Beginner-friendly aerodynamics model

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

Hi Guys,

I just go ahead and bluntly ask here to bring back the old Aerodynamics model as an alternative option.
In my unholy oppinion, getting completely rid of the old Model that everyone was used to was a very bad choice.
But here is the thing:

NOT because I am unable to adapt to the new Model or I find it too hard. Actually, I really like it.
BUT because I think it is too frustrating for new Players/Beginners/Kids/Students that are not used to the game and only want to Launch rockets in a casual way.

I am raising this question because I got worried. KSP had a great reputation as a game that made it to the classroom.
The only thing you really had to worry about was, that you tilt your rocket sideways at 10km for 45°.
Today you have to constantly turn your rocket right from Launch with a perfect timing, otherwise you will fail, to get into Orbit or flip your rocket over while correcting your trajectory.
Dont go supersonic while you are still in the thicker parts in the atmosphere and so on.

This isn't me griefing about the new aero-model.
This is me being worried that Kerbal Space Program might lose some of it's inspirational power.

I am aware that there are lots of sliders in the debug menu but let's be serious: New Players, Kids or students dont want to fiddle around with sliders right from the start, not to mention if they would even find them.
How about an Option when you start a new career asking for an easy Atmospheric Model or an advanced Version.

I am curious If I am all alone with this.
 

 

[KSK]

If anything I think the revised aero model will make KSP more inspirational (and certainly much more educational) because for a modest increase in difficulty you're doing things 'properly'. Flying up to 10k, turning 45 degrees and carrying on to orbit was an ugly hack that bore no resemblance to how actual rockets fly - and this is blatantly apparent to anyone with even a passing interest in spaceflight.

Now our rockets very obviously 'break the sound barrier' (which still has cool hi-tech connotations) and generally behave more realistically. If that's a bit harder than the old way, well it's all the more satisfying when you do get it to work.

if you're worried about difficulty then a game about actual rocket science (albeit in a simplified form) probably isn't for you.

Edit for clarity - that's 'you' in general not 'you' the OP.

 

Edited January 2, 2016 by KSK

[cfds]

I am with KSK here. Teaching a wrong aerodynamics model is completely wrong.

Especially since the new model does not require any magic to succeed, just "make it look like a real rocket and do not turn it too far away from its prograde marker".

[Tex_NL]

No. Just NO!
First they struggle learning the wrong model. Once they have mastered that they will have to unlearn it and struggle with the correct model. That makes no sense and is overcomplicated. Much easier to learn the correct model from the start. The 'new' model isn't more or less difficult than the 'old', it's just different. It's not rocket science. ... Oh, actually it is.

Edited January 2, 2016 by Tex_NL

[pandaman]

2 minutes ago, cfds said:

I am with KSK here. Teaching a wrong aerodynamics model is completely wrong.

Especially since the new model does not require any magic to succeed, just "make it look like a real rocket and do not turn it too far away from its prograde marker".

Exactly what I was thinking.

Remember the outcry when the current aero was implemented?  There were so many complaints that nothing flies anymore, yet all we need to do is learn how to do it properly.  Deliberately teaching the 'wrong' way then saying "sorry, we thought you were too dumb to learn 'real' aerodynamics, now all you have to do is start all over again" is just not a good idea, and two conflicting aero models in the same game is just pointless and a waste of memory.

I'm not saying the current aero model is completely accurate by a long way, but its a lot closer than the original and at least it teaches sensibly realistic principles.  Which, for a game that does have genuine educational value, is a very important issue.

[Hobbes Novakoff]

4 hours ago, Tex_NL said:

It's not rocket science. ... Oh, actually it is.

"It's not rocket science" joke counter: 4,583,710.

Aside from that, the new aero model is easier. Build something that looks like a fighter jet, it acts like a fighter jet. Build something that looks like a rocket, it flies like a rocket, and so on.

[tater]

At some point in KSP, I switched over to FAR. I didn't notice it was installed, honestly. Why? I only ever built rockets that looked like rockets and were pretty hands-off in flight. Ditto the new aero model (or new FAR). I don't notice it's there.

If you learn to game a really bad aero system, then switching will be more difficult that just learning that rockets that don;t look like real rockets don't work so well.

Edited January 2, 2016 by tater

[Sovek]

As someone who has been around since .18 and installed FAR probably around .19, NO!

I'm with @KSK and @Tex_NL on this. When I switched to FAR, I actually had to uninstall it because I thought it was great for planes and bad for rockets because my rockets kept flipping everytime I tried to do my "gravity" turn. Turns out I had developed a poor method in doing things.

Switching from the old areo to FAR was one of the hardest things to get right, cause I had to unlearn EVERYTHING. Plus the drag was crazy, you were wasting fuel just by going up, ugh.

And if you're worried about rockets being too small? Easy solution, Rescale everything 2 to 3 times and then have Nathan add in RP-1 and LH2 versions in stock. Want a big rocket? use LH2

[steve_v]

IIRC, my second point of confusion when I first started playing was: "What's going on with aerodynamics? Pancakes shouldn't fly this well." (old aero model), right after "What's up with physics? Real rockets aren't this bendy." Ferram4 to the rescue in both cases.

