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

[ferram4]

Virtually every person here is saying, "We want better aerodynamics, but nothing like FAR." Okay, so what do people actually want for a replacement aerodynamics model? What does FAR do that shouldn't be in the stock replacement model? If someone can come up with a list of features that they want, I'll make a fork of FAR with those changes, and you can then see how it compares to FAR as it stands, and everyone can actually have a decent argument over what aerodynamic features are desired, with examples of behaviors resulting from those features.

[DerpenWolf]

Virtually every person here is saying, "We want better aerodynamics, but nothing like FAR." Okay, so what do people actually want for a replacement aerodynamics model? What does FAR do that shouldn't be in the stock replacement model? If someone can come up with a list of features that they want, I'll make a fork of FAR with those changes, and you can then see how it compares to FAR as it stands, and everyone can actually have a decent argument over what aerodynamic features are desired, with examples of behaviors resulting from those features.

Well I must say this response is fantastic and I am quite exited to see what the end result is. Features. I would like to see are the ability for things like cylinders and other non wing objects to gain lift when angled and traveling quickly as well as the ability for capsules and whatnot to be able to steer themselves in decent. I do not want to see odd shaped payloads and pancake rockets absolutely fail to work in an accent, though they could be less efficient and less controllable but they still need to be able to get to space. I know these requests are probably a bit conflicting but in the end I have no idea how the FAR code works so I'm just going to give you this data on what I want and don't want even if the requests might not be realistic.

[Superfluous J]

Virtually every person here is saying, "We want better aerodynamics, but nothing like FAR." Okay, so what do people actually want for a replacement aerodynamics model? What does FAR do that shouldn't be in the stock replacement model? If someone can come up with a list of features that they want, I'll make a fork of FAR with those changes, and you can then see how it compares to FAR as it stands, and everyone can actually have a decent argument over what aerodynamic features are desired, with examples of behaviors resulting from those features.

I know absolutely nothing about the inner (or most of the outer) workings of FAR, but would it be possible to give the user the ability to turn aspects on and off, or change settings in-game through a config menu? Then people could tweak and tweak with easy ways to see the results? Basically, give the players a way to mod the mod?

I'm imagining something like EVE has, and then eventually a pack like Astronomer's or Better Atmospheres would come out as the ideal model.

And will you call it NEAR?

[Algiark]

We'll probably have to have a "wind tunnel simulator" option at some point.

Yes please.

[Sky_walker]

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

Which is a community. And it's not just this topic or even this forum - you can find complains about areodynamics pretty much everywhere.

Virtually every person here is saying, "We want better aerodynamics, but nothing like FAR." Okay, so what do people actually want for a replacement aerodynamics model?

Read through this topic as pretty much everything we want was already listed across several posts here.

Also note that we're not interested in another mod. We want stock areodynamics to finally make some sense.

Edited June 28, 2014 by Sky_walker

[ferram4]

Features. I would like to see are the ability for things like cylinders and other non wing objects to gain lift when angled and traveling quickly as well as the ability for capsules and whatnot to be able to steer themselves in decent. I do not want to see odd shaped payloads and pancake rockets absolutely fail to work in an accent, though they could be less efficient and less controllable but they still need to be able to get to space.

That seems pretty close to FAR as it stands... how about wing stall, wing sweep affecting things, Mach effects, etc? I mean, if you say yes to those, you're... basically asking for FAR. Which is fine, but I was hoping for something else.

I know absolutely nothing about the inner (or most of the outer) workings of FAR, but would it be possible to give the user the ability to turn aspects on and off, or change settings in-game through a config menu? Then people could tweak and tweak with easy ways to see the results? Basically, give the players a way to mod the mod?

Eh... there are a few things that can be easily modified, but I don't like opening everything up like that, especially since it's the sort of thing where you actually need to know what you're doing to result in something that isn't completely insane. Or something that makes flight impossible because you removed enough stabilizing forces. And then there are issues with how interconnected some parts of the code are that could cause some really weird issues if that's allowed, and will likely cause performance issues to remove the interconnectedness in a way that allows toggling.

And will you call it NEAR?

I have no idea.

Read through this topic as pretty much everything we want was already listed across several posts here.

I've been reading it for quite some time. No discussions on if Mach effects should be included or not (and if so, how much should they affect things). No discussions on whether wings should have stall modeled realistically, more gently, or using a hackier, much easier way. No discussions of how much wing shape (sweep, aspect ratio, taper ratio) should factor into things, if at all. No discussions of whether lifting bodies should be included. No discussions of how strong lifting forces should be relative to drag. No discussions of how easily aerodynamic forces should be able to break ships apart. Ultimately, the only solid feature I got out of this is "drag should be based on shape, not mass" which is obvious; more specific details haven't been discussed at all. Hence, what do people actually want?

