Concerned about KSP2 aerodynamics

[Vl3d]

1 hour ago, GoldForest said:

You mean you don't just 100% throttle all the way and punch through max-Q and hope mechjeb can handle it?

We're talking about two different things. Maximum dynamic pressure is missing or very small compared to the materials compression strength in stock KSP. This is a place for improvement. We should have an accordion failure animation.

2 hours ago, The Aziz said:

but steer off the prograde when the drag is the strongest and you're not going to space today

Most of the time you're going 1000m/s sideways and then you straighten it and make orbit. It's very weird, I don't like it.

Edited November 21, 2022 by Vl3d

[The Aziz]

2 hours ago, GoldForest said:

You mean you don't just 100% throttle all the way and punch through max-Q and hope mechjeb can handle it? 

Mechjeb can't handle my rockets. I used it for launch maybe twice, saw how bad it was and never used it for that task again. Anything with atmosphere and MJ fails miserably.

[ZAJC3W]

I never liked stock aero, it's rubbish and defies logic. I never manage a successful aero flight with my own ship design.

FAR or bust. If ksp aero will follow KSP logic(or rather lack of it) it won't fly for me. I'll pause purchase untill FAR2 comes out.

[Doc]

On 10/31/2022 at 6:38 PM, Bej Kerman said:

Perceived problem: the game is too realistic

ACTUAL problem: no digestible information on troubleshooting designs

No, its that the more information you require to get started, the less likely you are to actually start. 

FAR is great. I don't really like planes that much anyways, so FARs effect on my play wasn't so huge. 

But. FAR is not easy. Its hard. Especially if you are coming in to the game cold.

So if you are going to to implement something like FAR as stock, you really need to think about how you are going to provide the 'right' information so that you can build a flyable craft without doing part of an Aerospace engineering degree.

If you are using FAR to design airplanes in KSP and discussing on the forum, you are probably in the top 1% of craft designers who have the game. What is stone cold *easy* for you is borderline impossible for alot of people who love and play the game.

The ideal game still challenges you, but is accessible to new, young, or inexperienced players.

There is probably a happy medium between what you want (full FAR) and stock what mechanics.

As a rule, I think the devs should be going for a model where if it looks 'about right' and obeys a few very simple rules, the craft will be flyable without too much work. 

I have no problem with a 'well designed' craft flying better, but a 10yr olds first plane should be flyable.

What they need to avoid is obvious inconsistencies, like boosters (because of the way their drag is handled) being magic stabilizers, and other things like that.

Rather that focusing on the most realistic aero model, I hope they're working on the most consistent model.

 

[Bej Kerman]

15 hours ago, KSACheese said:

18 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

KSP 2 shouldn't shy away from showing players the reality of designing an aircraft.

It's not about shying away from teaching them, it's inviting them. Motivation is a huge factor in someone's willingness to learn. If they find they like flying planes, they can find a way to fly them more realistically. But a player shouldn't be frustrated to a point where they have no interest in learning further, and I believe some percentage of the newcomers would by an aero model that's not appropriately designed to introduce them to the concepts.

That's a tutorial problem, not an aero problem.

13 hours ago, Master39 said:

On 11/18/2022 at 11:59 AM, joratto said:

For example, you should not have to worry about the lift/drag of a part that's deep inside a fairing or otherwise visually covered up. There have been many occasions where I built something that SHOULD work in real life, but fails in ksp because some tiny, invisible, uncapped fuel tank was generating 10x more drag than the rest of my craft. You would expect those parts not to affect your aerodynamics at all, and it can cause great headaches to try to identify what unrealistic gameplay "feature" is responsible for flipping your SSTOs. That doesn't teach you anything except how to exploit the game.

This is 100% in the realm of bugs, not realism of the aero model.

Hm.

On 10/30/2022 at 1:42 PM, Master39 said:

FAR is a bad target for a game because is pure realism without any consideration for gameplay. KSP2 should aim for a better model than what is stock now, but still something way more forgiving than FAR while also keeping in mind that they're erasing a decade of intuition in building planes in KSP while changing model and that requires a ton of in-game tutorials and explanation to get people up to speed as fast as possible on the differences.

