Aero Revamp: What do You Want to See?

[Captain Sierra]

Maxmaps has confirmed via twitter that 0.91 will bring the first version of a stock resource harvesting/exploitation system and an overhaul of the aerodynamics model.

This is massively overdue, but what do we as players want to see? A FAR clone? A NEAR clone?

THe problem with the base game aero model is that it needs to be relatively realistic, but also needs to not mercilessly obliterate more 'kerbal' designs. Sometimes its creations like those of Whackjob that define this game and ruling those out entirely would be IMHO overstepping it for the stock game (if you want that to evaporate on launch, there's FAR).

The other thing I would like to point out here in the OP is that with a more realistic aero model coming, I think its time for Squad to look at stock fairings. I will suggest implementing them in the same fashion as KW rocketry (w/1.25, 2.5, and 3.75m sizes plus expanded variants, which should hold their own diameter + radial goo canisters/monoprop tanks), as that is IMHO the best implementation short of Procedural Fairings.

I'll reserve my own more extensive thoughts until there is some discussion.

Discuss!

[UberFuber]

I like NEAR. FAR may be a bit too realistic for new comer who may have trouble figuring out stuff like mach effects and such.

[Captain Sierra]

Actually FAR is easier to fly with than NEAR. NEAR is a simpler model but the more advanced, more realistic model of FAR is easier to fly (planes) with. Now, rockets that are not great and have to brute force to orbit won't ever make it under FAR. They can sometimes make it under NEAR and thats my big problem with FAR.

A stock aero model should definitely reward good aero designs and punish bad ones, but with enough brute force, a bad design should still be workable. At least thats what I believe.

YOu have to cater to so many different playstyles and thats the big difficulty Squad has ahead of them. The more opinions we have on the topic the better decision they can hopefully make.

[Red Iron Crown]

All I really want is drag based on vessel size and shape, anything beyond that is just gravy.

[Kegereneku]

A rework of what I posted in another thread :

When discussing about improving KSP's Aerodynamic model I prefer to take a Feature-driven approach as an opposite to what I'll call a Realism-driven approach.

To clarify.

# A Realism-Driven approach would be to consider that KSP 'must' only go toward more realism at any point, focusing on making the game "act like reality" rather that "look like reality", thus discarding simplification that make the game fun or playable at all.

For example, considering that plane must be aerodynamic** or insisting to add a plethora of "realistic details" that bring nothing to the game.

This is, to me, a very bad way to take in videogame-design.

# A Feature-Driven approach would be to set the gameplay you want to achieve, then shape the rules. Thereby focusing on making the game "fun" rather than "tedious", and including acceptable break from reality.

For example, for all intent and purpose KSP's spaceplane requirement can be split up to these basic features :

- Anything with enough "wing/speed" shall be able to achieve aerodynamic lift.

- Anything with enough/adapted engines shall be able to accelerate to any speed.

- Minor complication will still arise to make your spaceplane actually usable.

The ease with which a design is able to achieve this is then subject to parameter that allow to balance the game's progression.

Note that in the process one must be careful to not "suggest features" that are actually just a realism-driven approach to the question.

And also know that it is acceptable to let player go away with unrealistic looking plane, we love that stuff. What's important is the game-logic they had to overcome to make it work, and how balanced it is

First I would like to assure everybody that I do understood real aerodynamic and aircraft-design quite well because that's what I studied. With feigned humility I even understand it better that some big mouth. I am just not irrationally obsessed by "realism" when we should be talking of game-design with the aime of satisfying everybody.

Now, I personally think that as far KSP go, we do not need to care about the spaceplane's shape** outside of Center of Mass/Lift/Thrust as the game is already doing, and this is NOT to say that plane shall stay like supersonic balloon with wing as they feel now, nor that we shouldn't give the player the feeling of overcoming specific problem.

My main reason is that simplification is the only way you might actually build a working Space-shuttle.**

What seem capital to me is the number & function of parts and their relations, as in a "As long as the plane have these parts correctly mounted it shall reach orbit" kind of way.