Also note that we're not interested in another mod. We want stock areodynamics to finally make some sense.

Sure, but wouldn't it be better to find out what features work and don't work for most players? I mean, it would really suck for Squad to implement an aerodynamic model that everyone hates because it's not realistic enough / too realistic / doesn't have this feature I really want and then result in everyone having to get a mod to fix it or we're waiting for them to change it all again. Why not have an example to throw at them, given that everyone seems to think FAR is too much?

[Sky_walker]

I've been reading it for quite some time. No discussions on if Mach effects should be included or not (and if so, how much should they affect things). No discussions on whether wings should have stall modeled realistically, more gently, or using a hackier, much easier way. No discussions of how much wing shape (sweep, aspect ratio, taper ratio) should factor into things, if at all. No discussions of whether lifting bodies should be included. No discussions of how strong lifting forces should be relative to drag. No discussions of how easily aerodynamic forces should be able to break ships apart. Ultimately, the only solid feature I got out of this is "drag should be based on shape, not mass" which is obvious; more specific details haven't been discussed at all. Hence, what do people actually want?

That's something that should have a separate topic, as if you want to go into such a details - it's simply not worth putting it between random people totally misunderstanding what this whole topic is about and those who argue that flying chairs are an awesome idea that should be forced on everyone as a default game setting.

Sure, but wouldn't it be better to find out what features work and don't work for most players?

You won't find that through a mod, that's for sure. I doubt there is a single mod, even MechJeb, that is installed by over half of the community.

[Ippo]

I've been reading it for quite some time. No discussions on if Mach effects should be included or not (and if so, how much should they affect things). No discussions on whether wings should have stall modeled realistically, more gently, or using a hackier, much easier way. No discussions of how much wing shape (sweep, aspect ratio, taper ratio) should factor into things, if at all. No discussions of whether lifting bodies should be included. No discussions of how strong lifting forces should be relative to drag. No discussions of how easily aerodynamic forces should be able to break ships apart. Ultimately, the only solid feature I got out of this is "drag should be based on shape, not mass" which is obvious; more specific details haven't been discussed at all. Hence, what do people actually want?

So, before reading the abomination proposal that I'm about to give, keep in mind that 1) I use FAR and like it as it is and 2) I'm going to give a very noob friendly answer, because as everybody always says this must not be a flight simulator.

I would like to see the shape of the wings affecting the drag and lift, and lifting bodies should remain. It pains me to see supersonic craft with swept wings...

I have no idea on how to balance the lift/drag ration, but I think that the ship should be much more resistant to aerodynamic forces than it is in FAR: possibly, even removed.

And stalling... *almost* removed. Again, we are not shooting for a proper flight simulator, just for a model that is accessible to everyone while being somewhat realistic. In FAR stalling is pretty dangerous: I think that for the stock, noob friendly model we would need a more forgiving (and unrealistic) stall that kicks in at much higher angles of attack.

That being said, I'll happily go on with FAR as it is

[Vaporo]

I've been reading it for quite some time. No discussions on if Mach effects should be included or not (and if so, how much should they affect things). No discussions on whether wings should have stall modeled realistically, more gently, or using a hackier, much easier way. No discussions of how much wing shape (sweep, aspect ratio, taper ratio) should factor into things, if at all. No discussions of whether lifting bodies should be included. No discussions of how strong lifting forces should be relative to drag. No discussions of how easily aerodynamic forces should be able to break ships apart. Ultimately, the only solid feature I got out of this is "drag should be based on shape, not mass" which is obvious; more specific details haven't been discussed at all. Hence, what do people actually want?

Well, part of the reason we aren't discussing this is because it's not what to OP was concerned about. He was concerned that old/broken features that need updating will be difficult for veteran players to accept changes in.

Anyways, like I have said before, I have no problem with the FAR aerodynamic model becoming stock. I played through career mode once with stock aero, then got FAR and never looked back. Why are people so against FAR-like aero in stock? It works intuitively, unlike the current model. I actually found it easier to pick up than the stock model. Of course, I went in understanding aerodynamics a bit in the first place, so my case may be different from others. Of course, even then I have to figure out how to deal with mach effects and, more recently, high dynamic pressure (That particular bit of physics where your planes will spontaneously fall apart I wouldn't mind being left out of stock aero). To deal with people who are new to KSP and know nothing about aerodynamic physics, I would recommend adding a setting in the menu to change between advanced, FAR-like aero, and simplified, easier to work with aero (though still somewhat realistic. Have things like no/lessened mach effects and more forgiving stalls). The two systems should be similar enough to where any craft designed in advanced mode should be reverse compatible with simplified mode, just to avoid confusion.

[MR4Y]

To put it simply: People want either broken old features to remain for the sake of nostalgia or a very cloudy "the same functionality of XYZ mod, but not the mod itself."