What's the secret feature?

[Red Iron Crown]

I could probably point out that "physics-based flight simulation" is open to interpretation (i.e. "wings generate lift when moved through the air" covers that, and varied lift and drag based on air humidity is also a factor that exists, yet is hardly often cited as a required feature in "flight sims"), but that would be pointless in this discussion.

I don't think anyone expects or even wants a full-on fluid dynamics model, or FEA, or any professional-grade simulator. I certainly don't want to have to be an aerodynamics expert to design working craft, nor do I want to have to be a real pilot to fly them.

Also, yes, realistic physics is what sets KSP apart. Realistic, y'know, Newtonian physics. I will be fairly surprised if what stock KSP ends up having for an atmospheric model is in any way comparable to FAR in complexity, it's beyond its scope. It sets out to make spaceship design approachable and fun, combining it with realistic physics to make flying them challenging and educational. FAR-level realistic aerodynamics will take the "approachable and fun" out of the equation, moving the latter two qualifiers in their place, and adding "frustrating" on top of that due to repeatedly failing to fly simple things that would otherwise be at worst unstable or hard to control.

NEAR is, heh, nearer to the mark, but I honestly expect to see nothing more than a fix to stock drag parameters (i.e. removing mass from the equation), plus some basic airflow shielding to allow for nosecones' and fairings' usefulness, prevent hidden intakes and control surfaces, and make low atmosphere feel a little less like soup while retaining most of stock ascent difficulty.

Honestly, I would be happy with that. As long as drag is based on shape and some of the exploits are closed up (like infiniglide and intake stacking) while keeping the requirements to get to orbit around the same.

[KerbMav]

while keeping the requirements to get to orbit around the same.

I wonder - if the lower dV requirement to reach orbit when using FAR comes from the incorrect stock drag calculation, then why should the requirements stay the same when a better aero. system is implemented?

Would it be preferable to put in a factor to raise drag again?

Will wide constructions not need more dV anyway?

[Red Iron Crown]

I wonder - if the lower dV requirement to reach orbit when using FAR comes from the incorrect stock drag calculation, then why should the requirements stay the same when a better aero. system is implemented?

Would it be preferable to put in a factor to raise drag again?

Will wide constructions not need more dV anyway?

If the dV requirements get too low, realistic staged rockets become less and less useful. The ~4500m/s mark seems to be a good balance for different playstyles, SSTOs are feasible but staged rockets are also useful. Too far away from that mark and one or the other vessel type becomes less desirable, right now I think it's a good balance between the two.

I don't really care that much how the dV requirements are kept at that level, whether through a Kerbin rescale, higher atmosphere, or drag increase; just that it stays in the same ballpark.

[Tw1]

"Fully-fledged, Physics-based Flight Simulation ensures everything will fly (and crash) as it should."

Seriously, the words "Flight Simulation" are right in the line you're selectively quoting. The whole "it's a game, not a simulator" argument is getting old and tired. It is both, it is advertised and sold as a flight simulator (among other things). As being a realistic sim hurting its image, realistic physics is what sets KSP apart from all the "planes in space" space "simulators". Read any review or article about KSP, and you'll see that they don't complain about the realistic physics, they praise it as one of its best features.

Exactly.

This is really the main thing KSP has to offer- an accessible, yet reasonably realistic spaceflight experience. There are a lot of 'space' games out there, and a lot of inaccurate movies.

KSP offers you the chance to try your hand in something like how it really is.

The fact that it uses technology not too far beyond ours helps- it lets you imagine this is something that could really happen.

It's so much more awesome if you make things which not only look cool, fly, but also do it with realistic physics in play.

No video game lasts forever, even games with a lot of replay value (and I'm not sure unmodded KSP is one of those)

I think it could have a considerable amount of replay value, but my concern is the Devs will keep adding features that make each game feel like a finite thing to complete. Unlock all the parts, collect all the science, land on all the biomes, etc. Once these things are done, the game will feel over.

I think it would be more worthwhile them making sure visiting a planet is a proper experience, and something you'll want to keep doing.

Contracts is a way for them to continually give things for people to do, but I don't think I'd fire up the game just to tick off a list. It needs to feel like a space experience.

[Wanderfound]

FAR-level realistic aerodynamics will take the "approachable and fun" out of the equation, moving the latter two qualifiers in their place, and adding "frustrating" on top of that due to repeatedly failing to fly simple things that would otherwise be at worst unstable or hard to control.

Everyone has their own POV of course, but I completely fail to understand the reputation FAR has for extreme difficulty. Sure, doing crazy things with planes can be tricky, but getting a sensibly built rocket up is not substantially more difficult in FAR than in stock. Keep your nose close to prograde and turn in curves rather than angles; how complicated is that?