This is in the realm of tutorials, not the realism of the aero model.

Can't have it both ways ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[SciMan]

There's at least as much "weird undocumented behavior" with the KSP 1 stock aerodynamics as there is "hey why didn't you watch this youtube tutorial" stuff about FAR.

Neither is good enough to put in KSP 2.

What is needed for the stock aerodynamic system to be useful in KSP 2 is for the game to basically entirely remove the concept of "it's either in the fairing or cargo bay, or it's not" mechanic.

Instead, it should figure out if something's inside another part (any kind of part), and calculate based on what % of that part is outside. (if it is entirely contained, no aerodynamic forces or heating is applied).

This eliminates the ambiguity of "why is this part saying "Can't deploy when shielded" when it's on the outside of the cargo bay" as well as "why is this fairing not protecting the things inside it even tho it's sealed tight to the part above it".

And those two problems are the biggest problems I have with stock aerodynamics.

[Bej Kerman]

2 hours ago, SciMan said:

There's at least as much "weird undocumented behavior" with the KSP 1 stock aerodynamics as there is "hey why didn't you watch this youtube tutorial" stuff about FAR.

Neither is good enough to put in KSP 2.

FAR has just as much "hey why didn't you watch this youtube tutorial" stuff as basic orbital mechanics, a pillar of KSP. We are getting better tutorials anyway, might as well make aero as good, if not better, than FAR.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

On 10/30/2022 at 2:42 PM, Master39 said:

FAR is a bad target for a game because is pure realism without any consideration for gameplay. KSP2 should aim for a better model than what is stock now, but still something way more forgiving than FAR while also keeping in mind that they're erasing a decade of intuition in building planes in KSP while changing model and that requires a ton of in-game tutorials and explanation to get people up to speed as fast as possible on the differences.

This is in the realm of tutorials

You may want to read what you're quoting, I've underlined the important part for you.

[Bej Kerman]

5 minutes ago, Master39 said:

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

On 10/30/2022 at 1:42 PM, Master39 said:

FAR is a bad target for a game because is pure realism without any consideration for gameplay. KSP2 should aim for a better model than what is stock now, but still something way more forgiving than FAR while also keeping in mind that they're erasing a decade of intuition in building planes in KSP while changing model and that requires a ton of in-game tutorials and explanation to get people up to speed as fast as possible on the differences.

This is in the realm of tutorials

You may want to read what you're quoting, I've underlined the important part for you.

And the context is important. I deduce a large amount of this stems from the fear of "pure [inconsiderate towards gameplay] realism" being hard to grasp, which it wouldn't be if the tutorials were done well enough (and with good tutorials we can bar the 'no consideration for gameplay' part ).

[KSACheese]

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

That's a tutorial problem, not an aero problem.

The KSP2 team is already trying to make tutorials simple and as baseline as possible. A tutorial that needs to explain a multitude of complex aerodynamic characteristics would be quite counter to that, I think. The only way to have simple, accessible tutorials, you need a simple, accessible game.

Plus, I think it's fair to say one major goal of the KSP2 team is to open the KSP community to a new audience and getting them interested and excited. As much as I understand why some like playing in advanced, it shouldn't be the default. If you make the skill curve too steep, you can drive a portion of your audience away. It is something that should scare KSP2, since that goes against what they are really trying to do. Not to mention, from a wholly economic point of view, making a game frustrating to play or too boring to learn would definitely not inspire increased sales.

[Bej Kerman]

8 minutes ago, KSACheese said:

4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

That's a tutorial problem, not an aero problem.

The KSP2 team is already trying to make tutorials simple and as baseline as possible. A tutorial that needs to explain a multitude of complex aerodynamic characteristics would be quite counter to that, I think.

They're already making tutorials on a multitude of complex concepts, orbital mechanics. Aerodynamics would not be that far off.

9 minutes ago, KSACheese said:

The only way to have simple, accessible tutorials, you need a simple, accessible game.

