Why is drag so high?

[boxley]

again its really best to download ferram aerospace, way better physics

ive downloaded it and its lovely physics are a bit odd but more reasonable, aerodynamic shapes not arbitrarily slowing in the upper atmosphere ya know.

[Azimech]

First time I flew a flight simulator was Sid Meier's Solo Flight in 1983. Then came Flight Simulator II in 1984. Already those two had something Squad's aero system doesn't: stall.

I was seven years old and already it was logical once my father explained it to me. I've flown tens of sims the next 30 years, all with aerodynamics more advanced than stock KSP. You can imagine my disappointment the first time I built a plane in 0.16 and took off.

I use FAR now. If it wasn't for FAR I'd probably quit playing. If a seven year old can understand and learn how to fly a plane, then why should the community be against it. Because they want to keep building pancake rockets and use infiniglide?

[allmhuran]

I'm not sure how FAR calculates drag, but I do know that the stock game figures out where to draw reentry flames by positioning a camera ahead of the craft along its velocity vector and looking back at it to find the edges of the shape facing into the wind. A clever solution and one that can, as raptor implied, also be used to figure out the surface area facing into the wind as one element of a more accurate drag calculation. This alone wouldn't fix everything (nosecones would have no effect since if they were facing directly into the wind, as you'd expect, then they wouldn't change the silhouette), but it would certainly be an important element. Additional cameras positioned along the other axes could be used to figure out "pointiness", but the cost of all those cameras might add up (even though they only need to render geometry, not textures, background, etc)

Edited May 21, 2014 by allmhuran

[MAKC]

Just hire ferram to do the aerodynamics already.

[Agumander]

This alone wouldn't fix everything (nosecones would have no effect since if they were facing directly into the wind, as you'd expect, then they wouldn't change the silhouette), but it would certainly be an important element. Additional cameras positioned along the other axes could be used to figure out "pointiness", but the cost of all those cameras might add up (even though they only need to render geometry, not textures, background, etc)

It could be done with just one camera. The "pointiness" could be determined from the surface normal, which is already given in Unity's rendering pipeline. Side cameras would miss any indentation in the front surface, but these would be visible to a front camera. The drag could then be scaled by the dot product of the surface normal with the drag camera's forward vector.

I'm not sure offhand whether an indentation on a front surface would produce more drag than a totally flat surface. Either way, to accurately model drag this way they'd need to be detected. Let's say the front camera uses a shader that includes calculation and transformation of the aforementioned dot product. Indentations would appear to the camera as regions outlined in high drag containing regions of lower drag. A modified flood fill algorithm could be used on these areas to represent the drag of the indentation, as long as the method for differentiating between the inside and outside of these regions is reliable.

[rtxoff]

Anyone knows the goat simulator ? This game has absurd physix and nobody complains about that. People actually told the devs to release it with all the bugs because it was so much fun.

Nobody minds that you can launch goats into orbit by running into cars. Why are the people here so determined to get realistic aerodynamics into KSP?

They announced that they will do it anyway.

[Jas1126]

Anyone knows the goat simulator ? This game has absurd physix and nobody complains about that. People actually told the devs to release it with all the bugs because it was so much fun.

Nobody minds that you can launch goats into orbit by running into cars. Why are the people here so determined to get realistic aerodynamics into KSP?

They announced that they will do it anyway.

You're comparing apples and oranges here and it makes no sense. Two completely different games/genres and expectations. GS started off as a joke and it still quite the joke. KSP is not considered a joke. People want a realistic experience in KSP.

[Alfondoo]

I installed FAR and suddenly all my concept designs (based on real life designs) suddenly worked! I hated building planes with stock aero.

It's not all about realism but the expectation of how aerodynamics should work. It's easy to draw designs from real life inspiration. It's disheartening to find that they won't fly through a fishbowl of jelly-like substance.

[rtxoff]

You're comparing apples and oranges here and it makes no sense. Two completely different games/genres and expectations. GS started off as a joke and it still quite the joke. KSP is not considered a joke. People want a realistic experience in KSP.

I am not comparing anything just mentioning how it works out for other games. It makes perfect sense. It's fun vs. simulation. The day that KSP becomes the perfect space simulator ist the day i won't play KSP anymore. I bought a game to enjoy and have fun, do things that are impossible in real life and not watching boring rockets fly perfectly simulated into orbit. I want xplosions, i want kerbals accelerated out of Kerbols SOI after the xplosions, i want kerbals smashing into planets ground and standing up again and not glowing up at reentry. I want to build monstreous asparagus wonders that eventually make it into orbit. I want to watch youtube videos where people are playing basketball with asteroids. I want to do all the other crazy stuff that made KSP what it is. This people is fun with gaming, a little bit simulation and education is good and sure has it's place in KSP, but too much of it kills everything. If people wanted an realistic experience, why there are so many youtube videos showing unrealistic and funny things in KSP?

I watched also the realistic ones, i began to snore in front of it....

