Exactly how bad is the aerodynamic model in KSP?

[WafflesToo]

If I'm not mistaken, the next major feature to be implemented after Career is Multiplayer.

Drag may not work exactly how it does work on Earth, but honestly if you tried with Earth atmosphere what OP tried in that video, your return module would probably not survive. Real crafts need to pay proper attention to being oriented the right way before they start entering the atmosphere or bad things may happen. Reentry is very little about friction, most of it is high velocity impacts of individual gas molecules to your module - and as they impact it, they transfer the energy of the velocity difference into heat. Not enough energy to turn your ship, but enough energy to destroy it if you leave a weak point exposed.

And there's more about KSP aerodynamic model than its drag everybody seems to be complaining about. What I have major problem with is actually the Lift model. Wing parts are just ridiculous, and control surfaces double so.

Kasuha, we fired shells from tanks using the exact aerodynamic principle I was hoping to exploit that have a muzzle velocity about triple what reentry speeds are in KSP and around 70-80% what reentry speeds are IRL. (referring to the 120mm training projectiles TPCSDS-T and TPCS-T). Regardless, the survival of the craft isn't what we're discussing so much as the goofy flight characteristics inherent to the existing engine.

I would never disagree with you about the lift model, but that seems to be more a symptom of the underlying problem. Fix the drag model and I'm pretty sure you're more than halfway to fixing the lift model (drag and lift are fairly closely related to one another).

[RidingTheFlow]

Sorry, probably these concepts are too alien for my mind then As I said I tried to apply the simple way you describe - but it doesn't seem to work every time, so I gave up, and just slap B9 airbrakes at the back - this seem to work every time, probably due to massive drag they have enough to overwhelm everything else.

Problem is, even if you master it perfectly, its pretty useless (and not educational like rest of KSP).

Probably both lift & drag needs fixing. Since in lot of cases "stabilizing fins" don't really stabilize anything.

Edited June 12, 2014 by RidingTheFlow

[razark]

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that the game we paid in advance for to be released in a completed, non-broken state.

This is a damn good point! Why does Squad keep giving us a half-finished game? We paid our money for an as-is product, so they should give us the finished product now!

[Camacha]

My biggest fear would be that KSP implements a new drag model that still is not up to par with FAR, but has people leaving FAR without love. Ferram is an expert and puts a lot of time and thought into it. I cannot see SQUAD easily improving on that. Aerodynamics are a complicated subject, not easily learned or reproduced by a layman.

Ideally, Squad would use Ferram's work as a basis, but takes its access to the most low level hidden bits of the game to improve the things Ferram could never do, or has a hard time doing as a modder. The power to directly work with the game code should make life a little easier.

It goes without saying that the stock model is a bit of a joke. It is totally counter intuitive in a number of ways. I think more realism is also in line with Squad's unoffical goal of learning in a fun way.

To be brutally honest, I feel leaving this while working on a new and huge feature like multiplayer is doing things a bit backwards, unless it is of course an indication that Sqaud considers aerodynamics as finished. But that would leave me wondering about other pretty basic game features that could use a bit of polish, to say the least.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Camacha

[Tortoise]

I want them to integrate FAR already.

[WafflesToo]

I would be against them just integrating FAR only because it isn't exactly "new-player friendly". (talk about a guy who has gone and done a LOT of work for us for $free).

@Camacha: everyone knows it's a joke, but pointing at it and laughing seems to be a mortal sin to some around here

[karolus10]

Dear OP, there is only one problem with KSP aerodynamic model: there is no any yet.

Every part is "generating" drag basing on it's drag coefficient and mass values and wings generate lift in equally arbitrary way. There is no aerodynamic simulation in KSP, only place holder that happened to work good enough.

I guess that such issues may be addressed when all essential KSP features and mechanics will be in place (scope-completion)... when You build house, you did not care a lot about furnitures or making shower work before all walls, roof and installations are on place.

[Dodgey]

Scope complete doesn't mean that the game is done, far from it. What it means is that the foundations of the major features are in place, not finished. The aerodynamics of the game work for the moment. They simulate to a degree what you would expect, you hit it and you slow down. That's it, once the major features have a grounding Squad will go over and start improving, I mean honestly, you really think that the ship builder is final?

And just a reminder, you bought the game as is, that's all you paid for.

[Hodo]

If I'm not mistaken, the next major feature to be implemented after Career is Multiplayer.