 

To go back to a previous point, I'm sure if we were getting orbital physics after spending 10 years becoming accustomed to aero physics (as opposed to vice versa), we'd be chanting "simplify orbital mechanics to Star Wars levels of simplicity" rather than instead accepting two-body physics and putting out a demand for tutorials that can explain orbital physics.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

And the context is important. I deduce a large amount of this stems from the fear of "pure [inconsiderate towards gameplay] realism" being hard to grasp, which it wouldn't be if the tutorials were done well enough (and with good tutorials we can bar the 'no consideration for gameplay' part ).

You're making the assumption that "realism = gameplay = difficulty", which is simply wrong.

There are realistic elements that make good gameplay loops, others that restrict creativity, others again that aren't even that difficult, just counterintuitive or annoying to deal with. Pushing for realism for the sake of realism is not a good recipe to have an enjoyable game.

 

While I may agree that making a grand piano fly is not something the game should be designed around, the game should still keep in mind the intended gameplay when implementing the simulation aspects. It's a game about players creating their own vehicles and improving their design with trial and error. The simulation should absolutely leave all the wiggle room needed to allow for that kind of gameplay and creativity.

BTW:

On 10/30/2022 at 2:42 PM, Master39 said:

but I want a more realistic approach.

On 10/30/2022 at 6:41 PM, Master39 said:

I'm in favor of a better model.

On 10/31/2022 at 9:08 AM, Master39 said:

I think that while a more realistic approach would improve the game

Just to reiterate, I want a better aero model.

I want a better aero model with all those interesting effects now missing from KSP1.

I want a better aero model that challenges me to design better crafts.

But still, I want an aero model that allows the player to experiment and mess around with different shapes and ideas.

In the same way the reduced scale of the game allows players to play more with different designs of rockets and spaceplanes while still keeping the physics relatively realistic (for a game) and skipping on some annoyances (like orbital decay) or things that may be too difficult for the average player (like N-Body physics).

[Bej Kerman]

16 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Just to reiterate, I want a better aero model.

I want a better aero model with all those interesting effects now missing from KSP1.

I want a better aero model that challenges me to design better crafts.

But still, I want an aero model that allows the player to experiment and mess around with different shapes and ideas.

Can't have it both ways - loosening the aero model to allow for "different shapes and ideas" will inevitably loop us back to the flying piano conundrum.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Can't have it both ways - loosening the aero model to allow for "different shapes and ideas" will inevitably loop us back to the flying piano conundrum.

The same way the orbital mechanics are either "No Man's Sky" or "Principia+ RSS", right?

Clearly anyone that doesn't want to deal with a full scale solar system or decaying orbits just wants the NMS flight model, right?

No? Well same thing applies here.

 

8 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

loosening the aero model t

It's fun that the more I write that I want a better aero model the more you reply like as if I was stating the opposite.

Are you scared of compromises? Is that the reason you're ignoring all the subtleties of this argument?

 

 

[t_v]

13 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

will inevitably loop us back to the flying piano conundrum.

Sorry, what conundrum? Is your purpose here to create a fun, difficult yet engaging system that is consistent and doesn’t mislead people about how aerodynamics works? Or just to restrict things until wacky ideas are quashed and peoples’ planes look only like those that have been successfully sold to militaries or companies? I see no problems with flying pianos or any other silly flying thing for that matter, if the aerodynamic system is consistent and intuitive and therefore good to play. 

Or are you maybe linking the restrictiveness of a system to its accuracy? First off, that would be a bad link to make, and second, if you are hoping that FAR gets rid of those pesky piano-flyers…

On 11/15/2022 at 2:00 PM, LHACK4142 said:

Also you can build and fly grand pianos in FAR.

FAR, and maybe even reality, might not be “realistic” enough. 

[BowlerHatGuy3]

Hey guys, I have an idea. How ‘bout we have the aerodynamics as a difficulty setting? People can still have their flying grand pianos, but people that want a more realistic experience can do that.

