Concerned about KSP2 aerodynamics

[Bej Kerman]

41 minutes ago, Regor said:

On 10/29/2022 at 9:45 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

We can apply that logic to orbital mechanics and say it should be removed because some people don't want to spend ages designing, testing, crashing and redesigning rockets so they work. But that's the core gameplay loop of KSP, you can't just simplify things so you don't have to spend as long in the gameplay loop.

[KSACheese]

13 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

We can apply that logic to orbital mechanics and say it should be removed because some people don't want to spend ages designing, testing, crashing and redesigning rockets so they work. But that's the core gameplay loop of KSP, you can't just simplify things so you don't have to spend as long in the gameplay loop.

Orbital mechanics and aerodynamics are already part of a successful gameplay loop in KSP1. As I have discussed at length, I believe that an advanced aerodynamics model will be harmful to the success of KSP2's gameplay loop and overall success among new players. Really, we're not arguing for the "simplification" of anything, rather to keep the physics in the game simple enough to be enjoyable, while still satisfying.

[Bej Kerman]

35 minutes ago, KSACheese said:

Orbital mechanics and aerodynamics are already part of a successful gameplay loop in KSP1. As I have discussed at length, I believe that an advanced aerodynamics model will be harmful to the success of KSP2's gameplay loop and overall success among new players. Really, we're not arguing for the "simplification" of anything, rather to keep the physics in the game simple enough to be enjoyable, while still satisfying.

Same difference

[BowlerHatGuy3]

2 hours 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.

Software companies literally do that all the time. Bug fixes, rebalancing, code rewrites, free updates and just complete reworks don’t increase profits but really aren’t new in the tech industry. We’re gonna be seeing this a lot in KSP2, especially during early access, so I don’t really understand why they couldn’t add it. If anything, wouldn’t it attract people from the hardcore sim community?

[mikegarrison]

This is as bad as the endless "is Mechjeb cheating" discussions. I am seeing a lot of people here arguing that the way they want to play the game is the only right way, and anything else is "bad game design".

There really is a simple solution -- just have a button in the settings for "more realistic aerodyamic forces". Just like right now you can turn off the whole radio system, or turn off re-entry heating.

Edited November 23, 2022 by mikegarrison

[BowlerHatGuy3]

50 minutes ago, KSACheese said:

keep the physics in the game simple enough to be enjoyable, while still satisfying.

This is kinda my ideal aero. People can still build their weird, goofy ahh creations but more experienced and in depth players can have much more challenges, like making a hypersonic plane where you actually have to account for the heat and shape of the craft.

3 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

This is as bad as the endless "is Mechjeb cheating" discussions. I am seeing a lot of people here arguing that the way they want to play the game is the only right way, and anything else is "bad game design".

There really is a simple solution -- just have a button in the settings for "more realistic aerodyamic forces". Just like right now you can turn off the whole radio system, or turn off re-entry heating.

Exactly man!

[KSACheese]

1 hour ago, BowlerHatGuy3 said:

This is kinda my ideal aero. People can still build their weird, goofy ahh creations but more experienced and in depth players can have much more challenges, like making a hypersonic plane where you actually have to account for the heat and shape of the craft.

This is also exactly what I'd like. Having a balance of realism and just outright goofiness is definitely what I'm looking for.

[The Aziz]

5 hours ago, BowlerHatGuy3 said:

Software companies literally do that all the time. Bug fixes, rebalancing, code rewrites, free updates and just complete reworks don’t increase profits but really aren’t new in the tech industry. We’re gonna be seeing this a lot in KSP2, especially during early access, so I don’t really understand why they couldn’t add it. If anything, wouldn’t it attract people from the hardcore sim community?

Tell that to Take Two who's been pouring money into the project for 5 years and still haven't seen a penny of profit from it. Yeah sure they probably would be very pleased to hear from PD that they're working on a [something that's already in the game in some form] and that is going to please only a fraction of potential players.

Because that hardcore sim community a) already have hardcore sims, and b) would keep asking why there isn't RSS in the game, or N-body or... All as "options".

Speaking of which..

5 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

There really is a simple solution -- just have a button in the settings for "more realistic aerodyamic forces". Just like right now you can turn off the whole radio system, or turn off re-entry heating.

