard to accomplish without overheating the 1.25->mk adaptor, as it is, my passes fail to aerocapture (insufficient torque to "pancake it" through the atmosphere, it goes in relatively streamlined.

I thought maybe with the Mk2 parts even if it wasn't a space plane you could pull that trick, but if you don't have enough control authority to pitch up against the aerodynamic forces I guess there really is nothing you can do. I feel your pain. I had a fleet of 4 SSTOs in the middle of a Laythe-and-back mission that involved four consecutive gravity assists, and they all turned into pumpkins right before the final one. I can't begin to estimate how many hours went down the drain there.

[Majorjim!]

I seem to have 0.90 craft coming back to life, some even better than before. As a test for something else I launched a 0.90 465 part 1336.1t Eve Mission craft yesterday (it used Procedural Fairings previously) that I updated with stock parts. To my surprise it made orbit, it had never done that before, even in 0.90. I have been testing a few others and they seem to mostly work too. Only the most un-aerodynamic craft seem hobbled. It's a somewhat pleasant surprise and I am liking it a lot.

http://i.imgur.com/r6l6Ihd.png

Hey, what kind of FPS where you getting on ascent? Did you notice any decrease in FPS after the patch?

[selfish_meme]

Hey, what kind of FPS where you getting on ascent? Did you notice any decrease in FPS after the patch?

I was getting about 12FPS, I posted in another thread about it. 40-50fps with a twin turbo plane, 12 with this monster. Core i5, GTX570, Ubuntu 15.04. I think the FPS has actually been better since 1.0, but worse than .90. Thats how it feels but this monster lagged terribly in .90 as well.

[Tankman101]

1.3 I played for around 6 hours, and your parachute window was ~10 seconds in most cases. As soon as I turned off the game, 1.04 was available.

New observations, new techniques required.

Except 1.0.4 was a bugfix for a single issue, it didn't touch the aero at all :|

As for the aero in 1.0.3, it seems the ice atmosphere is back. Will have to fiddle with it some more but so far it looks like drag is almost nonexistant.

[Tourist]

In my humble opinion (based on minimal testing) the balance seems right. Squad had a difficult task, without reliable metrics by which to judge how people were enjoying the previous changes, it can really only follow its instincts. Forum posts are not a reliable metric... it only tells you what those who are the most engaged with the online community think, but that is only a fraction of the total number of players of KSP... and even if it did represent the general will of the player base, there was no way you could say that there was a consensus on the forums about previous aero changes. Time will tell, but I think Squad has it right this time.

Also the fun vs realism debate was always a bit ridiculous... after all the "realism" supporters only support it because its fun, presumably. Also "realism" was also bit undefined. KSP is "realistic" in the sense that it simulates, albeit in a simplified way, space navigation, and rocket science. reaching orbit, orbital mechanics, transferring SOIs, etc. Instead of unrealistic space navigation like Wing Commander (and its latter equivalents), Star Wars (ie spaceships handling like planes) etc. But maybe not realistic in terms of the size of the bodies and the effect this has on how atmosphere should, but doesn't in KSP, work.

Anyway, ramble end.

[selfish_meme]

Except 1.0.4 was a bugfix for a single issue, it didn't touch the aero at all :|

As for the aero in 1.0.3, it seems the ice atmosphere is back. Will have to fiddle with it some more but so far it looks like drag is almost nonexistant.

Pedant! Yeah, but we had 1.03 for so little time it felt wrong referring to it.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

I feel like the peak of KSP's aero was at 1.0, except for drag, that was way to high. I love lots of realism in my air, so I have to put as much work into designing airplanes as designing rockets.

[NathanKell]

I find that interesting, since 1.0 has had pretty much the _lowest_ drag.

1.0 had drag rather lower than FAR for blunt things, and a bit lower for tapered things.

1.0.2 had drag like FAR for blunt things, and way way more than FAR for tapered things.

1.0.3 has a bit lower drag than FAR overall, but blunt things are properly draggy compared to tapered things--it's about on par with FAR back in the .22 era, before FAR started applying more drag high up, let alone nuFAR with transonic wave drag.

[FlowerChild]

I find what's really making the difference with aero in 1.03/4 is the reduced "hump" when you go supersonic. What I'm finding is that it's effectively making terminal velocity way way higher, which makes getting to orbit with high TWR vessels much much easier, and reducing stability issues when you're going faster than sound, which has made fins largely irrelevant.

Personally, I don't like it, as I find it's made getting to orbit a lot less interesting than previously.