Does the Community Want Better Aerodynamics?

[ArmchairGravy]

It is true that making KSP more realistic means that planes are more fun and rockets are more efficient, and I am for it. However, it would also put into the debates of whether or not we should include Deadly Re-entry and Real sizes as well for realism. If we do that, then the game becomes many times more difficult. It would also discourage new players from starting due to the extremely steep learning curve of making bigger and bigger vehicles, adding on to the already difficult game as it is. These mods arenice for people who already are veterans, but we still have to remember that KSP is a game, and it should still be fun, instead of frustrating.

I fully agree. Squad should focus on stuff that is fun for players of all skill levels. There's a thriving modding community that already does a good job of providing those extra layers of challenge. I have no interest in making this game harder than it already is.

[FlamedSteak]

To be honest, I'd be happy if they fixed the mounting of the landing gear.

Right now if you can get off the runway without veering into a flaming ditch, you're 70% of the way into space.

[chuangatronic]

... there's no danger of your wings going Tacoma-Narrows on you...

Totally off topic but I find it hilarious yet sad that Tacoma will forever be remembered for its smell and this one engineering blunder. The Tacoma-Narrows bridge is so infamous that I'm sure that video will still be in every physics classroom for centuries.

[Sandworm]

They don't need to go anywhere near far. All they need imho is to give credit for aerodynamic rockets and penalize the ridiculous junk. It wouldn't be too difficult to remove all drag for parts under fairings. Equally they could remove drag, or drastically reduce it, for parts under identical-diameter parts. That would, as in reality, reduce substantial drag to the nosecone and any aero surfaces.

As for stall/lift/mach tuck and other spaceplane-specific issues, this isn't a flight simulator. Trying to accurately model a spaceplane which, by definition, encounters most every flight regime possible is a lost cause. Spaceplanes are neat, but KSP is about leaving Kerbin not buzzing towers.

[Leatherneck]

Yes, but not at the expense of performance. It is Kerbal Space Program, not Kerbal Flying Program, so aerodynamics are only relevant for a relatively small part of the complete picture. The existing aerodynamics are basically fine for now, an ok approximation to enable the rest of KSP. I don't think that upgrading them is an immediate priority, but they should absolutely receive a full dev cycle (or 2) before KSP 1.0.

For starters, we're doing Aerospace Engineering, which encompasses both. You can't really have one without the other, and since both are in the game, ignoring the aerodynamics is basically like only exercising one arm, so I would not say it is a relatively small part of the complete picture. It affects the rockets, SSTO Spaceplanes, and standard aircraft. You shouldn't need a mod to have a relatively accurate model in a game that chose to include aerodynamics. We're not talking about DCS or MSFS, but as it is we launch square rockets because round ones are less aerodynamic...

It's not about aesthetics either. I've built a lot of stable aircraft to explore the many biomes of Kerbin, and people have made wonderful stock craft that don't need a mod. However, for the beginning player, exploring Kerbin with an aircraft shouldn't be as frustrating as it is. If you have to come to the forums to understand the basics of making a plane with the system currently in place, that should say something. Launching a rocket is far more intuitive, because it's simpler to an extent as it is.

I want resources and economy just as much as everyone else, but this is right up there. I like to play stock (although I use Chatterer, Protractor, and Kerbal Alarm Clock, but that doesn't affect the game mechanics) but I shouldn't have to use a mod to enjoy a part of the game just because people want a new feature before fixing the less than ideal one.

[SkyHook]

I WILL NOT boot up KSP without FAR...so yes I want better aerodynamics. And resources.

Anytime I can go from stall speed around 30m/s to breaking the sound barrier simply by fluttering my control surfaces, we need better aerodynamics!

Edited December 20, 2013 by SkyHook

[ReeceEngineering]

Realism>Everything else. So yes the best aero possible please!

[manskal]

Keep in mind, the poll is about Better aerodynamics, not computer-meltingly-realistic aerodynamics.

It doesn't have to add complexity. In fact, it can make the game easier (eg reward simple, efficient single stack rocket designs instead of asparagus behemoths)

[Stargate525]

I fully agree. Squad should focus on stuff that is fun for players of all skill levels. There's a thriving modding community that already does a good job of providing those extra layers of challenge. I have no interest in making this game harder than it already is.

The first time I played in the demo, and the first few weeks after I bought the game, fun for me was making stupidly ridiculous rockets that made the biggest explosion possible (look at Zisteau's LP for the idea). An aerodynamic model didn't factor in for me. Once I got more skilled, I started playing around trying to figure out the rules, and started having fun with more regular rockets and getting to do stuff outside in space.

For a new player, he won't know a difference. It'll just be the way the game is.

In fact, I've played FAR, and it makes proper-looking rockets almost stupidly EASY. Airplanes become a bit more finicky, but the rules are fairly easy to get used to, and the model makes regular-looking planes work better. Without FAR, I've never been able to get an aircraft with underslung engines below the fuselage to work properly. With it, those are some of my most stable creations.

[Garek]

I also don't run KSP without FAR anymore. Mostly for rockets, because I want fairings to work, and I want my rockets to flip if I build or fly them wrong. So I want better aerodynamics, but I'm happy to use FAR in the meantime.

[Seret]

Yes, definitely. I'll admit it's convenient to be able to rock up to Kerbin at interplanetary speeds and go straight in for reentry, but it's a bit silly.

It would also be nice for the noise congress to be useful instead of just pretty.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Seret

[Brotoro]

Silly poll. Why would anybody NOT want better aerodynamics? It's only a question of WHEN they should work on this.

[Murph]

Silly poll. Why would anybody NOT want better aerodynamics? It's only a question of WHEN they should work on this.

Some might thing the current aerodynamics are ok, or that it's not important.

Myself, the answer is yes, but not at the expense of performance, and not urgently.

[Godot]

I ahve begun using FAR for my games ... which, I think, answers the question with a clear YES

[Azimech]

I use FAR, just not the editor window, because i'm too lazy to learn all the technical stuff inside. I'm probably not alone. Which gives us a hard time building a stable plane or even SSTO. If Squad would choose to implement a similar system it would be nice to have simple indicators like the CoL etc. which would display the change with increasing speed or AoA in an animation/simulation and warn if something and where it should be changed.

[S4qFBxkFFg]

I'm curious, what do you think should be removed from FAR to create a middle-of-the-road aerodynamic model?

Mach Number effects?

Body lift?

Wing interactions?

Drag changing with angle of attack?

FAR already doesn't bother modeling / compromises its modeling of a lot of aerodynamic effects for gameplay reasons (the problem being too difficult to design around) or performance reasons (the code required to model the effect would melt your computer). It's impossible to put a T-tail plane into a deep stall. Area ruling a plane doesn't affect its drag. You can't get shock reflections causing poor handling characteristics. It doesn't model flutter at all, so there's no danger of your wings going Tacoma-Narrows on you (look up aeroelastic flutter on youtube; the videos are great). Hell, wings already magically morph from being made of ideal subsonic airfoils to being made of ideal supersonic airfoils when you move from subsonic flow to supersonic flow. I really don't know what else you'd remove to make it easier.

This is why I don't expect that we'll ever get aerodynamics that are really all that much "better" than the current stock drag model, besides removing the drag dependency on mass; it turns out that the extra complications caused by even a small amount of proper aerodynamics is enough to convince people that it's too much, even though it doesn't even get to modeling most of the truly nasty aerodynamic effects. And I also expect that a large number of people who want "better" aerodynamics don't actually want it, since their idea of "better" aerodynamics doesn't gel with what better aerodynamics actually entails.

I don't think he was referring to any of the things you listed - they're all hidden in the code. More obvious are the UI components - some people are probably bamboozled by things like the flight data screen, or the assistance options. Possibly also the assembly stuff - is this control surface an aileron/elevon/flap/slat etc.?