Like I said before. It's not simple in any way, it's not an off switch, it's a complete rewrite and rebalancing of a crucial mechanic. Plus it's a rewrite, probably quite chunky piece of code, that has to go along, inactive, with all the recalls and the rest of the game even if you never use it.

[Bej Kerman]

4 hours ago, KSACheese said:

This is also exactly what I'd like. Having a balance of realism and just outright goofiness is definitely what I'm looking for.

KSP 2 is supposed to be slaughtering what made KSP goofy. The grindy science, buggy mechanics, and the terrible aero model, in pursuit of a game that feels solid.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

This is as bad as the endless "is Mechjeb cheating" discussions

Like any discussion based on a mod the problem lies in people refusing to even entertain the idea that the the way the mod works is not the only way of doing something.

A more realistic model doesn't have to be as harsh or as unforgiving as FAR.

Just saying, you can all continue with the false dichotomy between FAR and nothing if you want, and in 5 or 6 pages the argument won't have moved at all.

[mikegarrison]

Just now, Master39 said:

A more realistic model doesn't have to be as harsh or as unforgiving as FAR.

I never found FAR to be "harsh". Stuff pretty much worked like it is supposed to work. It was a simplified version of real aerodynamics, but at least it wasn't a grossly wrong version of real aerodynamics. Stock KSP (especially early on) was fantastically grossly wrong at aero. Like aero forces were proportional to velocity rather than V^2, and the atmosphere was super-thick and draggy until about 10,000 meters and then might as well not have been there. Drag was complete nonsense (and still isn't great) because of their "drag cube" model.

I stopped using FAR because the updates got less and less frequent, and it was a little too prone to crashing KSP. Neither issue has to do with the aero model so much as with being a mod that some guy wrote for free and then later got bored with maintaining.

[The Aziz]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

KSP 2 is supposed to be slaughtering what made KSP goofy. The grindy science, buggy mechanics, and the terrible aero model, in pursuit of a game that feels solid.

Also, you call those what make the game goofy? I'm assuming you couldn't find a better word. The goofy part is the apparent randomness, explosions, crazy constructions, laughs, the Kerbals themselves. Take those away in favor of making everything strict and in order and you end up, for the lack of better phrase, very German. And after five pages of discussion you still can't find a middle ground, so as the saying goes... Only a Sith deals in absolutes. I will do what I must.

[MarcAbaddon]

I haven't played that much FAR since it feels like a pretty heavy mod and I don't fly enough planes in order to justify it, but I think some of the fundamentals in KSP 1 are ok including stability. But it's also pretty clear that the drag calculations should be a bit more accurate and that you shouldn't be able to clip parts in each other while still getting full lift and drag from both. Also detecting when a part is covered so that it should not produce drag would be nice. With procedural wings hopefully there is less motivation to clip parts into each other in the first place.

I am less fussed about adding more complex modeling to simulate the ground effect or similar details. Just take better account of actual wing shape and hidden parts and I am fine. Make it more intuitive, but not harder.

[Bej Kerman]

17 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Also, you call those what make the game goofy?

It seems to be what everyone else considers the goofy bits, not that I'd agree. I'd call the Kerbals and the engineering gameplay the things that makes it goofy, but I've seen all too much "KSP would lose something if the bugs [and aero] were all fixed".

[DA299]

11 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

It seems to be what everyone else considers the goofy bits, not that I'd agree. I'd call the Kerbals and the engineering gameplay the things that makes it goofy, but I've seen all too much "KSP would lose something if the bugs [and aero] were all fixed".

I don't understand why so many people here consider FAR to be so hard? I've been playing with it since I was 16, and I've never had an issue making anything fly. In fact, in some aspects its much easier than stock KSP.  Making airplanes fly and go fast with low TWR is way, way easier in FAR than in stock. If you're proficient, you can even make very high performing spaceplanes.

There's a learning curve to FAR just like there's a learning curve to everything in stock KSP. But just like in stock, you can make a plane 'look' like a plane, and balance the COM ahead of the COL, and it will always fly. No need to look at the stability derivatives, the AOA curves, etc etc. I didn't know those for almost 2 years and I built perfectly functional airplanes and even spaceplanes in FAR.