Example : a key to give "Mach effect" an existence in gameplay without calculating airflow*** wouldn't be to link it to the shape of the spaceplane but to an engine's specification. (e.g : A Basic jet only giving thrust up to a certain speed/pressure. Making it easy to balance)

Another example : Fairing would negate the abstracted concept of drag, rather than shape fictional airflow***.

Of course, for good User-Interaction there would ideally be a visual effect when you reach the Mach.

The shape would of course, stay essential for control & landing purpose, influence drag in a globalized way, but shape would NOT keep a plane from flying (Outside the center of lift/mass/thrust relation as said earlier).

** : KSP is not making you a real engineer, stop dreaming. You wouldn't actually be able to build a spaceplane if it followed real aerodynamic.

Every single part plane of the game only pretend to be aerodynamic and you are not mentally visualizing airflow like a wind tunnel.

*** : KSP can't simulate complex aerodynamic and airflow and don't have to.

[CaptainKipard]

Since KSP is already a physics game, I don't see a reason why a realistic aero model shouldn't complement that.

[Jouni]

# A Feature-Driven approach would be to set the gameplay you want to achieve, then shape the rules. Thereby focusing on making the game "fun" rather than "tedious", and including acceptable break from reality.

This is exactly the wrong way to implement aerodynamics in a game.

KSP has two main components: an abstract game that covers rocket building and the career mode, and a physics simulation, where you fly the rockets. For good gameplay, those two components should be designed in different ways.

An abstract game should be designed with a top-down approach. You start with the desired outcomes, and then try to find game mechanics that lead to these outcomes. The simulation part should be designed with a bottom-up approach instead. You start with the basic mechanisms, and then determine the outcomes from those mechanisms. If the results seem promising, you start fine-tuning the mechanisms. Otherwise you throw away the system and try something different.

Designing simulationist game mechanics with a top-down approach leads to poor gameplay, just like designing abstract game mechanics with a bottom-up approach.

Now, I personally think that as far KSP go, we do not need to care about the spaceplane's shape** outside of Center of Mass/Lift/Thrust as the game is already doing, and this is NOT to say that plane shall stay like supersonic balloon with wing as they feel now, nor that we shouldn't give the player the feeling of overcoming specific problem.

My main reason is that simplification is the only way you might actually build a working Space-shuttle.**

I don't care about planes or space shuttles. What I care about is that the shape and the attitude of the craft should affect atmospheric reentry, and surviving a reentry at interplanetary speeds should be somewhat challenging. These are basic gameplay elements in any game about spaceflight, and without them KSP is a worse game than it could be.

[Kegereneku]

To Cpt.Kipard

Obviously, but KSP is a game that use simplified physics. Meaning the aerodynamic model will also be a simplification.

I hope we do all agree that the current plane parts available must allow to build a lot of functional spaceplane.

My fear is that some people don't realize how simplified KSP have to be to let them have fun. If we took shape into account to a too far degree, then we would have to pretend the current spaceplane part don't have the shape they have anyway, or "you will not go to space today, and ever".

Edit : Fused post

to Jouni

I'm afraid to tell you every game even simulation can only be made with a top-down approach on the principle that do not and cannot simulate the Real-universe from the atomic level. Simulation game are simply setting the bar higher (as to simulate even more abscond concept) because they are meant to favor realism over fun, while KSP favor a lot more fun.

In any case, I'm just reminding people that if you want a game to act like reality, then it might be as tedious, frustrating and unfair as reality.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Kegereneku
fused post

[Jouni]

Jouni, I'm afraid to tell you every game even simulation can only be made with a top-down approach on the principle that do not and cannot simulate the Real-universe from the atomic level. Simulation game are simply setting the bar higher (as to simulate even more abscond concept) because they are meant to favor realism over fun, while KSP favor a lot more fun.

Simulations can also simulate other things than real-world physics. A simulation is essentially just an axiomatic system, where you define some basic rules, and then see what happens when the simulated world starts from different states.

When designing an abstract game, you start with a fairly good idea what the player is going to do, and then design the game mechanics from those assumptions. In a simulationist game, you deliberately try to avoid making such assumptions. Instead, you try to find game mechanics that have many interesting consequences, and let the players discover themselves how they should play the game.