Drag may not work exactly how it does work on Earth, but honestly if you tried with Earth atmosphere what OP tried in that video, your return module would probably not survive. Real crafts need to pay proper attention to being oriented the right way before they start entering the atmosphere or bad things may happen. Reentry is very little about friction, most of it is high velocity impacts of individual gas molecules to your module - and as they impact it, they transfer the energy of the velocity difference into heat. Not enough energy to turn your ship, but enough energy to destroy it if you leave a weak point exposed.

And there's more about KSP aerodynamic model than its drag everybody seems to be complaining about. What I have major problem with is actually the Lift model. Wing parts are just ridiculous, and control surfaces double so.

This is one thing we can definitely agree on.

[Commander Zoom]

@Camacha: everyone knows it's a joke, but pointing at it and laughing seems to be a mortal sin to some around here

Humor is about delivery and intent as much as it is about content. I could relate an amusing anecdote about a friend, to lighten the mood and establish camaraderie, or seek to humiliate an enemy with mockery, to strike at them indirectly - both with a smile on my face.

Personally, I don't hear laughing in this thread. I hear *****ing.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Commander Zoom

[AlamoVampire]

This is a damn good point! Why does Squad keep giving us a half-finished game? We paid our money for an as-is product, so they should give us the finished product now!

see heres the thing. when you gave them your money, you agreed to play the game as it stands, in an AS IS condition. Squad is under NO obligation to deliver a 'finished product' and that each and every update COULD BE THE LAST.

This game is in its ALPHA state, and lacks considerable features. Chill.

[Dodgey]

Man, poe's law is coming up a lot here lately.

[boxman]

*cough* FAR *cough cough*

Seriously. In a game this easily modded (clicks download for FAR, drags FAR folder into gamedata folder, launches KSP) with such a small dev team, I'd consider it a pretty low (as in not) a priority. I'm confused everytime I see a topic requesting features easily added or corrected with mods as part of the stock game....why? its just so easy to stop complaining and mod the game!

I'd rather see squad focusing on adding new features and getting scope-complete as they say.

Mods are not solution to everything. They add extra lag, they consume up more memory and can even break completely or become discontinued after a new version of KSP is released. This is a feature that should be in the vanilla game, so I dont think it is a bad idea to bring it up considering how quiet they have been and squads track record when it comes to suddenly cancelling promised features. I am sure most of us would be happy if they at least communicate to us that it is still a priority for them.

[KvickFlygarn87]

This is a damn good point! Why does Squad keep giving us a half-finished game? We paid our money for an as-is product, so they should give us the finished product now!

Ehm. It's in alpha, bugs are to be expected, not frowned upon. SQUAD has done a damn good job so far, and KSPis one of the best games I know of.

[Cirocco]

Okay, my two cents for the pile:

When I read the title, my first reaction was “yeah the aerodynamics model is pretty bad†(that thought was immediately followed by “but so what? It’s an alpha indie game which I knowingly bought in an unfinished state to support the developers and I already have more hours logged on it and arguably had more fun with it than skyrimâ€Â. But that’s not the point I want to make). But then I got to thinking “Hang on. Is it really bad? It’s completely and utterly unrealistic, certainly. But is it bad? Those are two different things.â€Â

I recently installed FAR and I must admit, it was nice to have a more realistic model to play around with. It also added new challenges and eased some old sores. But then two or so days ago I uninstalled it temporarily to make a craft for someone who plays stock and a realization occurred to me:

Even though the stock aerodynamics model is completely and utterly unrealistic, it is FUN for me.

FAR is great, massive kudos to Ferram for making it, but it prohibits many things. One of the main things it stops you from doing is launching very wide space station modules in one go (the so-called pancake rockets). Now, seeing as building space stations on site is not a thing (yet? Wink wink nudge nudge Squad? ) pretty much the only thing to do to make a space station with big modules (like an asteroid station) is to build the modules in the VAB and launch them in one go. The stock dynamics model allows that, FAR (or any other realistic model) would not. Also, the stock model allows for awesome, realistically impossible and hilarious things to be done with spaceplanes and parachutes as I discovered yesterday. The “tradeoff†you could say is the fact that stock requires more lift surfaces and dV to get through atmosphere.

So yeah, I actually like both stock and FAR. One is realistic, the other presents its own unique problems and more importantly, can be totally hilarious at times. And to me KSP is still a game and a game is about having fun. I foresee myself switching between FAR and stock quite a bit in the future.

In conclusion: How bad is the aerodynamics model in KSP? Well, for me personally, it isn’t. It’s fun. It’s completely and totally unrealistic, but does that make it inherently bad? Nope.

[KerbMav]

I for one tend to not put my money in things I do not know/understand.