So no, I don't think we should bring back the old it's-not-air but stuff mysteriously slows down in atmosphere model. The key word being "mysteriously", if you're learning it you're learning arbitrary game rules, not real-world physics, and it's only "easier" if it's what you're used to.
The new stock aero model is fairly intuitive, for anyone who has ever made a paper plane or thrown a dart - it's easier to learn by researching how real rockets work too.

I'd love to see more realism (and hence teaching potential) in the game, but IMO the current aero strikes a reasonable balance between "game" and "physics simulator".

[Kerbart]

10 hours ago, MalfunctionM1Ke said:

(...) I think it is too frustrating for new Players/Beginners/Kids/Students that are not used to the game and only want to Launch rockets in a casual way.

Before I started playing KSP I watched many rocket launches on TV. In case you haven't seen them: the rockets in real life are long, thin, and start their turn pretty much right away after launch. One minute into the launch and the rocket is, if not near horizontal, at least at an 45° angle.

Enter KSP (pre 1.0, even pre the entire, endless range of beta version in which all major bugs were hunted down. I lost count of the number of beta versions, but by Jove, it was worth it!)

Struggling to get into orbit, one peruses this “youtube” site and learns quickly that you have to leave the Souposphere as quickly behind as possible, and then turn. The practice of slamming your rocket in a 45° angle at that point, or the pancake designs, never really attracted me. Yes, there’s game efficiency and then there’s I want my launches to look real, which neither pancake nor abrupt turn doesn’t achieve.

And then, after beta after beta (it never seemed to end, did it?) release, when 1.0 was released... KSP suddenly matched what you learned from TV and books a lot better. Sure, there was the endless assault on the forums—why does my rocket flip at 10km when I slam it into a 45° angle? and so on, but if you built and launched your rockets in a way that vaguely resembled real life, there’s not really an issue.

Now, and sorry for the long intro, this is where new players/beginners/kids/students come in. Without any prior knowledge to the early versions, or one of the many, many, many beta versions, what is more likely for the model of rocket they would use, and the launch profile they would choose? The .21 pancake and “ignore aerodynamics, just put your rocket perpendicular to the air stream at 10km altitude” profile, or models and profile as seen in real life?

In my experience, it’s some of the old hands that struggle with the new model. Not the newbies who just take for granted that the aero model in KSP at least vaguely resembles that of earth, and at the very least requires a similar approach.

[Gaarst]

Not only I like the new aero model a lot more than the Souposphere; but I would like the game to go even further: I want to see my rocket being ripped off by aerodynamic forces as soon as it goes off course.

Of course this is never going to happen: getting a rocket to orbit would be a nightmare for beginners (and experienced players as well) but it could be a nice idea for a mod.

So yeah, forget about the Souposphere: it's not coming back.

[Azimech]

Errordynamics was fun, it won't come back.

Now for the next hurdle: joint flexibility based on mass. Just as realistic as the drag based on mass of Errordynamics was.

[mattinoz]

So the alternative would be to have some decent in game eduction that teaches players this fancy new follow the prograde marker system?

This would be better than current system of googling the answer and vastly better than the souposphere system of googling for a counter-intuitive answer.

KSPeadia hopefully will address so of this.

[r_rolo1]

13 hours ago, pandaman said:

Remember the outcry when the current aero was implemented?  There were so many complaints that nothing flies anymore, yet all we need to do is learn how to do it properly.  Deliberately teaching the 'wrong' way then saying "sorry, we thought you were too dumb to learn 'real' aerodynamics, now all you have to do is start all over again" is just not a good idea, and two conflicting aero models in the same game is just pointless and a waste of memory.

This x10 .. I do some tutoring teaching Maths, Physics and Chemistry and in the case of Chemistry there is a widestread movement that advocates teaching kids the wrong and outdated atomic models first as gospel because kids suposedely can't grasp the fine details of the more advanced models ( somewhat true , but not true enough IMHO ). OFC this disregards the effort teachers and tutors need to have to force the kids to unlearn what they learnt last year and to learn a new atomic model ( that will also be wrong and in need to be unlearned a couple of years later  ). I've heard enough "But my teacher taught me like this last year" for a lifetime  and KSP does not need those

In other words, IMHO you will not gain much by teaching wrong stuff to newcomers to the game. Sure, it will be easier in the beginning, but the time and effort needed to force people to unlearn what we taught and to make them learn new and hopefully more accurate stuff outweights those gains heavily. OFC you can always use incomplete models ( say, disabling thermal damage at start ) for beginners if you're careful enough and very explicit that you're not telling the whole story for now. But teaching people wrong stuff ... it is evil 

Edited January 2, 2016 by r_rolo1

[Wjolcz]

No. We don't need souposphere. We need better tutorials.

[Guest]

On 1/2/2016 at 1:05 AM, MalfunctionM1Ke said:

Today you have to constantly turn your rocket right from Launch with a perfect timing, otherwise you will fail, to get into Orbit or flip your rocket over while correcting your trajectory.

Little off-topic, a little bit not; everyone says this and I still launch rockets the same way that I used to (straight up, start gravity turn at 10km, end at 20km) without issues. Am I doing it right or wrong?

