Aerodynamics

[tyraidooi2]

Wondering if aerodynamics are implemented yet. As in is it worth the extra weight to put on nose cones on rockets and boosters? Or has aerodynamics not been implemented yet like reentry heat damage? I dont think it has been put into effect yet as I dont seem to notice any diffference if I add nose cones other than it looks better.

Edited May 18, 2014 by tyraidooi2

[Tex]

...Ah.

There technically is an aerodynamics system set in KSP, but it simply alters the way fuel is processed at different altitudes. So with the whole "nose cones" thing, it's not worth it in just stock KSP, no. However, I would please ask that you look around a bit more before asking questions like these, and remember that mods will often take up the load that stock does not.

You'll be wanting Ferram Aerospace Research, which does a complete overhaul on the aerodynamics system, and nose cones become worth it.

[tyraidooi2]

Well I thought the purpose of the forums was to help each other out. No one forced you to read or answer my question. Also on almost all posts I see where some n one chimes in on an old post they are asked not to do so and to please start their own so I have always been in the habit of starting my own. But I guess im misunderstood in the purpose of the forums and Ill be sure to not ask for help any more as I guess that's not the purpose of them. Thank you for the correction Max I can refrain from being an inconvenience to any one else in the future. As for Mods I don't like to use them. I like to play games the way the designers intended them to be played and see mods as kind of cheating and am pretty sure they intend to implement aerodynamics in a future update any way along with the re-entry heat damage. Thank you for taking the time to answer my question and again very sorry for being an inconvenience to you.

Edit im not over reacting I am actually truly sorry for being an inconvenience to some one who is more knowledgeable. I just dont know any other way to say it and realize it sounds like im trying to be a smart ass but thats not the case I just wanted to make a heart felt apology

Edit 2 - I do also want to thank every one who took the time to reply to my question. Sounds like for now I will leave them off to save mass and wait for them to implement it fully into the game along with the reentry heat damage.

Edited May 18, 2014 by tyraidooi2

[xcorps]

Wow.

Overreact much?

[Vanamonde]

Well. This didn't get off to a very good start.

Newbies are going to ask question most of us have seen before, and there's no harm in it. Can we be a bit more patient with them, please?

Anyway, the current KSP aerodynamic system is... odd. Nosecones actually increase drag, but do so by less than most parts. So putting them on the front of a ship can help keep the nose pointed forward-with-respect-to-airflow, but do increase total drag. Right now, players mostly use them for aesthetic purposes.

[Red Iron Crown]

There is an aerodynamic system, but it's more of a "placeholder" mechanism until something better is implemented.

At is simplest: Drag has nothing to do with cross-section size or shape of the craft; instead it is directly proportional to mass and the drag coefficients of individual parts. Very generally speaking, the only way to minimize drag is to minimize mass, so adding any additional parts (including nosecones) actually increases the drag. This has the unfortunate consequence of making aerodynamic looking ships less aerodynamically efficient than blocky ships.

There are reentry visual effects, and some fragile parts like solar panels can be damaged by passing through atmosphere too fast, but in general reentry heat and damage is not modeled.

These have been on the planned feature list for some time, though it is fairly certain that neither of them will be in the upcoming 0.24 update. There are high quality mods that add these features (Ferram Aeropace Research for aerodynamics, Deadly Reentry for reentry effects), whether you want to use them or wait for the developers to implement them really depends on you and how you want to play the game.

[Taki117]

Boy, that escalated quickly...but anyway, Nosecones do affect Rocket stability, bot not to any great degree. Ferram Aerospace Research changes this and models atmosphere and aerodynamics more effectively. Also, if you are looking for Reentry heating you can try Deadly Reentry which adds shock heating and heat shields, making re-entries much more dangers, and the Two together really changes things and makes KSP Much more realistic.

[Pecan]

...As for Mods I don't like to use them. I like to play games the way the designers intended them to be played and see mods as kind of cheating and am pretty sure they intend to implement aerodynamics in a future update any way along with the re-entry heat damage...

1) What the designers intended, intend and might intend at some future point is something most of us don't know - including them, if they're honest. KSP is still in development so is changing; not only along a pre-planned path but along paths the designers discover as they go.