If someone does not know what early access means, he should either not spent money on it or accept the consequences of his ignorance.

"Coffee: Contents may be hot!"

[Kasuha]

Err, except that the very few parts that do have a different coefficient have very little mass, so they make no difference.

Except that they don't all have very little mass and are often enough making enough difference for people to come here on forums asking why their design doesn't work.

[Red Iron Crown]

I don't get the point of this thread. I don't think it was any secret that the aero model is very unrealistic, nor do I think Squad is in any way unaware of it.

They've said in the past that they're inclined to let things slide that can be implemented with mods until they've gotten all the features into the game that they're planning. The existence of FAR means that aero can stay on the back burner while they focus on other things. I'm sure they'll eventually revisit the aerodynamic model, but I'm not holding my breath that it will be in the next few updates. The push is for scope completion, so improvement to placeholder features is taking a back seat to implementing new ones.

[Kobymaru]

This is a damn good point! Why does Squad keep giving us a half-finished game? We paid our money for an as-is product, so they should give us the finished product now!

The reason why they keep giving us a half-finished game is because, well, it's half finished. Simple as that. On the other hand...

see heres the thing. when you gave them your money, you agreed to play the game as it stands, in an AS IS condition. Squad is under NO obligation to deliver a 'finished product' and that each and every update COULD BE THE LAST.

Ehm. It's in alpha, bugs are to be expected, not frowned upon. SQUAD has done a damn good job so far, and KSPis one of the best games I know of.

I for one tend to not put my money in things I do not know/understand.

If someone does not know what early access means, he should either not spent money on it or accept the consequences of his ignorance.

That's all good and fine, but the problem with this is that we didn't just pay for a broken half-finished game, even if it says so in the terms and conditions. We paid for the promise of a good game, we paid for the idea that eventually we would have a nice finished, good working game. At least that's for me, but I think many would agree.

And please don't act like we're all beggars and Squad are the mighty benefactor that may or may not produce a good game. We are the *investors*! We invested in a product before it was done in the hope that it would pay off for us in the future, just like a publisher would have. Now we take the role of investment from the publisher, and I think we have a *right* to know what's happening, what is planned and a right to demand and criticize certain things. And yes, I believe it's a right. Unfortunately this is not reflected in the terms and conditions, which I don't find so good either.

And to be honest, I really, really dislike the "take it or leave it" attitude here. Every time there is some criticizm, people come up and say "BUT THE GAME ISNT FINISHED STOP CRITICIZING". That's not how it works, just about anywhere because it's an attitude that prohibits advancement. In every single Open Source project (just as an example where volunteers are at work that don't owe users anything) there will be bug reports, feature request and so on. Do the devs say "but I don't owe you anything!"? No, it's some users that say that. The devs are happy for feedback, because that's what brings them closer to a good piece of software.

And this is what it's all about in an open development project (which KSP "kind of" is): communication with your userbase. And here, squad kinda sucks.

My biggest fear would be that KSP implements a new drag model that still is not up to par with FAR, but has people leaving FAR without love. Ferram is an expert and puts a lot of time and thought into it. I cannot see SQUAD easily improving on that. Aerodynamics are a complicated subject, not easily learned or reproduced by a layman.

That's about my biggest fear: squad implements a new aerodynamic model, considers it completed and it's still not good enough.

To be brutally honest, I feel leaving this while working on a new and huge feature like multiplayer is doing things a bit backwards, unless it is of course an indication that Sqaud considers aerodynamics as finished. But that would leave me wondering about other pretty basic game features that could use a bit of polish, to say the least.

- I think the same, and I'm kind of afraid that KSP will get "stuck" on the current level. Here's why:

Note that in Devnote Tuesdays, about 1 or 2 people actually reported on working with code. The rest are for renderings, textures, management, servers, infrastructure, ...

- Recently, one of the core developers,Chad "C7" left the dev team. I think he was here from the beginning.

- This quote from the most recent update: "At this stage in the project, bringing in someone new as a straight up replacement isn't a possibility.".

I'm afraid there just aren't enough people working on the code that could actually finish this game in the near future.

[KerbMav]

That's all good and fine, but the problem with this is that we didn't just pay for a broken half-finished game, even if it says so in the terms and conditions. We paid for the promise of a good game, we paid for the idea that eventually we would have a nice finished, good working game. At least that's for me, but I think many would agree.

