Does the Community Want Better Aerodynamics?

[ArmchairGravy]

Yes but if one day Feram will stop to work at FAR we won't have aerodynamic anymore...

With the passion for them that's on display here I'm sure someone would pick up the torch. Flight engineer is a fine example of this.

[spudcosmic]

Show me a fairing that will house these. Why do you want to suck the fun out of my game?

*snip*

You know, there there is always solutions to these kinds of problems, I can think of a few off the top of my head: Too large to fit in a fairing? break it up into smaller pieces and dock it together in orbit, and since you're already using Kethane, you could always use extra planetary launchpads and assemble it off world by shipping up rocket parts. I don't think refining of broken features should cease just because people are too afraid to change. Maybe it some of the hardcore opposers would have their mind changed if the tried FAR before ranting.

[Daze]

With the passion for them that's on display here I'm sure someone would pick up the torch. Flight engineer is a fine example of this.

Yes i know that it's a very very remote possibility that FAR won't be updated, but a little one there's... And if the aerodynamic become stock there will be no problem

[Seret]

I'd like to think we could incorporate a decent drag model that made some kind of sense without sucking too much fun out of the game. Nobody's asking for mega simulation, just something that didn't do mental things like having noise cones increase the drag of your rocket.

[Vrana]

You know, there there is always solutions to these kinds of problems, I can think of a few off the top of my head: Too large to fit in a fairing? break it up into smaller pieces and dock it together in orbit...

He doesnt even need to do that.

The componenets he showed will fly under current FAR. Only change is he will probably need more dV then in stock since he will likely need to delay the gravity turn to maintain stability. Look at my post above to see just what kind of contraptions can be lifted under FAR.

[Murph]

I never understood the forum poll choice "I have no opinion".

If you have no opinion, don't vote.

You're dead wrong to say that it should be "don't vote". Including the "don't care" or "no opinion" option actually makes the poll more representative of the community. It does dilute the yes and no votes, but should dilute them equally, and you can be more confident that they actually represent yes and no, without either being skewed by people without a strong opinion on it. If you end up with a significant proportion of the vote being "no opinion", it gives you the additional information that perhaps it's not widely viewed as important.

[NASAFanboy]

To those who say docking, easier said than done. Why launch it in multiple rockets? Just use one.

Also, I'm here to play a game where you design rockets. Not orbiter, or FSX.

I'll say this one last time.

Make it a option, but don't force the thing down my throat. Make it a DLC, or a mod for all I care, but I'm not a fan of FAR, and I should be able to build my insane contraptions of a rocket. Just don't force it.

Edited December 20, 2013 by NASAFanboy

[Mmmmyum]

Honestly I don't see why people think having a realistic drag model would ruin the game. It doesn't exactly take a rocket scientist to make something even somewhat aerodynamic. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that a brick of a rocket will have quite a lot of drag

[NASAFanboy]

Honestly I don't see why people think having a realistic drag model would ruin the game. It doesn't exactly take a rocket scientist to make something even somewhat aerodynamic. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that a brick of a rocket will have quite a lot of drag

I'm here to build insane contraptions and impossible heavy lifters. I'm not here to play orbiter, and I'm not here for realism.

For gods sake, its a game about little green men having a space agency!

[jcraft]

Honestly I don't see why people think having a realistic drag model would ruin the game. It doesn't exactly take a rocket scientist to make something even somewhat aerodynamic. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that a brick of a rocket will have quite a lot of drag

Problem is - some people want to fly they ridiculous contraptions without trying to make them aerodynamic.

[antbin]

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?

Good question. I'd say that a better question would be 'what's the minimal thing to add to the stock aero to let us fly neat new things'.

Ferram's right in that most people don't know what they want from 'better' aero... if re-entry starts getting more realistic, it will rip everything off your craft!

I think I'd settle for:

• Drag based on frontal cross-sectional area rather than mass
  
• Lift based on plan area versus individual parts (no more tri-plane stacked sandwich wings or bodyclipping)
  
• Wing lift/drag changing based on angle of attack.
  

Plus whatever hackery is needed to make things fun.

I just wish that wings had more high altitude control, and to be able to 'skip' off the atmosphere. And to have slightly-violent re-entry for things that are re-entered facing sideways.

Edited December 20, 2013 by antbin

[spudcosmic]

I'm here to build insane contraptions and impossible heavy lifters. I'm not here to play orbiter, and I'm not here for realism.

For gods sake, its a game about little green men having a space agency!

I have a great idea, because you're part of the minority of people who want the current aerodynamics model to stay the same, why don't you mod it out. It's just like us modding it in currently.

[Maxwell Fern]

You're dead wrong to say that it should be "don't vote". Including the "don't care" or "no opinion" option actually makes the poll more representative of the community. It does dilute the yes and no votes, but should dilute them equally, and you can be more confident that they actually represent yes and no, without either being skewed by people without a strong opinion on it. If you end up with a significant proportion of the vote being "no opinion", it gives you the additional information that perhaps it's not widely viewed as important.

You make a good point. My bad.

[NASAFanboy]

I have a great idea, because you're part of the minority of people who want the current aerodynamics model to stay the same, why don't you mod it out. It's just like us modding it in currently.

Mod it out?

Mod it out yourselves. I'm not downloading any mods today, tomorrow, or in the future. Just because we're a minority doesn't mean that you have to force your mods down our throats. Make it a in-game option!

