Feature or bug?

[BloodDusk]

Well, I mentioned this when I introduced myself and on one of the challenge posts.

This is done on stock game and works on any altitude up to about 92 Km. I didn't test all possible outcomes but, It works landing on water and land and, as long as your Kerbal's feet is facing down, it seems.

[sal_vager]

The question is, do you really want to lose this ability?

[FungusForge]

And here I thought I was bad at naming saves.

E: at any rate, this looks to on level with the ol' land on your head trick. Don't know if the land on your head trick actually works still.

Also its worth noting that no matter how you land, if you are in a mk1 command pod without a chute its safer to EVA the kerbal. Roll one off the VAB and the pod will explode, but walk a kerbal off the edge and he'll want to do it again.

Edited January 25, 2016 by FungusForge

[BloodDusk]

5 hours ago, sal_vager said:

The question is, do you really want to lose this ability?

When every other body affected by gravity does not exhibit this behavior, maybe? Maybe add parachutes instead, since the deceleration is almost the same?

[swjr-swis]

Kerbals are not made of delicate flesh and bone. They use high powered vehicles almost exclusively for the thrust needed to escape gravity wells, and as a convenient way to keep their snacks from burning up in reentry.

As Jeb once put it: "Hatches? We don't need no stinkin' hatches!"

[BloodDusk]

4 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

Kerbals are not made of delicate flesh and bone. They use high powered vehicles almost exclusively for the thrust needed to escape gravity wells, and as a convenient way to keep their snacks from burning up in reentry.

As Jeb once put it: "Hatches? We don't need no stinkin' hatches!"

Then explain how a Kerbal can slow down his own fall to 30 m/s?

[GreeningGalaxy]

I've been able to trigger this most reliably by firing the EVA pack against the fall just before impact. I can't tell if you did that here, but it always works in my game.

It does work on other planets, by the way, but don't expect to be able to come down at orbital speeds and live.

[worir4]

1 hour ago, BloodDusk said:

Then explain how a Kerbal can slow down his own fall to 30 m/s?

I guess the kerbals terminal velocity at sea level is lower than the kerbals impact tolerance. I thought that landing a kerbal on their helmet increased the chance of it surviving or perhaps that has changed in 1.0.5.

I think Sal_vager is right, quick hide this thread before the devs make kerbals easy to die. Is it not satisfying when a kerbal survivals against all odds?

[swjr-swis]

4 hours ago, BloodDusk said:

Then explain how a Kerbal can slow down his own fall to 30 m/s?

Mind over matter.

[BloodDusk]

Well, thanks for reminding me to not post any other bug reports in the future. Thankfully, it was on the first post I did in this section, so not much time was wasted on my part.

[nobodyhasthis2]

On 1/25/2016 at 9:24 PM, BloodDusk said:

Then explain how a Kerbal can slow down his own fall to 30 m/s?

What is the drag of Kerbal head on a midget body?

See link for explanation of question  to a question. I don't know but there is the wiggle room when p is not constant. Plus cross section is a variable ( but probably not in vanilla) in final calculation . As a result there is a world record for speed dives. I leave it to FAR users to do the hardcore testing here of variable geometry. 

On 1/26/2016 at 2:24 AM, swjr-swis said:

Mind over matter.

Or Kerbal head dynamics and pioneering spirit 

 

On 1/25/2016 at 10:40 AM, sal_vager said:

The question is, do you really want to lose this ability?

That is a horrible question and one best left for the Kerbal ethics committee 

Like fixing the landing on head bug. Which is just too funny to fix. I suspect this one goes under the "not ethical" to fix category.

All that said. Don't expect this to work every time. Fly safe.

Edited January 27, 2016 by nobodyhasthis2

[BloodDusk]

10 hours ago, nobodyhasthis2 said:

All that said. Don't expect this to work every time. Fly safe.

As long as your reentry speed is not that high, I can replicate that free fall from as high ~98Km and it works as prescribed. When I first started mucking with it, I tested various different heights, increasing the height little by little.

Edited January 27, 2016 by BloodDusk

[nobodyhasthis2]

13 minutes ago, BloodDusk said:

As long as your reentry speed is not that high, I can replicate that free fall from as high ~98Km and it works as prescribed. When I first started mucking with it, I tested various different heights, increasing the height little by little.

As long as your reentry speed is not that high is a condition your gambling on. Height does not matter. You top speed will reduce. P is not a constant. Based on that the simulation realistic? 

No but the basics are there. 

Could we do it better?

Yes, try it in FAR which has a much more realistic model than stock.

Can we fix it in stock?

No there will be moral outrage. Killing Kerbals is yucky. 

 

 

[BloodDusk]

2 hours ago, nobodyhasthis2 said:

As long as your reentry speed is not that high is a condition your gambling on. Height does not matter. You top speed will reduce. P is not a constant. Based on that the simulation realistic? 

No but the basics are there. 

Could we do it better?

Yes, try it in FAR which has a much more realistic model than stock.

Can we fix it in stock?