Edited January 5, 2016 by spink00
"without issues"

[r_rolo1]

1 minute ago, spink00 said:

Little off-topic, a little bit not; everyone says this and I still launch rockets the same way that I used to (straight up, start gravity turn at 10km, end at 20km) without issues. Am I doing it right or wrong?

Well, that only means that you always launched rockets with little drag in top compared with the bottom and that you're not going through the sound barrier at 10km. Otherwise your rockets would flip at the sudden 45º change of direction.

ANd it is not a matter of doing things right or worng. You're just being wasteful ( but that was never a sin regarding playing KSP ) and forcing yourself to more work than you need to ( a well tuned rocket in post 1.0 will do the gravity turn by itself, without the need of much user input ).

[Motokid600]

On 1/2/2016 at 0:43 PM, Gaarst said:

Not only I like the new aero model a lot more than the Souposphere; but I would like the game to go even further: I want to see my rocket being ripped off by aerodynamic forces as soon as it goes off course.

Of course this is never going to happen: getting a rocket to orbit would be a nightmare for beginners (and experienced players as well) but it could be a nice idea for a mod.

So yeah, forget about the Souposphere: it's not coming back.

FAR does just that. If your transonic and you flip over your craft becomes a yard sale. It's glorious. Makes failure much more entertaining. Especially with DestructionFX.

[Gaarst]

13 minutes ago, Motokid600 said:

FAR does just that. If your transonic and you flip over your craft becomes a yard sale. It's glorious. Makes failure much more entertaining. Especially with DestructionFX.

Does it ?

I did try FAR some time ago, but I think I was expecting too much of it and was a bit disappointed with the results.

I will give it another try though.

[Motokid600]

38 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

Does it ?

I did try FAR some time ago, but I think I was expecting too much of it and was a bit disappointed with the results.

I will give it another try though.

It's still more forgiving then real life that's certain. But yes with FAR any flip overs at mach punish the player with an RUD. How long ago did you try FAR? Because it's completely different now.

[Hodo]

On 1/2/2016 at 1:05 AM, MalfunctionM1Ke said:

Hi Guys,

I just go ahead and bluntly ask here to bring back the old Aerodynamics model as an alternative option.
In my unholy oppinion, getting completely rid of the old Model that everyone was used to was a very bad choice.
But here is the thing:

NOT because I am unable to adapt to the new Model or I find it too hard. Actually, I really like it.
BUT because I think it is too frustrating for new Players/Beginners/Kids/Students that are not used to the game and only want to Launch rockets in a casual way.

I am raising this question because I got worried. KSP had a great reputation as a game that made it to the classroom.
The only thing you really had to worry about was, that you tilt your rocket sideways at 10km for 45°.
Today you have to constantly turn your rocket right from Launch with a perfect timing, otherwise you will fail, to get into Orbit or flip your rocket over while correcting your trajectory.
Dont go supersonic while you are still in the thicker parts in the atmosphere and so on.

This isn't me griefing about the new aero-model.
This is me being worried that Kerbal Space Program might lose some of it's inspirational power.

I am aware that there are lots of sliders in the debug menu but let's be serious: New Players, Kids or students dont want to fiddle around with sliders right from the start, not to mention if they would even find them.
How about an Option when you start a new career asking for an easy Atmospheric Model or an advanced Version.

I am curious If I am all alone with this.
 

 

I find this perhaps one of the more comical requests in a while.  The current model while different from the previous one is easier to understand.   As it is much closer to real life than the previous soup'o'sphere model.   It isnt nearly as complex as FAR, which is quite easy, or as exploitable as the previous version.

[Sovek]

I can attest to what Moto is saying, I've had more than my fair share of rockets that started to veer and flip and supersonic speeds instantly turn into a bunch of little parts floating around.

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

42 minutes ago, Hodo said:

I find this perhaps one of the more comical requests in a while.  The current model while different from the previous one is easier to understand.   As it is much closer to real life than the previous soup'o'sphere model.   It isnt nearly as complex as FAR, which is quite easy, or as exploitable as the previous version.

My Intention to post this was NOT about how easy it is to understand the System, but the degree of forgiveness it offers especially for new Players, while the current one is very unforgiving.
Yes, the old System is unrealistic.
Yes, it makes no sense to learn an unrealistic System.
But there are some Players out there that dont care about realism and just want to launch rockets in the olf fashioned way.

I asked one of the Squad-Team a fair while ago in a QA if they would keep the old aerodynamics model if they ever would introduce a new Model and he agreed, to keep it as an option.
Well they did not.

Edited January 5, 2016 by MalfunctionM1Ke

[MKI]

When was KSP suppose to be easy?

The best lessons are learned when you fail. If you require to much skill to get your rocket into orbit, and can't handle it during launch redesign it.

[Alshain]

If new players get accustomed to the old "aerodynamics" that will set them behind not make it easier.  It's a bad system, not a beginner system.  They are better off starting with realistic aerodynamics and learning the correct way the first time.  The only people that would benefit from the old aerodynamics are the existing players who have used it before, and they need to adapt.