Gaarst Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 1 hour ago, Motokid600 said: 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. I don't remember exactly, it was at the time I started playing RSS so somewhere after 1.0. Thank you for your advice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovek Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 18 minutes ago, MalfunctionM1Ke said: 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. It sounds to me like you are one of those players. Look, I get what you're saying but come on, thats like saying War Thunder needs to adopt more "forgiving" physics for players who keep getting their butt handed to them. No. If you can't figure out the mechanics of the game, perhaps its not the game for you. This is rocket science, literally. Some people just arn't cut out for playing this game. And it kinda cheapens the experience if you have to go into options and set an "easy aerodynamics" option just in order to get into orbit. THEN you have a barrier between players who play on the current model vs the old model. Imagine if someone posted a "I finally got into orbit" thread, and most of us are playing on the current or FAR model, but this OP isn't. I can see it now "Now, go do it on the 'realistic' setting". It's bad enough we coddle people in schools (and life for that matter), but coddling someone does not help that person, it hurts them even further. Now you want to coddle people who can't hack it in a game. Sorry, but no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MalfunctionM1Ke Posted January 5, 2016 Author Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Sovek said: It sounds to me like you are one of those Players. No, I am not. I am just concerned. But thank you for pretending something that you dont know. 1 hour ago, Sovek said: This is rocket science, literally. Some people just arn't cut out for playing this game. And it kinda cheapens the experience if you have to go into options and set an "easy aerodynamics" option just in order to get into orbit. THEN you have a barrier between players who play on the current model vs the old model. Imagine if someone posted a "I finally got into orbit" thread, and most of us are playing on the current or FAR model, but this OP isn't. I can see it now "Now, go do it on the 'realistic' setting". It's bad enough we coddle people in schools (and life for that matter), but coddling someone does not help that person, it hurts them even further. Now you want to coddle people who can't hack it in a game. Sorry, but no. No, this is not Rocket Science. Kerbal Space Program is a game. It was often stated by Squad, that Fun has to come before realism, so your point is invalid. I dont want to start a fight here and I dont get it why some people are so easy to set off about this topic. Neither do I want to take the new Aerodynamics away from anyone. Why dont you want to have People playing with different aerodynamics? It was perfectly fine with the old model while some people were playing with FAR. Edited January 5, 2016 by MalfunctionM1Ke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r_rolo1 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Well, let me adress a couple of the points you brought: -First of all, KSP in not just a game. It is also the basis of a educational plataform called KerbalEDU, that ,among other things, is aimed to provide a space for virtual experiments that has a realisitic enough set of physics laws. Having two sets of physical laws would clash against that -Second, about the realistic vs fun: even assuming that Fun is more important than realism, tell me: exactly how the pre-1.0 atmo was any more Fun than the current one? TBH I can see both being pretty much equal and even better for the side of the post 1.0, where planes can actually pass Mach 1. If you're holding to the "up to 10 Km straight, then 45º" rule, well, I can't see that being any more fun ( or easier ) than a rocket that can actually turn by itself without input -Third, the 0.90 FAR situation was completely diferent. The pre 1.0 atmo was always a admitted placeholder, something that the devs always vowed to fix sometime in the future. Ferram just chimed in and made a atmo mod to fill in in between ( that he kept developing after 1.0 because he feels that the devs job was not as perfect as he thought it could be ). Regardless of the merits of your proposal, having a better atmo mod filling in while the promised better stock atmo didn't came out is a completely diferent turkey of having two sets of atmo laws given by the game ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 @MalfunctionM1Ke: Nobody's lying. Go into the debug toolbar and turn on "use spherical model" and you'll get the old behavior back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MalfunctionM1Ke Posted January 6, 2016 Author Share Posted January 6, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, NathanKell said: @MalfunctionM1Ke: Nobody's lying. Go into the debug toolbar and turn on "use spherical model" and you'll get the old behavior back. If that is your solution, I am fine with it. But it is still buried in the debug menu that you can only bring up with a combination of controls that hardly any new player knows about. When did I accuse someone of lying? Edited January 6, 2016 by MalfunctionM1Ke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regex Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 This is a terrible idea. The old "aerodynamics" weren't intuitive at all, hardly beginner-friendly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 By saying that a QA person promised you it'd be kept, and then it wasn't. I pointed out it was. If I overstated your position, my apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaos Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 I always hated the old atmosphere. I found it very counterintutive that a thin rocket does not gain any profit against a pancake. After my experiments told me, that this atmospheric model must be really stupid I searched the forum or wiki (do not remember which) until I found out, it was really so. This took, for me, a lot of fun out of the game. To make the aerodynamics more beginner friendly it would be a bad idea to revert to the old atmosphere, in my opinion. Even for player that do not care for realism, but for fun. Detecting that a craft turns against input commands and display a tooltip for why this happens would help much more, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MalfunctionM1Ke Posted January 6, 2016 Author Share Posted January 6, 2016 4 minutes ago, NathanKell said: By saying that a QA person promised you it'd be kept, and then it wasn't. I pointed out it was. If I overstated your position, my apologies. NOT A QA-Person. It was someone else but I dont want to rope anyone into this. I think it would be better if this thread gets locked and forgotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanamonde Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Thread closed by OPs request. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts