Does the Community Want Better Aerodynamics?

[thunderstar]

yes and no,

no because you cant imagine the countless hours of fun i've spent with supersonic engineless planes, fliying wings that go all the way up to space and other things

yes because when im playing a little bit more seriosly and make rockets, actual planes, i like to desing them smooth and good looking and well, the nosecones with stock aerodynamics cause drag and make the whole thing worse, so somethimes i like to play with FAR, but when im that bored i like stock aerodynamics for the sake of fun

[CombatWombat]

People seem too worried that "more accurate" means "more difficult".

Fixing some of the wonkiness in the aero should make things more intuitive. Not less.

There is an important distinction we must make between physical accuracy and complexity.

The former means that the behavior of the simulation follows sensible trends. Even with non-sense numbers plugged in, it should still "work". IE: planets that are too small... but the orbital mechanics still jives.

The latter means one thousand buttons to start your engines.

We need the former. The latter is best left to Orbiter et-al.

Some of the silly quirks need to be fixed to make things respond in ways that make sense.

The wings/fins need halfway decent lift/drag polars instead of the completely bat**** insane things they have now. This is a simple table look-up. No worse performance than we have now. Simple to implement.

The total ship drag model is a bigger nut to crack. That probably has to wait.

[ferram4]

The one thing that a better aerodynamic model must have is drag based on part area, not on current mass. Everything else is just refinements from there, but that's the true failing of the current drag model.

And that will be the thing that screws up all of the old players. The stock drag model puts the center of drag (or whatever you want to call it) at the same location as the center of mass due to the fact that drag is proportional to mass and nearly every part has the same drag coefficient; this makes it almost impossible to build an aerodynamically unstable rocket. Once the drag-mass relationship is removed the CoM and CoD aren't guaranteed to be in the same location anymore, and that will be what screws everyone up. That's what screws up everyone who switches to FAR.

[Rusty6899]

I think that the main problem with the current system is that it makes asparagus staging too beneficial. I generally use asparagus staging for almost all my ascents from Kerbin, with a 6x symmetry (the engines/fuel tanks I use are determined by the mass of the payload).

Personally, I don't see that as too much of a game breaker, but having started to plan a return mission to Eve, it becomes apparent that a ridiculously wide craft, utilising a large number of engines in an asparagus stage, is the most sensible method to use. I think that the aerodynamics have to be tweaked to prevent hugely unrealistic rockets from being the go-to option for ascents from atmospheric bodies.

I don't necessarily think it is the most pressing developmental concern. I would rather see finances and resources being effectively implemented (... I know), but I do envisage a final game with a better aerodynamics system.

In my opinion, the aerodynamics system should be one of the last things implemented. I think that to change it now would be akin to adding a coat of gold paint to the Bentley at the expense of the engine.

[RSwordsman]

If FAR is frequently referred to as a vital or "must have" mod, something is wrong. IMO both it and Deadly Reentry should both be raised to status as vanilla features.

[Nao]

I think that the main problem with the current system is that it makes asparagus staging too beneficial. I generally use asparagus staging for almost all my ascents from Kerbin, with a 6x symmetry (the engines/fuel tanks I use are determined by the mass of the payload).

Actually the difference in efficiency between asparagus staging and lack of it is only, ~10% for Kerbin ascents. The real benefit of asparagus lies in the actual design process. It's easy to just slap "booster" stages around until we get enough deltaV for orbit. The non asparagus method requires more calculation (every stage needs to be set with correlation to each other) and more "conical" rocket design that creates problems with wobbliness etc.

The one thing that a better aerodynamic model must have is drag based on part area, not on current mass. Everything else is just refinements from there, but that's the true failing of the current drag model.

Agreed, but that's in return needs fairings and other aerodynamic parts to come to stock game first.

Personally i think it would be best to add proper lift drag polars like CombatWombat suggests (an lift-speed polar actually, similar to the thrust-speed polars of jet engines) to wing surfaces instead of current constant coefficients and stick to stock drag model until the game can support new aerodynamic model with dedicated (hopefully procedural) aerodynamic parts.

(sorry if that was already mentioned, ill try reading the whole thread later)

Edited December 21, 2013 by Nao

[deadshot462]

Yes. Not so much for rockets, but more for spaceplanes or shuttles. I would like to do S-turns during reentry or glide a bit longer to land on the landing strip.

[Leatherneck]

If FAR is frequently referred to as a vital or "must have" mod, something is wrong. IMO both it and Deadly Reentry should both be raised to status as vanilla features.

I agree, but Deadly Re-Entry should be a toggle off option for newer players at least.

[AlamoVampire]

As long as its done right and does not bog things down sure

[_Aramchek_]

Yes, because airplane parts are in the game and I very much enjoy building and flying aircraft of all types. Jets especially.

[Azimech]

I've been flying the IL2 Sturmovik series for more than 10 years and I've seen a lot of switches appear for simpler flying. For new players and pure arcade flyers it's a good thing.

Things like G-force tolerance, blackouts/redouts, engine overheat, engine torque/wind, gyro drift, complex engine management, stall etc. While IL2 started as a pure simulation, I can configure the thing to be playable for a 7-year old. On the other hand there are plenty of "full real" servers where flying is actually even tougher than in RL, because of the missing information like G-forces, stall warning and the limited resolution. Someone said MS flight sims have a realistic flight model? Nope, not since X-Plane and the Russian studio's.

But there was a catch: mods were prohibited, and talking about mods on the forum resulted in a ban. The fear was that mods would result in cheating during online flying, and for good reason. The first mod came in 2007 and this started the "modding wars" which deeply split the community and it never really recovered, even after Maddox Games gave modding the green light in 2011.

KSP is different because the ability to play modded is part of it's core. I want more realism but I don't want to see a split community again.

[Madrias]

I believe that better aerodynamics should be somewhere between Vanilla and FAR. Or if you refuse to compromise, give me a toggle switch between what we have now and what we get.

Why? Vanilla allows for construction of planes that are decidedly Kerbal. Things that would never dare to be built, let alone flown in the real world.

FAR has so far stumped me something fierce and I've found it nearly bloody impossible to get anything off the runway that isn't just a simple inline-jet-with-delta-wings configuration. And even that blows up more frequently than I would like, to where I'm putting LAUNCH CLAMPS! on my bloody runway cause it flies okay, it just can't take off for crap.

And don't give me any of that childish "Lurn to air!" garbage. I gave FAR a fair try. I don't actually like it. Yes, I know I have to adapt to things being different. I tried. When all that works is the most basic of designs, with no lifting capacity, no capability of making space, and it still has to be thrown into the air, I give up. I'm more than capable of making things fly, heck, making things glide and fly well in vanilla KSP that FAR needlessly complicates things for me.

[Sochin]

Revised YES, FAR NO

[Volt]

I would like improved aerodynamics, control surface configuration settings (no more rudder causing dutch rolls!) and fixes for infiniglide. However, I think FAR-style aerodynamics being forced is for the more hardcore players, so it could be added, but it should be able to be massively simplified. One of my worries is that in its current state, the game would make interplanetary flight and space station construction very difficult with a realistic drag model. For example I was putting a 4.5 long-girder truss system up to my space station yesterday, but I couldn't for the life of my get the end point of the subassembly to become the root, so I could mount it vertically to the rocket. I ended up flying it up horizontally with the long side into the free stream. In FAR the rocket would have been unstable, flipped around and never got to orbit, and ultimately adding a truss to my station would have been a 4-5-launch affair and there would have been more parts and more docking process, taking hours of work rather than half an hour. Not everyone has the time or patience for complex aerodynamics, nor do many people want to be straining their brains when they're using their chill-time to play KSP.

Tl;dr: I think it'd have to be simpler than FAR, or at least able to be disabled or simplified by a setting so that not everyone is forced to play hardcore-mode all the time.

[palker]

KSP is frequently called a great educational tool and there is going to be educational version of it, but that is just for rocket science. Regarding aerodynamics it teaches people absolute nonsense you can see great examples of this in FAR thread where people come to report bugs and complain about the mod when it does something unexpected while it is working normaly cause they have been taught wrong using the stock aerodynamic model.

I installed FAR as soon as i found out about it. I have some knowledge of aerodymamics and been flying in sims for 8 years so the stock aerodynamics were pissing me off.

Better aerodymamics are a must, had they been there since you started playing everybody would just get used to it and we would not have people saying that realistic aerodynamics are cheating!!!

[NASAFanboy]

It depends.

We need to have nosecones and fairings reducing drag on rockets, and for a better gliding performance for planes.

But we don't need the entirety of FAR, and should allow insane rockets to be launched as they had before with big payloads without fairings.

[Vrana]

I showed this before with albums even but you and the rest of the naysaying minortiy outright ignored it. Lets try again....

YOU CAN LAUNCH INASNE ROCKETS WITHOUT FAIRINGS WITH FAR INSTALLED. You are afraid of something that does not exist (at least in current FAR).

Just takes more dV and possibly a better understanding of how to lift it. But in no shape or form are you losing game options by installing FAR(other then outright exploits like infigliding if that is still psosible in stock).

Edited December 21, 2013 by Vrana

[Grover]

as with many responses here:

YES, undoubtedly, but perhaps there are other features to implement first

[rosenkranz]

I'm a fan of both decent aerodynamics and resource mining. However, i'm also a realist. As much as I'd like to see mining and what not, I think its a very complex game mechanic that could easily harm or hinder the game if done wrong.

Resource mining (and thus manufacturing) can be very easily made to complex for the scope of the game. Once you start spinning that drill it can be very hard to know when or where to stop. KSP isn't meant to be hard core. It's meant to be fun, educational, and easily accessible. When they published that resource diagram and saw the discussions that followed, I think they realized just how deep that rabbit hole could go. I can't blame them for pulling back a little to reevaluate it's potential (both good and bad) to the game. Meanwhile, Kethane has been a staple for a lot of us. KSP Interstellar has introduced some mining features. Just these two show how differently such features could be implemented.

Aerodynamics, on the other hand, is more transparent. I think the hardest part of getting into FAR was unlearning the bad behavior induced by the stock mechanic. If you start with realistic (or at least more realistic) aerodynamics you'll pick it up just as quickly as you pick up orbital mechanics.

I dunno, but my 2 krones worth is this. I think the game is at a point where it makes more sense to put in aerodynamics that resource mining. Of course they could surprise us and do both

[zarniw00p]

I think improved aerodynamics should be introduced alongside a procedural fairing system so that it doesn't negatively affect complex spacecraft designs. Probably it should be developed in combination with reentry-heat / heat-shield-systems since those two features seem to depend very much on each other.

[LameLefty]

I think improved aerodynamics should be introduced alongside a procedural fairing system so that it doesn't negatively affect complex spacecraft designs.

I don't use FAR but the Procedural Fairings mod is pretty great, even if it doesn't really make any difference in the stock game besides looks. Does anyone know if FAR works with Procedural Fairings to hive you any drag advantages?

[Black_Tomcat]

Does anyone know if FAR works with Procedural Fairings to hive you any drag advantages?

I'm quite sure it does with the normal procedural fairings, not that sure about the interstage adapters. FAR just scans the name of the part for anything like fairing, nose cone or similar to determine what it should do with it.

[Vrana]

Does anyone know if FAR works with Procedural Fairings to hive you any drag advantages?

Yes. Not only proc fairings but also various cargo holds (like B9 and Nothke service compartment). Anything under a fairing or inside a cargo hold does not produce drag at all.

[CaptainArchmage]

I would like to see better aerodynamics, but I would prefer to have resources, more planets, and even more star systems in first. KSP's current aerodynamics are also part of the challenge, for example while lifting off from Eve.

[NWM]

Definitely YES! By the current phisical engine the drag only only depends on the mass. Can I not build an aerodinamic aeroplane without trace of aerodinamics? Using aeroplanes without FAR is like a date without a girl - alone. Can be done, but not funny, not challenging, and mainly there is no reason at all!