[Kegereneku]

I get what you mean. But that still work as a top-down approach because you build the rules according to what you want to do in the end, even if you expect emergent gameplay you did not see coming.

Our example, KSP have been built from the top-down so you can launch rocket/spaceplane without requiring a engineering diploma and self-generated part.

Aside, the terms you use "simulationist" and "abstract" are not adequate, and are not used (for the first) that way (for the other) in game design.

Even calling game "simulation" aren't exactly correct to what a simulation really is meant for.

For example : real Flight Simulator do not work from atomic scale until they obtain correct airflow. They create a abstract environment that allow them to emulate the flight process from simplified, more manageable -yet correct- rules.

The same is at work with every game.

In the case of KSP, I would like to callback to what I said : You wouldn't be able to fly with the part of KSP if the aerodynamic model was "too realistic", and I seriously doubt you would be able to design part that can if it ever were the case.

So I insist we discuss the features rather than the working.

"make it look like the shape of my plane matter" is a feature like any other, but the underlaying logic to accomplish that don't have to be needlessly complicated (as what would result my so-called "realism-driven approach").

[Jouni]

Aside, the terms you use "simulationist" and "abstract" are not adequate, and are not used (for the first) that way (for the other) in game design.

Even calling game "simulation" aren't exactly correct to what a simulation really is meant for.

I'm using terminology from game research and abusing it a bit. In particular, I'm referring to a model that classifies games into four types. In one type, game mechanics focus on resolving conflicts and determining their outcomes. In another, game mechanics concentrate on simulating the processes that lead to the outcomes. In the third type, game mechanics are secondary, and the game focuses on telling a story. In the fourth type, the focus in on becoming your character and experiencing the game through the character, instead of playing the game as yourself.

In the case of KSP, I would like to callback to what I said : You wouldn't be able to fly with the part of KSP if the aerodynamic model was "too realistic", and I seriously doubt you would be able to design part that can if it ever were the case.

Simulations and realism are orthogonal terms. They don't really have anything to do with each other.

For example, the classic D&D-style combat with hit points and armor classes is a simulation. The game mechanics focus on modeling combat processes, instead of resolving the outcomes of the combat. Before there were hit points, the predecessor of D&D had an abstract combat system. You basically rolled dice and consulted a table to see, whether your character killed the monster, or the monster killed your character.

[Whirligig Girl]

The souposphere needs to stay. Else rockets only need 3.4 km/s delta-v to orbit. And I don't think SQUAD is too keen on making Kerbin 3.2x scale to fix this. And honestly I have been playing in Jumbo32 scale with FAR, 6.4x with FAR, and even for a while stock scale with FAR for months, and I still have not yet been able to build and fly a plane without stalling. I don't really think total realism in aerodynamics is fun. Not for planes, anyway.

[CaptRobau]

Main things I want to see for the aero revamp:

-Payload fairings. They look cool and as procedural fairing shows can be introduced with only a few extra parts

-With payload fairings or closed cargo bays vehicles should be more aerodynamic than ones that are open

-The new features should be intuitive and easy to use. So NEAR instead of FAR-like complexity

-The basic tricks of real aircraft design should work in the new model. If you make a T-shaped tailplane, it should have the same advantages and disadvantages as it would in real-life. For those who know aircraft it'll make the game feel more natural and for those who don't it'll be a great teaching tool about aircraft design

-The old aerodynamics should still be accessible, either to modders or with a difficulty/debug option. There's so many cool things that that dumb old aerodynamic system can do that a more realistic one can't and I would want it to be available to those who can do crazy infiglider sort of things with it. The default should be the realistic one of course, as in most situations its better

-Atmospheric trajectory indicator, such as in the mod Trajectories. If you want me to land spaceplanes with real aerodynamics, give me an indication of where I'll end up after deorbit

[Red Iron Crown]

I get what you mean. But that still work as a top-down approach because you build the rules according to what you want to do in the end, even if you expect emergent gameplay you did not see coming.

Our example, KSP have been built from the top-down so you can launch rocket/spaceplane without requiring a engineering diploma and self-generated part.