I'm not suggesting any of that be removed, and I'd like the construction stuff to be even more detailed (e.g. twin rudders that move in the same direction for yaw, and opposite directions for airbraking).

[jwenting]

couldn't care less about planes. Do care about "realistic" aerodynamics making 90% of the rockets we build in KSP impossible to fly (no, you wouldn't be able to have that rover with its skycrane that together is 10 meters wide sitting on top of that rocket made up of struts and orange fuel tanks with 10 asparagus stages fly into space, it'd cartwheel into the ground).

[I_Killed_Jeb]

couldn't care less about planes. Do care about "realistic" aerodynamics making 90% of the rockets we build in KSP impossible to fly (no, you wouldn't be able to have that rover with its skycrane that together is 10 meters wide sitting on top of that rocket made up of struts and orange fuel tanks with 10 asparagus stages fly into space, it'd cartwheel into the ground).

that's a good thing imo

[jaredkzr]

Personally, I think that aerodynamics shouldn't be a priority as of now. I think that KSP should be further optimized and refined before improving the aerodynamics. Many designs that the community has come to favor (asparagus staging) will no longer function properly and would actually make launches much more difficult. I do feel, however, that aerodynamics should be addressed before the release of the full game.

[Godot]

that's a good thing imo

And it is where fairings come into play ... enhancing the realism and making our rockets look more like real rockets (after all that´s what´s used in RL rocketry)

Edited December 20, 2013 by Godot

[Kasuha]

In my opinion, whatever the result will be, there will not be new aerodynamics in 0.24.

And once we get new aerodynamics people will start complaining that their designs don't work anymore.

Putting fairings on any irregular payload will be pretty annoying, too.

[Alchemist]

I'm not for such things as fully realistic airflow simulation in the stock game, this is better left to FAR because it might be too heavy for some hardware (I sometimes play KSP on my laptop). But for at least some more realism in this I definitely say YES. Because empty fuel tank having less drag than full is silly.

Of course, realistic aerodynamics will mean that rockets (usually very bottom heavy) will be much less stable in the lower atmosphere, but that will be the reason to use these damn winglets.

[NASAFanboy]

No way.

I don't like FAR that much, and its good for only planes. If anything, a feature like this should be a in-game option, not forced onto the main playerbase. Remember, some like to build rockets instead of spaceplanes (In personal opinion, spaceplanes are slow, unrefined, dangerous, and expensive.).

Also, I don't want to rage because my payload doesn't fit inside the fairing. This should not be forced onto those who like building monster rockets, and should be regulated to JUST a option inside the game. KSP isn't a flight simulator, guys.

[Guest Brody_Peffley]

No way.

I don't like FAR that much, and its good for only planes. If anything, a feature like this should be a in-game option, not forced onto the main playerbase. Remember, some like to build rockets instead of spaceplanes (In personal opinion, spaceplanes are slow, unrefined, dangerous, and expensive.).

Also, I don't want to rage because my payload doesn't fit inside the fairing. This should not be forced onto those who like building monster rockets, and should be regulated to JUST a option inside the game. KSP isn't a flight simulator, guys.

Kerbal Space program is a space simulation duh. And its your falt for making crappy payloads. God get some sense. I say we put the aerodynamics all the way to clost to realistic.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

No way.

I don't like FAR that much, and its good for only planes. If anything, a feature like this should be a in-game option, not forced onto the main playerbase. Remember, some like to build rockets instead of spaceplanes (In personal opinion, spaceplanes are slow, unrefined, dangerous, and expensive.).

Also, I don't want to rage because my payload doesn't fit inside the fairing. This should not be forced onto those who like building monster rockets, and should be regulated to JUST a option inside the game. KSP isn't a flight simulator, guys.

The current aerodynamic model is a placeholder. Just because you like it doesn't mean it was ever meant to stay