And please don't act like we're all beggars and Squad are the mighty benefactor that may or may not produce a good game. We are the *investors*! We invested in a product before it was done in the hope that it would pay off for us in the future, just like a publisher would have. Now we take the role of investment from the publisher, and I think we have a *right* to know what's happening, what is planned and a right to demand and criticize certain things. And yes, I believe it's a right. Unfortunately this is not reflected in the terms and conditions, which I don't find so good either.

The devs are happy for feedback, because that's what brings them closer to a good piece of software.

You (but not just you, so do not take this to personally just because I am quoting you to answer in this thread) think, find, believe ... which is irrelevant.

We are not investors with any right or entitlement, we are consumers that agreed to a contract by buying a product.

(Like buying a can of soup.)

The terms and conditions describe the product that was bought, not what you expected to pay for.

(If it says "pea soup" on the can and you dislike peas - do not buy the can.)

And there is a difference between feedback and feedback - between constructive and pretentious.

[razark]

see heres the thing. when you gave them your money, you agreed to play the game as it stands, in an AS IS condition. Squad is under NO obligation to deliver a 'finished product' and that each and every update COULD BE THE LAST.

This game is in its ALPHA state, and lacks considerable features. Chill.

Ehm. It's in alpha, bugs are to be expected, not frowned upon. SQUAD has done a damn good job so far, and KSPis one of the best games I know of.

The reason why they keep giving us a half-finished game is because, well, it's half finished. Simple as that.

Y'all did catch the fact that I said I paid for an "as-is" product, yes? And complained that the unfinished game was unfinished, right?

[Dodgey]

Y'all did catch the fact that I said I paid for an "as-is" product, yes? And complained that the unfinished game was unfinished, right?

Again, poe's law.

[Camacha]

I would be against them just integrating FAR only because it isn't exactly "new-player friendly". (talk about a guy who has gone and done a LOT of work for us for $free).

I kindly disagree. I feel that a somewhat realistic model, about which players can find information on the internet (because it mirrors real life), is a lot friendlier than some kind of model that plays by its own rules. If you want to take your time to figure it all out that is fine, but people will have to make that investment and end up with very specific knowlegde that cannot be used elsewhere. Meanwhile, with a more realistic model, people also have to invest some time, but end up with knowledge that can be applied elsewhere.

Not to mention that the stock model is even worse for people that are already a little bit familiar with aerodynamics and/or aircraft. There are quite a few people around that built model rockets, aircraft, piloted real craft, built kites or flew simulators.

Even though the stock aerodynamics model is completely and utterly unrealistic, it is FUN for me.

FAR is great, massive kudos to Ferram for making it, but it prohibits many things. One of the main things it stops you from doing is launching very wide space station modules in one go (the so-called pancake rockets). Now, seeing as building space stations on site is not a thing (yet? Wink wink nudge nudge Squad? ) pretty much the only thing to do to make a space station with big modules (like an asteroid station) is to build the modules in the VAB and launch them in one go. The stock dynamics model allows that, FAR (or any other realistic model) would not. Also, the stock model allows for awesome, realistically impossible and hilarious things to be done with spaceplanes and parachutes as I discovered yesterday.

I feel those hilarious weird things might be best reserved for the dev menu, or possibly a mod that allows for these kinds of things. It is a bit lopsided to have quite an accurate orbital mechanics model, while getting to orbit is pretty much flying by made up rules.

[Alguien]

The terms and conditions describe the product that was bought, not what you expected to pay for.

Yes, thats true.

That doesn't mean they don't promote the game ON future "additions" either, Kobymaru being cautions about the whole thing taking into account some Early Access games story of promising stuff to raise sales and then run away with the money isn't that strange, specially if you remember the DLC drama

[WafflesToo]

<in regards to direct FAR integration> I kindly disagree. I feel that a somewhat realistic model, about which players can find information on the internet (because it mirrors real life), is a lot friendlier than some kind of model that plays by its own rules. If you want to take your time to figure it all out that is fine, but people will have to make that investment and end up with very specific knowlegde that cannot be used elsewhere. Meanwhile, with a more realistic model, people also have to invest some time, but end up with knowledge that can be applied elsewhere.

Fair enough, although I worry that throwing compressibility, hypersonic shock, and multi-axial coupling modes at someone still learning their way around the VAB might be a little bit overwhelming. I suppose it comes down to how realistic you want a realistic flight model to be . I think that a model that allows a passivly stable aerodynamic structure to be intuitively constructed (as apposed to having to 'game-the-system') would be a very nice starting point for most new players.

Perhaps allowing scalability of the difficulty would be desirable so players can decide on the level of challenge they want to experience? Or, maybe I'm overthinking this and it really isn't as difficult as I think it is. It's hard to judge as someone who already knows.