[shizophrenic]

I installed FAR and suddenly all my concept designs (based on real life designs) suddenly worked! I hated building planes with stock aero.

It's not all about realism but the expectation of how aerodynamics should work. It's easy to draw designs from real life inspiration. It's disheartening to find that they won't fly through a fishbowl of jelly-like substance.

Just to make it beforehand clear. I am not against any other aerodynamics at all.

I am just totally aganist the way a lot of ppl behave. You say You Hate building planes with stock aero. I really HATE how ppl DEMAND things (may it be Features or shedules), call The ppl who do the WORK in THEIR game incompetent, come up with arguments that are not per Definition are right (like more realism is always better), and never try to consider that others may have another view to that matter.

Example: someone was complaining in a treat stock aero is flying like aganist a brick wall, to hard etc. I consider i more like a challenge, making a plane fly there. Why should it be just fun doing it the way reality works.

if ppl want a game that represent their ideal game, then go ahead and make it yourself.

[Azimech]

I am not comparing anything just mentioning how it works out for other games. It makes perfect sense. It's fun vs. simulation. The day that KSP becomes the perfect space simulator ist the day i won't play KSP anymore. I bought a game to enjoy and have fun, do things that are impossible in real life and not watching boring rockets fly perfectly simulated into orbit. I want xplosions, i want kerbals accelerated out of Kerbols SOI after the xplosions, i want kerbals smashing into planets ground and standing up again and not glowing up at reentry. I want to build monstreous asparagus wonders that eventually make it into orbit. I want to watch youtube videos where people are playing basketball with asteroids. I want to do all the other crazy stuff that made KSP what it is. This people is fun with gaming, a little bit simulation and education is good and sure has it's place in KSP, but too much of it kills everything. If people wanted an realistic experience, why there are so many youtube videos showing unrealistic and funny things in KSP?

I watched also the realistic ones, i began to snore in front of it....

You seem to forget life, with all it's realism, has many extremely funny things to offer. Some (most?) of those things are illegal, hazardous for the environment or are a way to get nominated for a Darwin Award. Even in the most realistic simulation software possible, people are finding ways to have fun ... and succeed!

Let's have KSP as realistic as possible in the physics department. Let there be a mod called "Original KSP physics". Let it be like version 0.17, with all the kraken attacks and other weird bugs and "features".

It's all about being creative and finding NEW solutions to have fun. Why always stick to the old ways. Nostalgia is nice but limiting as well. And let's be honest, your first kiss wasn't as good as the kisses you received later in life.

Example: someone was complaining in a treat stock aero is flying like aganist a brick wall, to hard etc. I consider i more like a challenge, making a plane fly there. Why should it be just fun doing it the way reality works.

Ooh I like this one. A challenge to make a plane fly in stock? Not really. Try a helo. And I don't mean KAX or Firespitter rotors but self made.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Azimech

[Azimech]

Delete....

Edited May 21, 2014 by Azimech

[allmhuran]

It could be done with just one camera. The "pointiness" could be determined from the surface normal

Sure, I'm just saying that pretty much the same code used now for reentry effects could be reused pretty much as-is (maybe the reentry effect camera already does use surface normals, in which case cool, even less code to write!)

[DaMichel]

I kind of got curious how limiting FAR really is. Having build mostly planes and "realistic" rockets, i built this today (posted in Ferram4's thread but i figured i could show it here, too)

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Not too bad ... i guess you could still get away with monstreous asparagus wonders, carefully piloted and slightly adapted in design (fins, nosecones, slightly different proportions maybe). I'll have to give an Eve return vehicle a try ...

[Azimech]

Ehm ... try that without Deadly Re-entry then. And switch off damage due to aerodynamic stresses in the FAR menu (space center screen).

The combination FAR and DRE makes an Eve return vehicle impossibru! Absolutely. I mean totally.

Oh and funny ... you never meant to build a flying swastika did you? I know they can get pretty high in the Himalayas but this tops it!

Edited May 21, 2014 by Azimech

[rtxoff]

I kind of got curious how limiting FAR really is. Having build mostly planes and "realistic" rockets, i built this today (posted in Ferram4's thread but i figured i could show it here, too)

http://imgur.com/a/6IOXJ

Not too bad ... i guess you could still get away with monstreous asparagus wonders, carefully piloted and slightly adapted in design (fins, nosecones, slightly different proportions maybe). I'll have to give an Eve return vehicle a try ...

Well then i guess FAR is not at all that realistic it claims to be. Or was it the planet? Now i am confused. Help me people, what is realistic and what is not. I mean come on, look at the thing you got into orbit. Is this realistic? I don't think so.

[CaptRobau]

The reason why that thing can reach space in KSP and can't in real-life is not the aerodynamics, but rather the struts connecting everything to each other. Unlike real materials, those things won't break or flex. IRL this thing would collapse under its won weight, before aerodynamic flight would even be a consideration.