And if I was able to do it, then anyone advocating for the notion that FAR is 'too hard' for new players has never played with it for more than an hour or two. If you find the GUI confusing, just don't bring it up(I know I didn't). Just design something that looks like a plane, balance COM, COL; and you will generally be good to go. 

Granted, one thing about FAR that makes it a bit more difficult is that it doesn't model ground effect, which makes airplane landing/ takeoff speeds a bit high(10-20 m/s higher than IRL.) If someone were to make an effective ground effect model in FAR, then you'll have so many more benefits over stock KSP: Easy landings/takeoffs, along with low drag, and better L/D than stock at high speeds. That's a win-win for me, and generally for gameplay as well(both spaceplanes and rockets experience less dV loss due to drag). 

If KSP 2 were to implement a realistic aero model, then it would also open the door for so many more interesting gameplay options, like aerogravity assists. I'm personally all for it.

 

 

[Kerbart]

54 minutes ago, DA299 said:

I don't understand why so many people here consider FAR to be so hard? I've been playing with it since I was 16, and I've never had an issue making anything fly. In fact, in some aspects its much easier than stock KSP.  Making airplanes fly and go fast with low TWR is way, way easier in FAR than in stock. If you're proficient, you can even make very high performing spaceplanes.

I thought that the whole point of FAR was to make it more realistic — in the sense of “it behaves like you'd expect it to behave” as opposed to the semi-randomness of stock.

At any rate, it seems to me that those kind of improvements hit hard on those who've optimized their designs and playing style for the game implementation. Personally I've always taken a more "trying to stick to reality" approach and I've never had any issues with any improvements introduced.

I the old soup-o-sphere days you could/should launch a rocket by going straight up, then yank it at a 45° angle at 10km. And return at 3km/s perpendicular to the surface, release chutes while in space and land safely. Plenty of complaints the game was “broken” when that was fixed. But if you don't pla it like that, there's nothing to worry about. I assume same will be with new atmo models.

[DA299]

1 hour ago, Kerbart said:

I thought that the whole point of FAR was to make it more realistic — in the sense of “it behaves like you'd expect it to behave” as opposed to the semi-randomness of stock.

What FAR does is more realistic. Planes IRL don't have as much drag as in KSP, but they also don't produce the same amount of lift. Any normal looking airplane loses speed extremely fast in stock aero, which is not the case in FAR(and IRL). 

[mcwaffles2003]

On 11/23/2022 at 3:13 AM, The Aziz said:

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

But @The Aziz! That is an absolute!

[MK2-DroneCore]

I think Realistic is more important because after all you have to make a REAL Rocket IN REAL World. FAR is a good example but I think we have to improve how we show the realistic aerodynamics

In a word, We don't truly care if the aero-system is realistic , but we care if it's too difficult to design a rocket. You can't expect others as patient as Hard-core players.

I hope Intercept can make a easy-understanding tutorial, That will solve any questions about aero-system, I guess so.

[TheTennesseeFireman]

Practically speaking, this whole conversation is probably a moot point, isn’t it? They’ve done a ton of work on new procedural wings, tires, and other parts that depend on whatever aerodynamics system they have in place. They’ve got weather effects they’ve built on top of it. And with a long roadmap ahead, I don’t imagine they’re going to go back and uproot whatever system they already have in place, provided it’s stable and functions properly.

[GoldForest]

12 hours ago, TheTennesseeFireman said:

 They’ve got weather effects they’ve built on top of it..

We've seen nothing of a weather system. 

If you're talking about the volumetric clouds, AFAIK, they're purely cosmetic and have no effect on the rocket. They aren't like Ace Combat 7's clouds that give icing, water and wind.

[机械主教71号]

Good point.

Edited November 27, 2022 by 机械主教71号

[机械主教71号]

I hope KSP2 aerodynamics will be more realistic than KSP1.

I have a master degree of aerospace, for me, a viscous fluid and non real air effect hypersonic result will be good. This won't be too difficult for new players, and sometimes can be challenging for senior players, also can banlance the veracity and gameplay. Anyway, aerodynamics levels option will be useful.

 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

I forget... Did KSP (stock) have different density at different altitudes that made planes behave differently based on the configuration and engines? 

 

[The Aziz]

Edited November 28, 2022 by The Aziz