Does the Community Want Better Aerodynamics?

[spudcosmic]

I was reading a thread earlier regarding what we want to see in version .24, and I noticed that a number of people suggested we need to upgrade the placeholder aerodynamics system to a more realistic version, however, there were also people opposing this saying it'd make things too complex. So I ask this question to the community: do you want to see the aerodynamics model be upgraded to be more realistic?

Personally, I will only play ksp with <a href="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/20451-0-23-Ferram-Aerospace-Research-v0-12-Aero-Fixes-For-Planes-Rockets-12-17">FAR</a>, an amazing mod that fixes up the aerodynamic system and adds realistic drag. From my experience, FAR makes building and flying planes a lot more fun, and if you build realistic looking rockets, it makes getting to orbit easier. With better aerodynamics you have no need to build unrealistic asparagus stages, as a single stack rocket can lift just as much.

Edited December 20, 2013 by spudcosmic

[DevoidLight]

So long as this new system doesn't impact performance, I would be okay with having to adapt.

[Pbhead]

other features (resources) first.

[FITorion]

Yes I want it.

There are other things I want more... Cough***Resources***Cough...

I also see that the Devs want to complete the basic structure of the game before they start replacing the place holders and filling everything up with neat features.

[r4pt0r]

resources can wait. play with mods if you want those. i think game mechanics (aerodynamics) should come before any resource system

[regex]

Better stock aerodynamics would be awesome but then you also have to tackle the difficulty issue with rocket launches since it takes roughly 1km/s less (or even less!) to get to orbit using FAR. That will also impact Eve return launches.

[spudcosmic]

Better stock aerodynamics would be awesome but then you also have to tackle the difficulty issue with rocket launches since it takes roughly 1km/s less (or even less!) to get to orbit using FAR. That will also impact Eve return launches.

It's about 3 km/s compared to the stock 4 km/s, but it really depends on the size of the rocket.

[Murph]

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.

[RocketPilot573]

Yes! Yes! YES! I really don't care for resources at all... Better aerodynamics will makes flying both rockets AND planes far more realistic! And no more randomly flipping planes too!

Too add to this, when I make a paper airplane in real life, now matter what the shape it simply either goes straight, up, or down. They do NOT do 5 back-flips, then 5 front-flips, and then roll/tumble on all axis. Actually, that would be pretty hilarious to watch...

Edited December 20, 2013 by RocketPilot573

[Levelord]

Yes, but not at the expense of performance. It is Kerbal Space Program, not Kerbal Flying Program

Yeah but to get to space you have to fly through the atmosphere. Atmospheric dynamics are an important part of rocketry and space travel itself in the first place. It influences rocket design, rocket shapes and delta V requirements.

[DisarmingBaton5]

Certainly.

It can wait, though. I'd rather they focused on stuff like resources, career, planets, parts, and optimization.

[dudester28]

Overall, yes. I would really enjoy for there to be an incentive for nosecones, aerodynamic craft, etc. but also without making spaceplane building too complex.

[Luckless]

Yes! Yes! YES! I really don't care for resources at all... Better aerodynamics will makes flying both rockets AND planes far more realistic! And no more randomly flipping planes too!

Too add to this, when I make a paper airplane in real life, now matter what the shape it simply either goes straight, up, or down. They do NOT do 5 back-flips, then 5 front-flips, and then roll/tumble on all axis. Actually, that would be pretty hilarious to watch...

Either you had a horrible time in grade school, or I spent far too much time building weird paper airplanes, because I could get them to do dozens of flips in both directions.

But really I'm happy with aerodynamics as they are currently. They're not great, not even really good, but it gives enough of a challenge that it gives something 'air like' to fly through. It would ideally be replaced in the long term, but I'm fine with several more versions of the same crapy model.

[Ravenchant]

It's not exactly top priority, but I'd like to see it overhauled sooner rather than later. After flying many hours in various flight sims, KSP's aerodynamic behaviour is... somewhat painful to watch.