2) You can relax about mods; most address areas where there has been no 'statement of intent' from the designers, or they have outright said they're not 'intending' to implement features (quotes because they might change their minds - multiplayer is a current case in point). SCANSat, for instance, adds mapping-satellite features; which have never been suggested as a core feature by Squad. If that sort of extra feature interests you then it is worth getting the mod.

3) Similarly with 'information display' mods - Squad have said they don't want to display rocket statistics like TWR, deltaV, etc. A recent poll on these forums said 80%+ wanted such information; for which they currently install mods. If you were selling something and 80% of your customers said they wanted a particular feature, wouldn't you think very hard about changing your plans?

3) Aerodynamics has been implemented, as has been mentioned. I've no idea how you can be 'sure' Squad will change it, nor introduce re-entry damage.

As to your original question - Nosecones improve the drag of the stack they are on, giving better directional stability (this changed in 0.23? Maybe 0.22)

[Voculus]

I know I'm late to the party, but I wanted to mention that I have never built a rocket, where a nosecone or six broke the design. It's so much more satisfying to see what looks like a real rocket blasting off into space, as opposed to a more Kerbal-styled scrapheap.

[Claw]

I used to leave all the aerodynamic stuff off my rockets, but have since started adding it on. Somewhat for sheer looks, but also to get used to having it there for when the aerodynamics get overhauled.

I also prefer stock. But since this is an open ended game, you can pretty much play-pretend whatever you want. I would say that I don't let the lack of a feature stop me from playing a certain way. Such as adding nosecones or controlling my reentry speed/angle for heat considerations. You can still do all that without the use of mods. Personally, I got tired of quirky mods causing crashes, or at least more crashes than I already get with stock...

[phoenix_ca]

A recent poll on these forums said 80%+ wanted such information; for which they currently install mods. If you were selling something and 80% of your customers said they wanted a particular feature, wouldn't you think very hard about changing your plans?

Just because a lot of your players want a particular feature or change to the game, doesn't mean they're right. In fact players can come-up with some really, really bad ideas in terms of game design thinking they'd be awesome. (In KSP my favourite bugbear regarding this is anyone who things random component failures would be a good addition to the game, when functionally all that would result in is more clicks of the "Revert Flight" button, or more save scumming.) That many of your customers say they want something doesn't mean its a good idea, and in-and-of-itself should not be used as justification for anything. One might use it as secondary justification, or a secondary positive effect, after having provided sound justification for the feature to be implemented. In other words, find a good design reason for the change or feature to be implemented, and then if lots of your players want that feature, you can say "and our players say they want it too".

Note I'm not saying that having delta-v and TWR info in the stock game would be bad. I happen to agree with you, but your reasoning is faulty.

[Laie]

As for Mods I don't like to use them. I like to play games the way the designers intended them to be played and see mods as kind of cheating [...]

I'm basically in the same camp, and was rather reluctant to pick up any mod, but with Kerbal it is nearly unavoidable. Can't say I'm happy with that state of affairs, but that's just how it is.

Sooner or later you'll have something you're missing in the game. In my case, it was that I couldn't easily see the weight of my contraptions. My notion of thrust-to-weight was "thre rocket motors will barely lift that thing". Just one actual number, weight, would have made note-keeping much easier. Alas, you can't find out the weight of your craft before launch... so I went to the launchpad early and often, only to glimpse the weight and revert to assembly. After the umpteenth time, I was fed up.

The mod I installed (mechjeb) also gave me a host of other information and convenience fuctions. These days, I wouldn't want to be without; but having full Delta-V maps (a measure for how far your rocket will take you) allowed me to build well-planned rockets quite early in my kerbal experience, cutting short the tinkering phase. I'm a bit sorry about that.

[Pecan]

...but your reasoning is faulty.

Sometimes it may be but I do try to think-through what I mean and then say what has been thought-through. In this case the emphasis was on "think very hard about changing" - I'm not saying custom-opinion is sufficient reason TO change but it is a reason to CONSIDER change. I suspect Squad will do exactly that but have no opinion on whether that will lead to a change in the decision.

[cantab]

I'm basically in the same camp, and was rather reluctant to pick up any mod, but with Kerbal it is nearly unavoidable. Can't say I'm happy with that state of affairs, but that's just how it is.

It would be a fair view with a game that's complete, that the designers have implicitly or explicitly said "This game is how we wanted it to be." But KSP is not anywhere near complete; the stock game we play today cannot be said to be how the designers intend it to be played.