No there will be moral outrage. Killing Kerbals is yucky. 

 

 

So, killing Kerbals is okay as long as you can't see them becoming a puff of smoke. Since when KSP become a SWJ game? Keeping this makes as much sense as justifying keeping the stowing mechanic mentioning elsewhere to keep people from making mistakes. Kerbals have been dying from 10+ versions now. Why change it?

Adding FAR doesn't count as a valid test variation, because mods can change game mechanics.

Edited January 28, 2016 by BloodDusk

[nobodyhasthis2]

1 hour ago, BloodDusk said:

So, killing Kerbals is okay as long as you can't see them becoming a puff of smoke. Since when KSP become a SWJ game? Keeping this makes as much sense as justifying keeping the stowing mechanic mentioning elsewhere to keep people from making mistakes. Kerbals have been dying from 10+ versions now. Why change it?

Adding FAR doesn't count as a valid test variation, because mods can change game mechanics.

Kerbal have been bouncing on their heads for longer. Why change it?

Adding FAR does count as a valid test variation, because of the way it changes game mechanics. I am also surprised you have not mentioned a mun variation. Which would isolate the bug your trying to prove very quickly in vanilla. If it does not then your back to a feature. 

I am explaining the circumstances of possible intended effects. However I can't say if the bouncing Kerbals are good or bad. It just is what it is. Perhaps @sal_vager can jog my memory on the history of the bouncing Kerbal and if this got factored into the new aerodynamics model.  I think that will clear up the fuzziness of feature or bug.  

 

[BloodDusk]

12 hours ago, nobodyhasthis2 said:

Kerbal have been bouncing on their heads for longer. Why change it?

Adding FAR does count as a valid test variation, because of the way it changes game mechanics. I am also surprised you have not mentioned a mun variation. Which would isolate the bug your trying to prove very quickly in vanilla. If it does not then your back to a feature. 

I am explaining the circumstances of possible intended effects. However I can't say if the bouncing Kerbals are good or bad. It just is what it is. Perhaps @sal_vager can jog my memory on the history of the bouncing Kerbal and if this got factored into the new aerodynamics model.  I think that will clear up the fuzziness of feature or bug.  

 

Why it shouldn't be changed?

It doesn't for purposes of this forum. Adding FAR will qualify the game as non-stock.

They're bad. Much like some new mechanics recently introduced to keep people from making mistakes (i.e. 'Cannot activate engine while stowed'). And, if something like that has existed for several versions already, I don't think a new aerodynamics model will solve it. Cause, this feels like a lackluster solution to not include Kerbal parachutes in the game.

[nobodyhasthis2]

47 minutes ago, BloodDusk said:

Why it shouldn't be changed?

It doesn't for purposes of this forum. 

Agreed so point in going on about it is moot. As any talk of a completely different new feature. So that leaves the original question. Feature or bug?

48 minutes ago, BloodDusk said:

Adding FAR will qualify the game as non-stock.

Yes but it does change the conditions and will show the margin of error and possibly the intent of the model. It does not solve the perceived problem but it can illustrate it. As would using the mun. As the aerodynamics are changed or eliminated.

So if your Kerbal still slows down to 30m/s regardless of the aerodynamics simulation. It can show there is clearly a problem.

If the terminal velocity is vastly different but the Kerbal still does not die. It can show there is clearly a problem.

That might clarify feature or bug. 

1 hour ago, BloodDusk said:

I don't think a new aerodynamics model will solve it. Cause, this feels like a lackluster solution to not include Kerbal parachutes in the game.

This is not a proposed solution to Kerbal parachutes. It a consequence of low terminal velocity vs kill speed. Or a bug. Nether of which has yet been conclusively proved.  

Beyond that can't help or speculate on good/bad game mechanics. All I am trying to do here is clarify a methodology to answer the question. Feature or bug?

[BloodDusk]

2 hours ago, nobodyhasthis2 said:

Agreed so point in going on about it is moot. As any talk of a completely different new feature. So that leaves the original question. Feature or bug?

Yes but it does change the conditions and will show the margin of error and possibly the intent of the model. It does not solve the perceived problem but it can illustrate it. As would using the mun. As the aerodynamics are changed or eliminated.

So if your Kerbal still slows down to 30m/s regardless of the aerodynamics simulation. It can show there is clearly a problem.

If the terminal velocity is vastly different but the Kerbal still does not die. It can show there is clearly a problem.

That might clarify feature or bug. 

This is not a proposed solution to Kerbal parachutes. It a consequence of low terminal velocity vs kill speed. Or a bug. Nether of which has yet been conclusively proved.  

Beyond that can't help or speculate on good/bad game mechanics. All I am trying to do here is clarify a methodology to answer the question. Feature or bug?

The main issue with trying to reproduce these things in said gaming conditions is that is not possible to change the one thing being changed whilst testing without relying on tools like Hyper Edit to keep the conditions exact. You could save, However, some mods can break saved games if the save was made before said mod was installed.

