Backed into a corner: why a broken feature can end up worse than none at all

[Ippo]

Actually FAR makes the game *easier*, so...

[regex]

There will always be mods for ultra realism and extra difficulty. But making the game more difficult for the sake of making it more realistic isn't what KSP is really about. Yes it needs tweaking to make things a little less exploitative (flapping ships that fly?) but it in no way needs to become an engineering task. Especially for those who want nothing to do with it. (Rocket Flyers)

I generally agree with your post, but I have to ask, how is making the aero model work in a more realistic manner making things difficult for difficulty's sake? It has been said many times in this thread: FAR should not be stock, but stock needs to take a step towards FAR. To boot, FAR is not at all difficult and is much more intuitive, and easy to use, than the stock aero model because it follows a more realistic model (and quite frankly, there's a lot of realism that ferram4 hasn't put into FAR). Furthermore, there's no need to make this a "checkbox" sort of thing; the sad fact of the matter is that the current aero model is terrible and needs to go away because it teaches new players the wrong things, and they cannot draw from real world experience. People who are primarily rocket flyers, like me, will also appreciate the ability to make a proper "gravity turn" instead of the current "lol climb straight up" model (and when we step into the airplane world, it won't be such a mind-boggling experience).

[BudgetHedgehog]

Actually FAR makes the game *easier*, so...

Could you explain your reasoning for thinking this?

[FenrirWolf]

Could you explain your reasoning for thinking this?

Presumably because getting into LKO takes around 1k less delta-v when your atmosphere isn't made of soup. But we both know that dV requirements is hardly the only measure of difficulty when you're dealing with a better atmospheric model.

[Ippo]

Could you explain your reasoning for thinking this?

Personally, I've been playing with the stock atmosphere most of the time.

So when I switched to FAR I was amazed to find out that not only you can get to orbit with half the fuel, but also that planes do fly like planes: but yes, I find it much easier for rockets because of the reduced density (in fact, I also need to up the deadly reentry multiplier because it's not even remotely difficult anymore).

[Ippo]

But we both know that dV requirements is hardly the only measure of difficulty when you're dealing with a better atmospheric model.

True that, but it takes like 15 minutes to find out how not to have your rockets torn to shreds. And as we said many times in the thread, FAR shouldn't be the stock model, even though the stock model needs to be closer to FAR.

[sal_vager]

And as we said many times in the thread, FAR shouldn't be the stock model, even though the stock model needs to be closer to FAR.

Is anyone working on a FARlite? It might help convince Squad to make the changes.

[regex]

Is anyone working on a FARlite? It might help convince Squad to make the changes.

Why would anyone want FAR "lite"?

[sal_vager]

You could call it "Not so FAR"

[Ippo]

You could call it "Not so FAR"

Requesting thread lock. NOW.

[FenrirWolf]

The high point of the thread has been reached, no point in going FARther

[regex]

I'd say we haven't gone FAR enough!

[Vonar]

I'd say we haven't gone FAR enough!

How far is far enough?

[Robotengineer]

What about all of the people who don't know how orbital mechanics work and play KSP? There is a learning curve, and if Squad implement a FAR or near-FAR aerodynamic model people will learn ow to use it, or play the last version that still had the stock aero-model. I personally wouldn't mind having FAR implemented into stock. I find that building planes in FAR isn't that much different than in stock, the same rules apply, COM, COF, etc. Just my opinion.

[Skyrunner27]

I find a FAR like atmosphere would make the game easier because instead of having to learn about asparagus staging new players can take notes from actual rockets. Anyway part of the comedic value at least imho is because of funny things in a somewhat realistic environment. In other words, realism adds to the comedy because it is harder to do.

[Superfluous J]

I would be interested in a Not Exactly Aerodynamic Research mod, if only for the acronym it would give.

[CaptRobau]

I feel like I'm the easiest guy to please sometimes.

I like the current aerodynamics model. It lets me launch rockets and fly planes in a fashion that sufficiently balances between ease, difficulty, and realism. Is it perfect? No. Is it horrible? Not even close.

I like the concept of Ferram's aerodynamics model. I've not used it mostly because most of my interaction with it is in videos where people bring up GUIs with so many readouts and buttons that my old college graphing calculator shudders in the corner. That said, if it was forced on me I'd buckle down and figure it out.

I like building stupid asparagus rockets. I like the idea of building "real" rockets. I'm down for either.

I just want to build rockets

Those displays can be turned off and they're not at all necessary to fly a plane/rocket.

[MR4Y]

Is anyone working on a FARlite? It might help convince Squad to make the changes.

There's a serious issue with your developer philosophy and roadmap if your decisions are based on people modding the game to suit THEIR NEEDS.

[Camacha]

Could you explain your reasoning for thinking this?