[Anister]

Both robbaz and Danny are going to have a krakenton of fun!

[Guest]

Everyone has their own POV of course, but I completely fail to understand the reputation FAR has for extreme difficulty. Sure, doing crazy things with planes can be tricky, but getting a sensibly built rocket up is not substantially more difficult in FAR than in stock. Keep your nose close to prograde and turn in curves rather than angles; how complicated is that?

It's just that people learned rocket design from KSP, and they're making critical mistakes based on their understanding of how stock drag works. Generally, that's the biggest problem with KSP's drag model - people learn from it (especially when concerning KSPEdu). It's one thing to not know how aerodynamics work, it's another to think to know, but have it all wrong. FAR does away with a lot of exploits which become second nature to "efficient builders", meaning they have trouble adjusting to the proper aerodynamics.

I think that a fully realistic, flight sim-like flight model would actually benefit KSP a lot. It doesn't really take an aerospace engineer to design a flyable plane - it only takes one to design a plane that flies better than everything built so far, or a spaceplane capable of taking off from Earth (not Kerbin). Also, piloting a plane is really intuitive, helicopters will give you grief, but if you're not concerned about safety, then it's very easy to just take off and fly a fixed wing airplane around (landing is slightly harder, but not much more than in KSP right now). Now, flying a plane safely is another thing, and the reason you need a pilot license.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Everyone has their own POV of course, but I completely fail to understand the reputation FAR has for extreme difficulty. Sure, doing crazy things with planes can be tricky, but getting a sensibly built rocket up is not substantially more difficult in FAR than in stock. Keep your nose close to prograde and turn in curves rather than angles; how complicated is that?

It's not extreme difficulty, it's just greater difficulty. It's good if you already know how things are supposed to work, but for anything more aerodynamically complex than a flying stick, you need to start accounting for certain variables. Supersonic flight is one - if you break 400m/s, any control surfaces you might have will start having trouble catching the air. Anything not sturdy enough for its effective area will get torn off. It's not a big problem to think of, but KSP is fundamentally a game that makes rocket science accessible, and even a simple rocket can fail if not flown exactly right in those circumstances.

And, of course, any reputation FAR has in regards to difficulty does not come from the effects it has on rockets. FAR makes unmodified KSP parts hilariously overpowered for ascent, since you tear through what used to be a non-newtonian atmospheric soup with ease, and can reach space with very little effort. Combined with its effects on aircraft, it means that a FAR-like system used stock will kill any and all interest a beginning player might have in spaceplanes.

[Dodgey]

The main problem with players switching to FAR is that they are used to stock aerodynamics. It's very different. Sort of like changing the hand you write with, eventually you will learn to do it but it's a hard road getting there. And it's true that FAR is more intuitive, compared to real life that is. But if you have been teaching yourself how to fly and build in stock aerodynamics then it is a much different story.

[Red Iron Crown]

And, of course, any reputation FAR has in regards to difficulty does not come from the effects it has on rockets. FAR makes unmodified KSP parts hilariously overpowered for ascent, since you tear through what used to be a non-newtonian atmospheric soup with ease, and can reach space with very little effort. Combined with its effects on aircraft, it means that a FAR-like system used stock will kill any and all interest a beginning player might have in spaceplanes.

As a long-time rocket builder but newish spaceplane builder, I can confidently say that no one builds spaceplanes because they are easier than rockets, even in stock aero. The fact that many (most?) FAR users build spaceplanes when rockets would be much easier seems to point to spaceplanes being interesting either way.

[Sean Mirrsen]

It's just that people learned rocket design from KSP, and they're making critical mistakes based on their understanding of how stock drag works. Generally, that's the biggest problem with KSP's drag model - people learn from it (especially when concerning KSPEdu). It's one thing to not know how aerodynamics work, it's another to think to know, but have it all wrong. FAR does away with a lot of exploits which become second nature to "efficient builders", meaning they have trouble adjusting to the proper aerodynamics.

I think that a fully realistic, flight sim-like flight model would actually benefit KSP a lot. It doesn't really take an aerospace engineer to design a flyable plane - it only takes one to design a plane that flies better than everything built so far, or a spaceplane capable of taking off from Earth (not Kerbin). Also, piloting a plane is really intuitive, helicopters will give you grief, but if you're not concerned about safety, then it's very easy to just take off and fly a fixed wing airplane around (landing is slightly harder, but not much more than in KSP right now). Now, flying a plane safely is another thing, and the reason you need a pilot license.