But sure. I can test that.

[Plusck]

33 minutes ago, BloodDusk said:

The main issue with trying to reproduce these things in said gaming conditions is that is not possible to change the one thing being changed whilst testing without relying on tools like Hyper Edit to keep the conditions exact. You could save, However, some mods can break saved games if the save was made before said mod was installed.

But sure. I can test that.

I don't think the conditions need to be all that exact.

From your vid, it seems to me that terminal velocity of a Kerbal is about 43 m/s at sea level. That is very low, but it is not all that surprising given the huge helmet. If that is the case, tweaking the atmosphere will change terminal velocity and either kill the Kerbal or not.

I tried to search but haven't found an answer to what velocity impact will kill a Kerbal. Most I've ever impacted something was about 30m/s face on, and the Kerbal survived (but took a long, long time to wake up).

However, since it looks like a terminal velocity thing then changing the starting altitude will only make a marginal difference to the final speed once you get above a certain height (which I would guess to be about 10-15 km, i.e. high enough to accelerate to significantly more than 50 m/s before hitting the dense lower atmosphere).

[Ehco Corrallo]

I've always thought of this as a useful bug. It's a good alternative to personal parachutes. And though I've used it on a number of occasions to save lives, I've never managed to save more than one Kerbal. 

This won't work with a high horizontal velocity I've noticed (by throwing Kerbals from aircraft in an attempt to eject them). 

Mostly I think this is a fun thing, and similar to Kerbals surviving for an indefinite amount of time in a command pod the size of a phone booth while they orbit endlessly. Maybe it isn't the most realistic thing, but it makes Kerbals seem different and weird and BadS. 

Edited January 31, 2016 by Ehco Corrallo

[sal_vager]

So I did some testing, and asked around, and this is what I found.

 

Kerbals are very, very light for their size, at 1 metre tall (plus helmet) they mass a tiny 0.09 tons, also, their EVA propellant has no mass at all.

Kerbals are draggy, they are a complex shape and their drag value reflects this.

Kerbals have a high impact tolerance, this is deliberate so they can be thrown around a lot and survive.

 

Dropping any object straight down from 80 or 90 km on Kerbin is about the gentlest way anything can re-enter, you're minimizing the re-entry speed so you are avoiding re-entry heating (Kerbals will be cooked if you're too fast).

The air is thick enough at low altitude that a light, draggy object such as a Kerbal won't have much trouble slowing down.

And the speed of a Kerbal from orbit when they reach sea level is about what they can cope with impact wise (funnily enough Marty, it's about 88mph).

 

Add to this that the ragdoll state of a Kerbal can change their impact a bit, sometimes they will still poof on impact, but this adds to the Fun*, don't forget you can use the jetpack to slow you down a bit more if you're worried.

 

So with all that, I can say it's not a bug, but also don't rely on it as while 9 times out of 10 it will work, when you need it it'll be the time it doesn't.

Also avoid mountains...

 

 

*uncertainty.

[Waxing_Kibbous]

I think it's a fun feature- the game is not so much about killing Kerbals as it is about pulling stuff out of your #$@ constantly   I have bailed and lived on a couple of occasions and have never felt like I was cheating, I more or less get a kick out of it.

[BloodDusk]

After some testing. The Kerbals have to be standing up, otherwise, they die. If they land anywhere else other than on their feet, they die. FAR makes the Kerbals behave more like they should be, but increases the terminal velocity drastically, to the point that you can see aerodynamic effects on the Kerbal. How the Kerbal land doesn't make a difference on FAR. They die both ways.

[Hotaru]

Don't forget that speeds in meters per second are a little deceptive. 120 mi/hr is the usual figure for a (human) skydiver's terminal velocity, and that's equal to about 54 m/s, which is in the same ballpark as terminal velocity for a falling Kerbal. Even diving headfirst to go as fast as possible, a human skydiver can't get much over 150 m/s except by starting at extremely high altitude (e. g. Kittinger, Baumgartner, etc.). So I'd say stock aerodynamics are just about right on, and if FAR is increasing terminal velocity much more than that, then FAR is getting it wrong.

That said, 120 miles per hour is still really fast. I guess a human might survive an impact that hard by a fluke one time in a million (there are recorded instances of people surviving extremely long falls from airplanes), but on the whole it really should be fatal 99.9% of the time. How this applies to Kerbals is a matter of opinion, obviously, but personally I don't see why they should be much different. My strong preference would be to see Kerbal impact tolerance reduced (possibly to something like 20-30 m/s, still a lot but more reasonable than 60+) and then give them stock parachutes. Bailing out of a rapidly disintegrating rocket and parachuting to safety seems like exactly the sort of thing Kerbals would do. 

 

Edited January 29, 2016 by Hotaru

[Ehco Corrallo]

Having a bail-out feature mapped to the Abort button would be awesome. 

That said, I've used this particular feature to fly Jeb down from a catastrophically failing rocket so that I could land him in one of the tracking station dishes, and it was just as awesome as a bail-out button.