Aside, the terms you use "simulationist" and "abstract" are not adequate, and are not used (for the first) that way (for the other) in game design.

Even calling game "simulation" aren't exactly correct to what a simulation really is meant for.

For example : real Flight Simulator do not work from atomic scale until they obtain correct airflow. They create a abstract environment that allow them to emulate the flight process from simplified, more manageable -yet correct- rules.

The same is at work with every game.

In the case of KSP, I would like to callback to what I said : You wouldn't be able to fly with the part of KSP if the aerodynamic model was "too realistic", and I seriously doubt you would be able to design part that can if it ever were the case.

So I insist we discuss the features rather than the working.

"make it look like the shape of my plane matter" is a feature like any other, but the underlaying logic to accomplish that don't have to be needlessly complicated (as what would result my so-called "realism-driven approach").

I think if you replace the term "aerodynamics" in the quoted post with "orbital mechanics", the silliness of the position emerges. No one is suggesting that the aero model must be accurate to "atomic scale", even engineering grade simulations don't do that. Frankly I find it a bit condescending to suggest that players won't be able to understand or cope with a shape based model; the large number of players enjoying FAR and NEAR belies that position.

[Captain Sierra]

@CaptRobau

Huge agreement on Trajectories and fairings, though I'd rather see the devs go towards the KW standard.

@GregoxMun

I have to disagree. The soupmosphere has to go. There's a bunch of other ways to increase the delta V needed to make orbit following a reduction/restructuring of drag (I reference Ferram's Kerbal ISP Difficulty Scalar).

@Jouni & @Kegereneku

The following comments are under the assumption that FAR is the most realistic system we can implement in KSP without massively overcomplicating the inner workings for minimal benefit.

As for the argument that realistic aerodynamics limits craft design, I would ask you to go page through the SSTO megathread and see all the uniqueness that comes from FAR users. There's a lot.

Moving to the next point that realism should not be a focus of KSP, I disagree. The game is marketed as a space simulation game, ergo the game must be developed as a sim. Also, I want to quickly make a point. A realistic aero model will not be true-to-life accurate. This is not something we can ask of Squad and this is overcomplicated. A realistic aero model aims to make things which exist/work in reality behave as they would in reality while not necessarily modeling all the complexity and intricacy of real-world physics. A realistic aero model can imitate reality even if its not necessarily working like reality or modeling the same physics by which reality works, as long as the effects are generally predictable based on the real laws of physics and their calculations.

Now, I personally am unable to find an answer for the debate of realism vs gameplay. I personally believe non-aerodynamically sound designs (i.e. most asparagus staged lifters) should be punished in the form of incurring lots of drag and having to spend plenty of extra delta V to brute-force their way into orbit, but I don't think the aero model should make them unusable, just inviable. On the other hand, more aerodynamic rockets would benefit from a much easier ride to orbit. Under FAR, I find aerodynamically unsound rockets almost never make it to space, not for lack of delta V but rather because all the control surfaces in the world won't keep it going straight. It likes to flip out and explode, which is not something I think should be done in a stock aero model (hence the problem). now MAYBE this could be solved by making the old aero a debug option as @CaptRobau suggested, but I'd like to see an implementation where debug does not need to be summoned.

EDIT: Updated with response to Red Iron Crown

While I do not disagree with you, I will say that a counterpoint to your argument could be made by the fact that KSP is a space sim, and the getting to space part does not need to be the most accurate portion of that, albeit it must be good enough to approximate the difficulties involved therein.

Edited December 20, 2014 by Captain Sierra

[Red Iron Crown]

While I do not disagree with you, I will say that a counterpoint to your argument could be made by the fact that KSP is a space sim, and the getting to space part does not need to be the most accurate portion of that, albeit it must be good enough to approximate the difficulties involved therein.