[I_Killed_Jeb]

Mod it out?

Mod it out yourselves. I'm not downloading any mods today, tomorrow, or in the future. Just because we're a minority doesn't mean that you have to force your mods down our throats. Make it a in-game option!

So what you're saying is that whatever it is about the game you like, no matter how small a minority you are, it should stay. Because you should be able to do whatever you want.

[LameLefty]

I have a college degree in aerospace engineering and know quite a big about "real life" aerodynamics. That sh ... er, "stuff" ... can be brutally hard if you go for true "realism". While I'm not a huge fan of the current drag model, I am also not sure that true "realism" will make the game ultimately more fun, which is what I'm all about in this game. If I want truly more realistic aircraft, I'll dig out an old PC and play MS Flight Simulator or X-Plane. On the other hand, I really don't like the fact that nosecones in the stock game just essentially add mass and make launch dV requirements WORSE rather than better.

So I voted that I have no opinion. It might be more accurate to say that I don't care for some of the problems with the current system but I can live with it; I know how it works, I can design for it, I like ridiculous asparagus-staged assclownery in my launchers, and the game is fun. So all in all, meh.

[spudcosmic]

Mod it out?

Mod it out yourselves. I'm not downloading any mods today, tomorrow, or in the future. Just because we're a minority doesn't mean that you have to force your mods down our throats. Make it a in-game option!

When it eventually does become a feature, I guess you're just going to have to adapt to it then. While there is the possibility there will be an option to turn it off, it isn't guaranteed, and if you're unwilling to get any mods to solve your problem then you're out of luck.

[NASAFanboy]

When it eventually does become a feature, I guess you're just going to have to adapt to it then. While there is the possibility there will be an option to turn it off, it isn't guaranteed, and if you're unwilling to get any mods to solve your problem then you're out of luck.

If Squad implements this, they should provide an stock option. That's exactly what I'm trying to say, thank you very much.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

If Squad implements this, they should provide an stock option. That's exactly what I'm trying to say, thank you very much.

If and when Squad fixes aerodynamics, the fix is the stock option.

[boomerdog2000]

If and when Squad fixes aerodynamics, the fix is the stock option.

Agreed, if Squad started leaving every single thing that people a few people like "as an option" the game would be massive and full of settings very few people care about.

[Wahgineer]

Mod it out?

Mod it out yourselves. I'm not downloading any mods today, tomorrow, or in the future. Just because we're a minority doesn't mean that you have to force your mods down our throats. Make it a in-game option!

As far as I know according to history, the minority almost always had to move over for the majorities wants.

[Aphox]

Let's have a discussion without it devolving into personal attacks, folks.

Keep it clean in here and drop the tangent arguments.

[Sandermatt]

What I mainly want is the removal of things like infinigliding. If not realistic than make the aerodynamics at least not exploitable.

[ArmchairGravy]

You know, there there is always solutions to these kinds of problems, I can think of a few off the top of my head: Too large to fit in a fairing? break it up into smaller pieces and dock it together in orbit, and since you're already using Kethane, you could always use extra planetary launchpads and assemble it off world by shipping up rocket parts. I don't think refining of broken features should cease just because people are too afraid to change. Maybe it some of the hardcore opposers would have their mind changed if the tried FAR before ranting.

Just so we're clear before we start: Spud, I'm quoting you, but this is NOT directed at you personally. Your statement is a fair representation of something I am going to rant about now.

[rant]

If you look at the webpage for KSP, you will see, "KSP is a game where the players create and manage their own space program." It does NOT say it's a spaceship simulator, a flight simulator, or an space-based resourcing simulator.

There is an ongoing, maddening clamor on the main forum page for Squad to implement feature x, because without it the game is broken. I am heartily sick and tired of it because for each and every "Gimme NOW" feature, there is a mod available that meets that need to some extent. Advanced aerodynamics is a perfect example. We all know that the current aerodynamic model will be updated. It's called a placeholder for a reason! This poll is useless because we are going to get better aerodynamics as soon as the devs decide it's time to work on it. Ferram's question is far more relevant: "What bits of aerodynamic modeling should be included when the devs replace the placeholder?" This would allow a good discussion, instead of this divisive all-or-none.

Furthermore, when someone questions the advisability of implementing feature x for everyone as an in-game mechanic, or points out that feature x is already available as a mod, the response is, "Yeah, but the game is supposed to have it. Look, see how cool it is?" I am sure you think it's cool. That doesn't mean that everyone does. Believe me, if I wanted more accurate modeling of aerodynamics I already would have installed FAR. If I wanted to manage air and food, I would have installed IonForge. If I wanted to design realistic spacecraft and aircraft, I would do so. I do want resourcing, so I have installed Kethane. See? I have the option I want, and don't bother with the ones I don't.

Squad has to concentrate their small development team ensuring that their game is fun for everyone, not just the subset of the community who are frothing for feature x. So please, please stop whingeing for these niche features to be implemented in the game on the main forum page. Put them into the Suggestions and Development page where they belong. Better yet, go to Addon Request and Support.

[/rant]

Whew! I feel sooo much better now that I've gotten that off my chest. I'm heading back to the game and get my science station set up around Minmus. Cheers!

Edited December 20, 2013 by ArmchairGravy
Misspelled Ferram's name.

[Maxwell Fern]

If and when Squad fixes aerodynamics, the fix is the stock option.

That's absolutly right. I don't understand why people are so afraid to adapt.