[The Aziz]

That requires implementing two different physics models, it's not an ON/OFF button, ain't gonna happen.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, t_v said:

maybe even reality, might not be “realistic” enough. 

https://youtu.be/pigqs1UGneI

[BowlerHatGuy3]

3 hours ago, The Aziz said:

That requires implementing two different physics models, it's not an ON/OFF button, ain't gonna happen.

They already have a aero model in the game as we speak. If a couple of mod devs can make an advanced aero model and even a Kerbin wide weather sim, I don’t see why Intercept couldn’t do it. Would it be easy? No, but it’s absolutely possible.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, BowlerHatGuy3 said:

I don’t see why Intercept couldn’t do it.

Because it's terrible practice and lazy game design.

 

[mcwaffles2003]

On 11/15/2022 at 5:22 AM, Master39 said:

If it's not fully explained in game it shouldn't be in the game extends to everything. Orbital mechanics and landing included.

The era of games that needed 50 tabs of tutorials opened in the browser ended 7-8 years ago and it should have never been a thing in the first place.

Not giving the player the needed information to play the game is not a matter of difficulty curve,  it's a failure in game design.

That's why tutorials and gameplay are more important than the simulation. This is not DCS, studying manual shouldn't be a requirement to play the game.

I feel like you're putting a lot of expectations on something like FAR but not applying the same towards the current drag cube model. I feel like making a tutorial explaining the basics of aero dynamics would get just as convoluted as tutorials describing the drag cube model while still allowing intuition to take place.

Also, to what degree does the player need the game mechanics spelled out for them? The tone of your post leads me to feel you imply just about everything, which comes off a a bit much to me. Finally, I don't think FAR is nearly as oppressive as you make it out to be. If you make something that looks like a plane, it will typically fly like a plane.

Edited November 22, 2022 by mcwaffles2003

[The Aziz]

2 hours ago, BowlerHatGuy3 said:

They already have a aero model in the game as we speak. If a couple of mod devs can make an advanced aero model and even a Kerbin wide weather sim, I don’t see why Intercept couldn’t do it. Would it be easy? No, but it’s absolutely possible.

Because it's a business and spending additional workman hours on basically the same thing but in a different way will not increase profits.

[shdwlrd]

2 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Because it's a business and spending additional workman hours on basically the same thing but in a different way will not increase profits.

Unless it's an ERP solution. ERP providers will make a profit no matter how many different ways they include to enter an order.

Obviously KSP isn't ERP software. I wouldn't expect that.

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I feel like you're putting a lot of expectations on something like FAR but not applying the same towards the current drag cube model. I feel like making a tutorial explaining the basics of aero dynamics would get just as convoluted as tutorials describing the drag cube model while still allowing intuition to take place.

Everything should be explained in a tutorial, things that change from KSP1 doubly so.

Especially things that change and especially now given they've chosen to release in early access.

If they make undocumented and unexplained changes the only result will be outrage covering all the useful feedback.

 

43 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Also, to what degree does the player need the game mechanics spelled out for them? The tone of your post leads me to feel you imply just about everything, which comes off a a bit much to me.

It depends, if a game mechanic is designed for gameplay and subservient to it then trial and error and having to figure things out can very much be part of the gameplay.

If something is instead designed for maximum realism for the sake of realism or because of some misguided educational purpose of the game, then said education must be in the game itself.

 

46 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Finally, I don't think FAR is nearly as oppressive as you make it out to be. If you make something that looks like a plane, it will typically fly like a plane.

The extreme proposed here is.

There's plenty of things you may tune to make the flight model as forgiving, if not even more, compared to current stock, but that's not what people are arguing for here.

[Regor]

On 10/29/2022 at 11:45 AM, Bej Kerman said:

I honestly can't see any conceivable reason Intercept wouldn't want to go as realistic as possible here.

Because it's more difficult to make a real plane fly than a grand piano, and some people just don't want to spend ages making sure their plane flies properly/doesn't turn too fast, etc. Maybe as a save option, it'd make sense, but I personally really hope they don't make it so that it's too hard to wrap my head around

Edited November 22, 2022 by Regor