I felt the same way for most of my time playing KSP, for me the atmosphere was something to punch through on the way up and a useful braking medium so a low level of realism was acceptable. However, the focus of KSP seems to have shifted, we've had two updates in a row filled with spaceplane parts and new Kerbin surface survey contracts so obviously we're meant to be enjoying the time in atmosphere more. KSP bills itself as having an accurate flight simulation where everything flies as it should, I think it would be a mistake to compromise that part of the game's vision because some players like ignoring aerodynamics. KSP's great differentiating factor, in my opinion, is its realistic physics; compromise that and it's just another unrealistic space game.

[Northstar1989]

Maxmaps has confirmed via twitter that 0.91 will bring the first version of a stock resource harvesting/exploitation system and an overhaul of the aerodynamics model.

As soon as 0.91? That's GREAT news- I just hope they don't do a rush-job of it. A GOOD ISRU or Aerodynamics system takes a LOT of time to design to be player-friendly, fun, and at least semi-realistic... (yes, *all* of these goals are achievable with enough thought- just look at how KSP Interstellar does ISRU...)

This is massively overdue, but what do we as players want to see? A FAR clone? A NEAR clone?

The are other options, you know...

THe problem with the base game aero model is that it needs to be relatively realistic, but also needs to not mercilessly obliterate more 'kerbal' designs. Sometimes its creations like those of Whackjob that define this game and ruling those out entirely would be IMHO overstepping it for the stock game (if you want that to evaporate on launch, there's FAR).

That's a DRASTIC overstatement of what FAR is like. FAR is realistic, *NOT* intentionally harsh/unforgiving. You'd be AMAZED just what you can actually get to orbit in FAR with enough nosecones, control surfaces, and reaction wheels. Whackjob creations are *NOT* out of the question with FAR- they just become substantially harder.

The other thing I would like to point out here in the OP is that with a more realistic aero model coming, I think its time for Squad to look at stock fairings. I will suggest implementing them in the same fashion as KW rocketry (w/1.25, 2.5, and 3.75m sizes plus expanded variants, which should hold their own diameter + radial goo canisters/monoprop tanks), as that is IMHO the best implementation short of Procedural Fairings.

Procedural Fairings is the best implementation of fairings. Period. There's no reason to make it any harder on players than it has to be by forcing them to try and cram their oddly-shaped payloads inside one-size-fits-all fairings. I can already anticipate enough players whining about *realistic* aerodynamic features (my rockets flip over after launch now- I only have all the mass at the bottom and all the drag at the top!) without forcing them to put up with unnecessary restrictions of the types of fairings they can use...

Regards,

Northstar

P.S. ANY major change inevitably produces its share of whiners and complaints. But, a more realistic aerodynamics system will ultimately be for the best- especially for new players who aren't used to the weird stock aerodynamics and are EXPECTING a system where a bowling ball will at least fall faster than a feather (due to the way stock aero is implemented- if you could create a bowling ball and a feather part, they would actually fall at the same rate inside an atmosphere- as drag is proportional to mass instead of surface area in stock aero...)

P.P.S. A realistic set of basic rules inevitably leads to more advanced features. There's no need to go out and create advanced rules for them. For instance, if drag is proportional to surface area and shape instead of mass, then the twin concepts of ballistic coefficient and aerodynamic stability necessarily arise. Craft with less surface area relative to mass will ascend faster as they have a better ballistic coefficient, and craft will naturally tend to rotate towards the end with more drag relative to mass (which is why it's important to have the mass at the top of a rocket and the drag at the bottom- like an arrow. More realistic fuel mixtures and tweakable tanks actually could HELP in this regard, by letting players store the heavier/denser fuels closer to the nose of the rocket- which isn't possibly with equally-dense LF/O...)

Edited December 20, 2014 by Northstar1989

[Robotengineer]

Something shape-based. You don't need an aeronautical engineering degree to understand that pointy-round things go faster. It's intuitive, should be relatively simple to implement, and what the community wants.

[Darnok]

Well since we have difficulty options we can have both NEAR and FAR.

I want re-entry heat for my crafts to give me feeling that going back to kerbin is not super safe (that also means we will need heat shields... new parts yay:) ) and I want more realistic restrictions for rockets and planes shapes, because right now even for noob like me it hurts to see some designs (we should get stock fairings with this fix and crafts inside cargo bays shouldn't count for drag and lift).