As for me, I wouldn't mind a better model. As DaMichel's example shows, you can still have weird rocket designs and fun blowing things up while at the same time you can have an aerodynamic model that is intuitive and lets you try out real aircraft designs and see why they fly like they do. Real aerodynamics aren't any more difficult than the stock version. Just look at some of the paper plane designs they can produce and you'll realize they understand why some things fly and others don't.

[Jas1126]

I am not comparing anything just mentioning how it works out for other games. It makes perfect sense. It's fun vs. simulation. The day that KSP becomes the perfect space simulator ist the day i won't play KSP anymore. I bought a game to enjoy and have fun, do things that are impossible in real life and not watching boring rockets fly perfectly simulated into orbit. I want xplosions, i want kerbals accelerated out of Kerbols SOI after the xplosions, i want kerbals smashing into planets ground and standing up again and not glowing up at reentry. I want to build monstreous asparagus wonders that eventually make it into orbit. I want to watch youtube videos where people are playing basketball with asteroids. I want to do all the other crazy stuff that made KSP what it is. This people is fun with gaming, a little bit simulation and education is good and sure has it's place in KSP, but too much of it kills everything. If people wanted an realistic experience, why there are so many youtube videos showing unrealistic and funny things in KSP?

I watched also the realistic ones, i began to snore in front of it....

Aren't you expecting a game that wasn't intended? I mean from the company's perspective. I'm sure they never wanted their final product to be a laughing stock. And that's the attitude you'd see in the forums if this current version were the final product (in terms of aerodynamics.) They'd be considered amateur's and their reputation soiled. Some people can be quite loud with their opinions.

[DaMichel]

Whoops! Similarities with political symbols and the like are not intended.

Anyway, here are two examples from "real" gameplay. They are definitely not as crazy but they still show that you don't have to pack everything neatly into tidy fairings.

* The plane for the Flying on Duna challenge (sig)

* The engine section of the IPV Duna Explorer.

Edited May 22, 2014 by DaMichel

[Guest]

I kind of got curious how limiting FAR really is. Having build mostly planes and "realistic" rockets, i built this today (posted in Ferram4's thread but i figured i could show it here, too)

http://imgur.com/a/6IOXJ

Not too bad ... i guess you could still get away with monstreous asparagus wonders, carefully piloted and slightly adapted in design (fins, nosecones, slightly different proportions maybe). I'll have to give an Eve return vehicle a try ...

It's just a matter of thrust and mass. I've had some interesting results with FAR and RSS, where the rocket was so mighty that it overpowered the aerodynamic forces with gimbals alone (it was the Energia, so this was expected). Low part counts and solid structure also help. It's not like you can't brute-force an odd design through the atmosphere, but efficiency might be noticeably lower than it could be with a streamlined design. This is realistic, you could probably do that IRL, too (not that you'd want to).

[Kasuha]

This thread reminded me of this video of Proton rocket accident (warning: 186 MB download) . Notice how at about 2/3 of the record the rocket breaks up because of aerodynamic forces - there's no explosion yet.

KSP drag model is very unrealistic, but IMO it works decently with the game. And it is simple enough to not bring the game down on knees on slower machines.

[CaptRobau]

Does FAR impact heavily on machines then? My rig is several years old but I notice no difference in FPS when I have FAR installed.

[Elthy]

The reason why i wont use FAR is that it makes getting to orbit even easier. I add fairings and nosecones which are simply dead weight but i still think getting to space ist to easy...

[rtxoff]

Aren't you expecting a game that wasn't intended? I mean from the company's perspective. I'm sure they never wanted their final product to be a laughing stock. And that's the attitude you'd see in the forums if this current version were the final product (in terms of aerodynamics.)

Sure i am expecting a game that is intended, but i am not expecting people demanding a mod like FAR into this game all the time and crying about it. Sure they will do better aerodynamics, but will they integrate FAR into the game? People here calling for FAR FAR FAR, ok no problemo bro, download the mod and enjoy FAR.

The actual situation reminds me of a bunch of sea gulls flying over KSP and chattering "FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR" all the time.

They'd be considered amateur's and their reputation soiled.

For me they are pro's, no matter how long it's gonna take to finish this. Attention, carfulness, devotion, precision and methodicalness are all taking away much time but they are also keys for perfection.

Prematurely hasting out unfinished features won't help anyone, and constantly crying about them neither.

Some people can be quite loud with their opinions.

The opinion i write here may or maybe not be my real opinion. But if we are going to discuss matters here we need to illuminate things from all the sides. So do not take it too personally if it seems that my opinion differs from yours.

[Azimech]

The reason why i wont use FAR is that it makes getting to orbit even easier. I add fairings and nosecones which are simply dead weight but i still think getting to space ist to easy...

Try Real Fuels, Deadly Re-entry, RSS, Mission Controller Extended and those Tech Tree mods. Not enough challenge? You can make it almost impossible to achieve something.

Whoops! Similarities with political symbols and the like are not intended.

Don't worry, it's just my eyes. And the East-Asian swastika is the peaceful/spiritual swastika.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Azimech