Why is it so hard to play this game...

[Guest]

While I agree with this 100%, what I don't agree with is that that ascent profile has anything to do with the stock aerodynamics model.

Under FAR I start turning around 1.5km (others start even sooner, but I'm generally flying fat rockets with lower TWR so the extra speed helps). I'm at 45 degrees by 12km, level at around 30km. If I started turning at 1.5km under stock I'd be in a world of hurt and losing so much delta-V from drag it'd be ridiculous.

[CalculusWarrior]

So a 10 km straight up ascent isn't efficient with stock aerodynamics? Hm, I'll have to modify my standard gravity turn then. My method is to fly up to 10 km, then pitch over to 45 degrees and keep burning until the atmosphere gauge reaches the middle mark (~25 km). Then I pitch over and start following the prograde vector, or at least keeping my time to apoapsis increasing if I have less than optimal thrust on my rocket.

I've found that modelling your gravity turn off the atmosphere gauge means that there is no need to memorize different altitudes for pitchovers, and it also works for all bodies!

[Othuyeg]

I adopted a very unefficient launch style when I used to build super wobbly rockets with dozens of boosters in different stages. The unrigid ships were not able to turn within the atmosphere so I would simply shoot them straight up and use balanced RCS to turn the ship and burn horizontal once on apoapsis.

The new joints are making a huge difference.

[lammatt]

stock aerodynamic is actually very tricky after you adapted yourself to FAR...

[Jouni]

My understanding of stock aerodynamics is that you should start the turn when you have achieved a reasonable climb rate. After that, your priority should be to gain as much horizontal speed as possible, without letting the climb rate fall too much.

In an reasonably efficient ascent, you are probably flying at around 250 m/s by the time you reach 10 km. At that point, more than half of the delta-v losses due to gravity and atmospheric drag have already occurred. After you have started the turn, the remaining delta-v losses are roughly proportional to the inverse of your climb rate, assuming that the airspeed remains the same. Reducing the losses significantly from a 250 m/s climb rate would require at least doubling the climb rate. That would get the apoapsis up too soon, increasing gravity losses from the rough approximation.

[P.Funk]

FAR makes anyone who has any latent understanding of how real airplanes fly have an infinitely better time building airplanes. I play lots of flight sims and trying to fly in KSP without FAR involves turning off a big part of my brain that contains learned knowledge and reflexes.

Its worth it in my opinion just to have the airplanes do things in an expected way. Stock aero is just terrible in all kinds of not so fun ways. I don't buy the whole "it fits the cartoony style" thing either. Even looney toons rockets had nose cones. Also, considering the fact that teachers are now using KSP to help people understand things like orbital mechanics it kind of points towards the intent of the game is not about being unrealistic to a huge degree because while you can use KSP for teaching about space there's no way you'd ever use KSP in its current form to teach aerodynamics.

Using FAR has made me more interested in exploring Kerbin itself. Before I used far I was always put off by the goofy aerodynamics and got into space as fast as possible.

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

without mods?

I thought I'd just stick with stock for 0.23.5, at least for a week or two, but I'm already planning on migrating my old save over to the new version along with all the mods, probably going to start downloading the new versions tonight. The problem is that the aerodynamics are complete crap (arrow-straight up to 10km and then tip to 45 degrees WTF), reentry effects are purely visual, the universe is kind of lack-luster and could use some higher-res textures, small quailty-of-life parts are sadly missing, fuel tanks are much better when they're procedural, fairings (nuff said), missing capsules...

I can do without fancy displays, autopilots, realistic sizing, but the rest of this stuff is just ... missing.

Anyway, here's hoping at least the aero gets a makeover soon. Much as I think ferram4 is one of the best modders out there I also think better aero will make the stock game much more playable.

Reg, I think Squad is mostly interested increating a solid Ground-base that will satisfy the most Gamers and People that are new to the game.

Also giving the Modders a good point to start with modifying the game in their ways.

I havent seen a game yet that is so easy to add a mod to like it is in KSP.

But you are right. I am wishing for new Sounds and polishings for a long time now.

On the other Hand, I am also very pleased about the Science-System, Nasa-Pack and upcoming contracts.

Edited April 3, 2014 by MalfunctionM1Ke

[Kasuha]

Playing KSP without mods is not hard. What's hard is to part with things you got accustomed (or addicted) to. Similarly to how it's not hard to live without smoking but it is hard to quit smoking. Of course that's not a very good example as there are clear disadvantages to smoking but there are no real problems to playing with mods. But the effect is the same.

[Guest]

Reg, I think Squad is mostly interested increating a solid Ground-base that will satisfy the most Gamers and People that are new to the game.