As a non-engineer, but engineering-inclined person, I find that that explanation is wrong. A change in aerodynamic modeling is not something that would drive existing KSP players away - on the contrary, since designing a craft is half of what KSP is about, many would take the extra challenge and run with it. I like FAR for that reason, it takes spacecraft design into a new direction, keeping the game fresh. I don't like FAR for its effects on stock gameplay, though. It has taken to use aerodynamic design as a bonus, rather than using non-aerodynamic design as a penalty, in comparison to stock performance. I tried communicating the importance of keeping the stock level of challenge to Ferram, but he interpreted it in his own way (i.e. the KIDS project, which is pulling at it from the wrong angle).

Ultimately though, I recognize that not all people who would want to play KSP are engineering-inclined. A lot won't have my level of patience, experiencing failure after failure. This is why I say that any extra barrier for entry into KSP is going to be detrimental. Keep it accessible, keep it fun, and add realism only as necessary.

[KerbMav]

As it is rather simple to put FAR/NEAR into KSP, it should be rather simple to make it an option in the game itself which system the player wants to use. I do not know if there could three systems coexist without requiring configuration before starting up the game, but it is certainly possible.

[Sean Mirrsen]

As a long-time rocket builder but newish spaceplane builder, I can confidently say that no one builds spaceplanes because they are easier than rockets, even in stock aero. The fact that many (most?) FAR users build spaceplanes when rockets would be much easier seems to point to spaceplanes being interesting either way.

Spaceplanes are interesting, but it's hardly a challenge to build something that flies in stock. The only problems are when you're going SSTO, and even then it's problems of the "how many engines and how much fuel do I need" variety most of the time. FAR takes out those problems, in one mean swing, and replaces them with a few different beasts of its own making. Fundamentally, FAR makes the other half of the game too easy. Your only challenge remains in making something that flies, because your newfound aerodynamic performance will launch you out of Kerbin's atmosphere like a cherry pit. Granted, the challenge of the building part increases, but I somehow find FAR SSTO spaceplanes somewhat pointless when you could take any one of them, replace any air-breathing engines and pure LF with more rockets and LFO, and launch them vertically from the launchpad for better results.

Stock SSTO spaceplanes have that one singular attractive advantage, fuel and cost efficiency. FAR SSTO spaceplanes are soundly beaten by FAR SSTO rockets. What little fuel you save on launching an SSTO spaceplane has to be earned by having to design and fly it. Experienced, engineering-minded players might do that. Beginner players likely won't.

As it is rather simple to put FAR/NEAR into KSP, it should be rather simple to make it an option in the game itself which system the player wants to use. I do not know if there could three systems coexist without requiring configuration before starting up the game, but it is certainly possible.

It's not actually all that simple. FAR and NEAR modify most of the aerodynamic parts, so saves made with and without either of the mods can't coexist. It could be doable if implemented in stock, I suppose, with some form of more seamless integration. Like not needing to strip out stock drag information.

[KerbMav]

It's not actually all that simple. FAR and NEAR modify most of the aerodynamic parts, so saves made with and without either of the mods can't coexist. It could be doable if implemented in stock, I suppose, with some form of more seamless integration. Like not needing to strip out stock drag information.

Like adding more/different variables to the part cfgs for the different modes?

[Endersmens]

Like adding more/different variables to the part cfgs for the different modes?

Exactly what I was thinking. How does B9 have different variations on tank parts? You can switch between 4 modes usually, empty, Liquid fuel, Liquid/oxydizer, and monopropellant. How you do you think that's made possible? I'm assuming there are 4 different modules in the CFG, and when you click "next setup" it references the next module. This could also be very possible for aerodynamics. Have a stock module, and a FAR modules, and when you click wether you want FAR or not, it only references the Stock or FAR values for that save. How wrong am I?

[Laie]

Everyone has their own POV of course, but I completely fail to understand the reputation FAR has for extreme difficulty.

Please keep in mind that you (or I, or the entire forum population) are not representative for the majority of sales. That seem to be casual gamers who like to play launching rockets and positively enjoy impossible contraptions. A lot of them never make it to the Mun. I suspect that this came as a surprise even to squad, but can't blame them for playing to their audience.

Probable tweaks may lead to us paying out of the nose for all the extra drag, but in such a way that it can always be solved through MOAR power. I don't expect that vessels will be torn apart through aerodynamic forces, ever.

[stupid_chris]

I mean there's no shame in providing bullets on what they want to see accomplished in scope then down the road saying, "We can't do this, we tried, here's why, we're sorry." I'm sure most would prefer that than having to constantly ask if feature X will still be included only to get, "Maybe, no promises."

Aaand you do realize they also tried that? It resulted into the worst forum crisis I've witnessed. Remember the total breakdown of the whole forums over resources not happening nearly a year ago? I'd act the same being them.

