Kind of a drag?

[SpacedCowboy]

Okay, I've been playing KSP for a while now and have eventually gotten pretty good with space planes, SSTO's and such, but this one thing continues to haunt me; Is there any difference in 'drag' when you retract (tuck up) the small gear bay?

[UmbralRaptor]

0 usually equals 0.

(The small gear bay is massless, and therefore by the rules of stock aerodynamics dragless)

[SpacedCowboy]

0 usually equals 0.

(The small gear bay is massless, and therefore by the rules of stock aerodynamics dragless)

So, in other words, "Useless" Except for landing a multi-ton aircraft, where they seem to come in quite handy! Guess I just don't get the "physics" of the game.

[Epthelyn]

So, in other words, "Useless" Except for landing a multi-ton aircraft, where they seem to come in quite handy! Guess I just don't get the "physics" of the game.

Why is a part with no mass and no drag useless when it's practically the only thing you can use in the stock parts list to land planes?

[TythosEternal]

The physics of the game is pretty straightforward--with the exception of the drag model. I'm still trying to understand it (granted, I haven't tried that hard), and I do this for a living.

[Guest]

Yes, stock drag model is crap. Get FAR or NEAR if you want it to make sense.

[peadar1987]

Do they not still do that thing where they have mass when extended but no mass when retracted?

In any case, get NEAR, it will vastly improve your experience with winged aircraft.

[bandi94]

So, in other words, "Useless" Except for landing a multi-ton aircraft, where they seem to come in quite handy! Guess I just don't get the "physics" of the game.

The game need to handle more important calculation , etc .... Even with high priority stuff like keeping two vessels in X distance on the same orbit they will "drift" away or closer with perfect alignment just because the engine at a moment will say to some decimals "is close enough" and will stop calculating the other decimals and this decimals after some time warps would make a big difference . So i am guessing that to reduce Lag and give more time for more important calc. objects with a small mass are excluded from physics to save some CPU power.

It's kinda impossible to make a game Lag less but with a ton of physics , of course if you don't have a super-computer but most of the players have a medium-power PC so at a moment the devs are forced to do things to keep the balance.

Edited September 21, 2014 by bandi94

[peadar1987]

The game need to handle more important calculation , etc .... Even with high priority stuff like keeping two vessels in X distance on the same orbit they will "drift" away or closer with perfect alignment just because the engine at a moment will say to some decimals "is close enough" and will stop calculating the other decimals and this decimals after some time warps would make a big difference . So i am guessing that to reduce Lag and give more time for more important calc. objects with a small mass are excluded from physics to save some CPU power.

It's kinda impossible to make a game Lag less but with a ton of physics , of course if you don't have a super-computer but most of the players have a medium-power PC so at a moment the devs are forced to do things to keep the balance.

Reality works like this as well. Unless two object are physically linked, they will almost always be in slightly different orbits and drift away from or towards each other. You'd have to be on exactly the same orbit, either directly ahead or behind, not to drift. Just being momentarily stationary with respect to your target isn't going to cut it.

[cantab]

I believe if it wasn't physicsless it would give the same drag up and down. In the stock game it's only the parachutes that can change their drag coefficient.

[bandi94]

Reality works like this as well. Unless two object are physically linked, they will almost always be in slightly different orbits and drift away from or towards each other. You'd have to be on exactly the same orbit, either directly ahead or behind, not to drift. Just being momentarily stationary with respect to your target isn't going to cut it.

Well my Kerbin COM relays orit periods are exactly the same with an error of 0.0x s ,that mean in theory that they would need very very much time to "drift" in distance between them right ? However i am expencting that in 1 week ( time warp or normal play ) they will visibly drift a prity big distance jus becouse game engine rounding ( in calc. or on save file ). But let's see if they will drift or not.

Anyway in reality there are many other intercations with a satellite ( n-body physics , solar explosions , etc etc ) which are NOT taken in calc. in KSP so if the oribtal period is the same they should not drift but they do. And in reality any "automatic" space system like Satellites have advenced re-positioing system to take care about this situations.

Edited September 21, 2014 by bandi94

[Superfluous J]

The physics of the game is pretty straightforward--with the exception of the drag model. I'm still trying to understand it (granted, I haven't tried that hard), and I do this for a living.

Actually the drag model is very straightforward. Nonsensical, but it's very straightforward.

[Redshift OTF]

The gear bays, (retracted or not), are "physicsless" as are a number of other parts, (like some batteries and solar panels). The main reason for this is they are often not mounted symmetrically compared to things like fuel tanks, engines etc. and if they had weight or drag they could tip your vessel over when thrusting or flying through the atmosphere. It's a game compromise and I think it is a good thing.