Also giving the Modders a good point to start with modifying the game in their ways.

I havent seen a game yet that is so easy to add a mod to like it is in KSP.

But you are right. I am wishing for new Sounds and polishings for a long time now.

On the other Hand, I am also very pleased about the Science-System, Nasa-Pack and upcoming contracts.

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I trust these guys to deliver a great game (like they've done so far) and man, have I got my money's worth in spades. Having a gripe doesn't mean I think they're bad at all, or that I want a rush on the quality stuff. It'd just be nice to want to play stock again because I think it's a pretty damn good game as-is.

Playing KSP without mods is not hard. What's hard is to part with things you got accustomed (or addicted) to. Similarly to how it's not hard to live without smoking but it is hard to quit smoking. Of course that's not a very good example as there are clear disadvantages to smoking but there are no real problems to playing with mods. But the effect is the same.

Hi, my name is regex and I chain-smoke FAR.

[Frank_G]

I use FAR besides other mods, however i keep mods in general and especially those adding parts at minimum. I played KSP without mods for 3 months straight and it is fun pure. I dont have problems with playing games, it doesnt have to be a realistic simulation all the time.

[problemecium]

The only mod I "depend" on is KAC, especially now that I have doomsday countdowns to worry about.

[SSSPutnik]

Mods give you cancer!?

[NecroBones]

I've grown highly accustomed to having the informational displays from MechJeb and KER (Engineer), plus KAC (Alarm Clock) is exceedingly useful once you start running missions in parallel. Other than that, everything else I've used is pretty optional to me.

[Creature]

After playing long enough with FAR, going back to stock aerodynamics was definitely difficult because it's so counterintuitive. Without it all kinds of weird things start happening that just don't make sense.

Also, while I'm not usually one for aesthetics, with FAR aesthetics equals performance so it's a win-win.

[Red Iron Crown]

I only use informational/control mods that I can play without, but i is far less fun without them. I don't want to go back to calculating everything manually. Can't wait for all the mods I use to be updated.

[TMS]

...the universe is kind of lack-luster and could use some higher-res textures...

A new, darker skybox would go a very long way.

[Guest]

A new, darker skybox would go a very long way.

I agree. I actually still play with that '70's retro skybox that some guy made in the early days of UniverseReplacer, great stuff. Although it is much darker, for sure.

[Hans Dorn]

For other automation I would prefer having some way of simple command line/script automation that could be used to send very basic programs to probes as well as being improvement of action groups (like making timed sequences or custom action groups/programs visible and triggered from staging list).

Check out kOS, it's exactly what you're decribing

Cheers

Hans

[Alymon]

Meh, I'm cool with stock. Somethings might be harder, some easier, but ultimately, I am enjoying it the way it is, so that's good enough for me. I've added mods in the past and will likely add some in the future... but for now, I like trying things stock first and then adding mods once I've achieved my main goals stock.

Play the game how you want to play it. Mods exists for that very reason.

[TonyInTsv]

The only mods I have trouble playing without is MJ, or some other node editing tool. Doing without the Struts from the B9 pack would be difficult but that's about all.

[CaptainKipard]

I think some games just easily lend themselves to modification. To me it's a measure of how good a game is, but not in the obvious way:

Some games are ok, you just play them, they're a decent distraction, you finish them and maybe replay them once or twice. Those games I rarely mod.

Some games however are so engaging at their core that all I think of is how to make them even more awesome. I did this with Oblivion and Skyrim. I played both for a few hours just to make sure I understand the game mechanics, then I started modding the hell out of both. I ran several dozens of mods.

As for KSP, I played stock for about a week before downloading my first mod, and I haven't played stock since.

[Guest]

I think some games just easily lend themselves to modification. To me it's a measure of how good a game is, but not in the obvious way:

Some games are ok, you just play them, they're a decent distraction, you finish them and maybe replay them once or twice. Those games I rarely mod.

Some games however are so engaging at their core that all I think of is how to make them even more awesome. I did this with Oblivion and Skyrim. I played both for a few hours just to make sure I understand the game mechanics, then I started modding the hell out of both. I ran several dozens of mods.

I like the cut of your jib, sir, that's a great way to think about it.

[CalculusWarrior]

I agree, it really says something about the quality of a game by how much it keeps players interested in modifying it to make it even better.

[ArmchairGravy]

I agree, it really says something about the quality of a game by how much it keeps players interested in modifying it to make it even better suit their play style.

"Better" is so subjective.

[Guest]

"Better" is so subjective.

So, what you're saying is that you use KER and Kethane because they make your game worse? Man, that's pretty sad...