[regex]

It's about 3 km/s compared to the stock 4 km/s, but it really depends on the size of the rocket.

That's ... pretty much exactly what I said. And it's actually about 3.2km/s~ 3.5km/s using FAR versus roughly 4.5km/s using stock aerodynamics.

[Ernest3.14]

Yeah, the poll wasn't worded very clearly... Of course I want better aerodynamics! But I also want resources hint hint

[Joel Dryden]

That's ... pretty much exactly what I said. And it's actually about 3.2km/s~ 3.5km/s using FAR versus roughly 4.5km/s using stock aerodynamics.

I think he read what you said as, it was only 1Km/s not 1Km/s less I skipped the word less first read and though, hang on, 1000m/s to orbit? No way.

[regex]

I think he read what you said as, it was only 1Km/s not 1Km/s less I skipped the word less first read and though, hang on, 1000m/s to orbit? No way.

That's like saying stock is pea soup versus FAR's chicken broth, when FAR is actually more tomato-soupy. But I can see how it was read that way.

[Murph]

Yes! Yes! YES! I really don't care for resources at all... Better aerodynamics will makes flying both rockets AND planes far more realistic! And no more randomly flipping planes too!

Too add to this, when I make a paper airplane in real life, now matter what the shape it simply either goes straight, up, or down. They do NOT do 5 back-flips, then 5 front-flips, and then roll/tumble on all axis. Actually, that would be pretty hilarious to watch...

The problems you are having with flipping are most likely not KSP's aerodynamics, but fundamental flaws with your designs or the way you are flying them. It's essential to avoid the CoM going far behind the CoL at any time, or aerodynamic stability will be lost. The CoM moves with fuel use, so that must be accounted for in the design, or compensated for by moving fuel around in flight to manage it. The other common thing which can cause a spin and loss of control is pulling the nose too far away from the prograde vector, often due to having excessive control surfaces.

Real aircraft can spin either intentionally (stunt/display/fighter/test pilots) or unintentionally (through pilot error or aircraft failure). Some spins can be unrecoverable, resulting in either a Martin Baker tie or a tombstone for all on board.

[Murph]

Yeah but to get to space you have to fly through the atmosphere. Atmospheric dynamics are an important part of rocketry and space travel itself in the first place. It influences rocket design, rocket shapes and delta V requirements.

I don't disagree with that, it's just a relative priority thing. It's a small overall part of each space mission, and the current aerodynamics are an ok approximation in the short term. Overall performance is also much more important than precise aerodynamic simulation.

[Peppe]

Trying far for the first time today... Feels like going from an arcade racer to a racing simulator.

Both games have their place. I am sure far could be tuned or player given the option more sim like or more arcade style control. Either way the current system rewards the wrong things, so at a minimum cones should reduce drag of all parts below them...

[arq]

It can wait, though. I'd rather they focused on stuff like resources, career, planets, parts, and optimization.

I agree. I would like to see improved aerodynamics in KSP. However, the current placeholder system is fine for the time being. An aerodynamics overhaul should wait until after career, resources, etc. I think it should be one of the last changes before 1.0 (or even come after 1.0).

I really like FAR, but it is too elaborate for the scope of KSP and the beginning (or even intermediate) player. Something between stock and FAR aerodynamics is what Squad should ultimately settle on, IMO. FAR will always be there for people that want to kick it up a notch.

[SDIR]

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.

[ferram4]

I really like FAR, but it is too elaborate for the scope of KSP and the beginning (or even intermediate) player. Something between stock and FAR aerodynamics is what Squad should ultimately settle on, IMO. FAR will always be there for people that want to kick it up a notch.

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_Killed_Jeb]

I think the stock aerodynamics actually causes more frustration than accurate modelling, primarily because people are used to the way aircraft handle with more-or-less accurate aerodynamic models due to flight sims etc