It feels more like real life, something I kind of have experience with. That helps a lot. Some arbitrary model that does wacky stuff is a lot harder to deal with than something I know and can learn about on the internet or in real life.

[xcorps]

There's a serious issue with your developer philosophy and roadmap if your decisions are based on people modding the game to suit THEIR NEEDS.

Well, I don't know about that. If you have a working model that isn't realistic but allows the game to play and you have a very approachable modding framework...why not?

Just for an example let's say I wanted to make a shooting game. I "could" create a rifle that has adjustable front sight posts for elevation and a rear sight aperature that's adjustable for elevation and windage, I could model stock weld, eye relief, breathing, sight alignment and sight picture, I could model barrel temperature, I could model ammunition variances and all those other variables that determine whether point of aim equals point of impact with fancy adjustable controls and extensive feedback that allows the user to make tiny adjustments to achieve maximum accuracy. There would be a few people who would enjoy such a model, regardless of it's complexity.

Or I could model an approachable gameplay gun that shoots where you point it and use a flexible framework of coding that allows people who want to play my game with mods that have the ability to bring gameplay to an advanced and realistic level. Then you have appeal to a larger segment of the market with the ability to please the hardcore shooting enthusiast at the same time without having to dedicate limited resources to appeal to a limited userbase allowing for additional content creation.

I think it's a reasonable approach to take. You cannot please everyone, so you try to please as many people as possible.

One thing I've noticed in the FAR portion of this thread..people without FAR who have posted here WANT it to be default. People who don't have FAR generally don't care. I'm not going to attempt to make a blanket statement based on this limited observation, but I think it's safe to say that most people who play KSP want to go to space today. The game does that as it stands.

[The Jedi Master]

Aerodynamics is a problem here. But it's hardly the only one.

Take life support. Those who read my posts well know I am fervently against the addition of this little 'realism' feature. Why? Exactly this. Forcing everyone to keep their kerbals alive like they're batteries or something all at once is just not fun. Electricity is hard enough, and that can be recharged and isn't that hard to remember. Life support will basically be like fuel, only it goes down constantly without your control, there's no way to recharge it and you never know how much you need.

So, forcing it fast and hard would be like forcing everyone to use TAC Life Support.

[DerpenWolf]

Due to the communities recent large number of complaints about the current aerodynamic model I'm hopping squad bumped up the aircraft update up a few notches on their priority list! The update would have a lot to offer with new physics and a ton of parts, new wings and fins, fuselages and engines, cockpits and cargo bays, landing gear and ferings. I think it would be a bit refreshing to get such an update after so many based around career mode, though the update would still add greatly to it. I can't wait till all of this gets added!

[m4v]

Due to the communities recent large number of complaints about the current aerodynamic model

Not the "community", the only thing here is players complaining about the aerodynamics.

[Ippo]

I think you are being carried away a little: IIRC, almost no one said that FAR should be the default for the game. What we did say, instead, was that the game needs to get a better aerodynamic model because the current one is absolutely insane: did you ever notice what happens to control surfaces when you crash on the ground? Maybe it's me, but I'm pretty sure that they are not supposed to keep flying in a straight line at walking speeds.

Imagine this discussion when the atmosphere was still a brick wall: would you vote against a more realistic model (the thinning atmosphere we have now) because the current one is so "fun"?

[MR4Y]

Well, I don't know about that. If you have a working model that isn't realistic but allows the game to play and you have a very approachable modding framework...why not?

Just for an example let's say I wanted to make a shooting game. I "could" create a rifle that has adjustable front sight posts for elevation and a rear sight aperature that's adjustable for elevation and windage, I could model stock weld, eye relief, breathing, sight alignment and sight picture, I could model barrel temperature, I could model ammunition variances and all those other variables that determine whether point of aim equals point of impact with fancy adjustable controls and extensive feedback that allows the user to make tiny adjustments to achieve maximum accuracy. There would be a few people who would enjoy such a model, regardless of it's complexity.

Or I could model an approachable gameplay gun that shoots where you point it and use a flexible framework of coding that allows people who want to play my game with mods that have the ability to bring gameplay to an advanced and realistic level. Then you have appeal to a larger segment of the market with the ability to please the hardcore shooting enthusiast at the same time without having to dedicate limited resources to appeal to a limited userbase allowing for additional content creation.

I think it's a reasonable approach to take. You cannot please everyone, so you try to please as many people as possible.

One thing I've noticed in the FAR portion of this thread..people without FAR who have posted here WANT it to be default. People who don't have FAR generally don't care. I'm not going to attempt to make a blanket statement based on this limited observation, but I think it's safe to say that most people who play KSP want to go to space today. The game does that as it stands.

This is not the problem. The problem happens when someone has to do the work for you (a mod, for example) in order for something to be implemented on the game or "help convice the developers".