Seriously, being a dev, I wouldn't even want to check the forum anymore. 95% of what goes around concerning the development is pure negativity. As a modder, I have plenty of complaints I would like to address to the devs, or things I would like to see implemented in the game. However there are ways to request features, and ways to ask things from the devs, which most of the forum doesn't seem to grasp the sense of. We've got only about five human beings working on the actual game right now, and we're shooting them down each twist and turn for not spending more time telling us what they're doing, or not implementing X feature ASAP. Before long I think we'll have people asking for a livestream of their office to see what they're up to.

[Wanderfound]

The casuals are already spending most of their time watching stuff explode; I don't think one more way to crash will be that discouraging to them, especially if they have it from the start.

I don't expect aero failures to ever make it in and I'm fine with that. But at the very least: air is slippery, not grippy, and long pointy things make more drag if you fly them sideways.

[Endersmens]

asking for a livestream of their office to see what they're up to.

Why don't we already have this?

sarcasm

I agree, too many people are hostile to the devs, when they're working their butt off for our benifit. Seriously, they spend most of their time working on a video game. A program ran by a computer. It's not necesarry to any of our lives. (as in we don't need KSP to survive, or have a life) And yet they put everything they have into this game. Everyone feels how they wanna feel, and for me, I feel total appreciation from the devs. Honestly, I would be totally fine if a Mod banned me from the forum if I'm ever rude to the devs. Cause I never want to do that, and the day I do that is the day I lose my right to play KSP.

[BudgetHedgehog]

How wrong am I?

I'm not a B9 dev, but you're pretty wrong. B9 uses Firespitters fuel/mesh switch module to switch between the available 3D meshes and the resources contained in them. I don't think FS is capable of switching complete PartModules (yet), which is what you're asking for (switching between/(de)activating ModuleControlSurface and FARControllableSurface PartModules). Also, FAR deletes stock drag and lift values at start up so unless a smarter method of (re)loading the database is developed, what you're asking for is nigh on impossible.

[Endersmens]

I'm not a B9 dev, but you're pretty wrong. B9 uses Firespitters fuel/mesh switch module to switch between the available 3D meshes and the resources contained in them. I don't think FS is capable of switching complete PartModules (yet), which is what you're asking for (switching between/(de)activating ModuleControlSurface and FARControllableSurface PartModules). Also, FAR deletes stock drag and lift values at start up so unless a smarter method of (re)loading the database is developed, what you're asking for is nigh on impossible.

Oh I'm not asking to use FAR in game. I was meaning if FAR was made into stock. Not plopped into stock, remade by the devs based on FAR. So obviously it wouldn't delete the stock values at that point.And about B9, I wasn't aware of that. (learn something new every day! Also that's why i asked "how wrong am I") also, didn't you just describe what I said, and just add "it uses FS?" It sortof sounds the same, you just named the program that switches modules. I think. And i'm sure the FS switch module could eventually switch between comeplete part modules. Usually anything is possible with computers.

[Sky_walker]

Seriously, being a dev, I wouldn't even want to check the forum anymore. 95% of what goes around concerning the development is pure negativity. As a modder, I have plenty of complaints I would like to address to the devs, or things I would like to see implemented in the game. However there are ways to request features, and ways to ask things from the devs, which most of the forum doesn't seem to grasp the sense of.

If Devs would react on something else than complains - I'm sure these alternative ways to request features would gain in popularity.

Before long I think we'll have people asking for a livestream of their office to see what they're up to.

I can't guarantee anything, but I'm pretty sure I already seen a request like that.

[Darnok]

Experienced, engineering-minded players might do that. Beginner players likely won't.

Since when good game means that beginner is able to do everything without spending some time in game and learning wiki/forums/etc etc?

IMO if we are going have dificulty options since 0.25 it would be great to add more advanced aero models in future, so beginners would enjoy game on "easy" level and more experienced people would use "hard" or "custom" options. That is only way I CAN SEE how to solve this issue.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Darnok

[KasperVld]

If Devs would react on something else than complains - I'm sure these alternative ways to request features would gain in popularity.

That's a bit of a chicken and egg situation though. Might as well start from the community. But do remember that any time that is spent answering questions, reading threads etc.. can't also be used for actually developing the game.

[stupid_chris]

If Devs would react on something else than complains - I'm sure these alternative ways to request features would gain in popularity.

Being a jerk to get a reaction out of someone is stupid. It might work at first, but after a while the person will start ignoring you, and that's exactly what's happening. It's also what's happening with RealChute, I've stopped reacting to jerks, and listening to the rare, but nice users who come and ask questions or propose things, and that don't throw a tamper tantrum when I say no.