On hard mode would be nice to have deadly re-entry + FAR (or any other solution that would give close to real world aero), on medium NEAR + deadly re-entry, for easy settings only NEAR.

[Xaiier]

*much wisdom*

This is where its at.

I've had numerous arguments on the IRC channels with various FAR/NEAR supporters as well as ferram himself about the stock aerodynamics, and while I agree that it should be up to each player whether they want realistic aerodynamics or not, the only argument I've ever seen for "realism" is "realism" itself. Often people get so caught up over trying to make KSP into a realistic simulator that they overlook some of the more glaring elements of ridiculousness in the Kerbal universe.

Things like:

-Kerbals are literally Little Green Men

-But seriously...

-LITTLE GREEN MEN

-The density of every planet is such that no material in existence could possibly work

-The Kerbal system is unstable and far too small for its state

-No relativistic effects or even proper light simulation

-etc

-...

I've said it many times and I will say it again, KSP is 100% game, 0% simulator. Sorry if that offends you or something, but its the truth. KSP has never been about realism. Need proof? Here's a snippet from Harvester's original post about KSP on the Orbiter forum:

This game is not meant to compete with Orbiter, mind... that wouldn't be a good idea anyway, to compete with a freeware simulator with 12 years of development on it... This is meant to be a different take on space games, it's not a full blown space sim, but it's not your average space shooter either. At best, I hope this can be a stepping stone for people to get into Orbiter. At worst, I hope it's at least somewhat entertaining.

...

There are still many design decisions to be made, before we can be sure of how we should go about things... Mainly, I'm divided between having orbital mechanics in the game or not...

That's right, the initial concept of KSP wasn't even set on solid orbital mechanics.

As a game, the challenge of KSP is to overcome things to succeed, and it doesn't matter whether the rules set forth for the game universe are realistic or not, what matters is if you can learn how to use them to your advantage. The problem a lot of people have is that they refuse to accept the rules that have been set forth in the game world and cry about a lack of realism when they fail. Its the logical equivalent to playing a shooter game and ignoring the fact that bullets can't curve around corners, and then complaining to the developers that you can't shoot people around corners!

Anyways, in conclusion, my point is that if we are going to argue over aerodynamics, lets make that argument be based around why realistic aerodynamics would improve the game experience and expand upon the challenge, and not based around "realism because realism".

[Jouni]

On hard mode would be nice to have deadly re-entry + FAR (or any other solution that would give close to real world aero), on medium NEAR + deadly re-entry, for easy settings only NEAR.

On normal mode.

'Normal' should be the game mode, where all features are turned on, and everything works as intended. 'Hard' should be a mode that makes the game more difficult by making some things artificially harder. 'Easy' should be the mode for casual players, where some of the more challenging features are switched off, or some things are made artificially easier.

[steve_v]

The closer to FAR + DRE (or something better/more closely integrated into aero) the happier I will be. IMO it's fairly 'all or nothing' if you want to fly realistic aircraft.

Overheat explosions during re-entry and aerodynamic failures could well be in the difficulty settings though.

[Guest]

First needed feature imo for an aero model improvement is disabling drag and lift for parts inside other parts. In other words have a craft skin detection in real time, not like a wind tunnel, but simply with a percentage of total drag / lift being removed from total value of the part depending on the amount (ratio) clipped, also give to all parts different drag values and direction depending on part orientation (aoa). (switched off in easy mode)

It's not the most accurate but still much better than drag force intensity based on number of parts and direction always opposite to speed vector and it will make plane design more interesting.

Let's take for example the small hardpoint, by putting it externally like a wing, it will act like a little wing producing most lift and drag when you move forward, by putting it like a wing but rotated 90° it will create most d/l while moving sideways (for VTOLs), at 45° it will create most d/l while moving half forward half sideways (sideslip), by putting it 100% clipped inside a tank, it won't lift nor drag, by putting it half clipped inside a tank it will produce half of it, etc..

Also:

wind sound based on aoa and speed (doesn't need to be super realistic, still adds to the gameplay),

turbulence effects on parts area that produce lift when the speed vector moves a lot in a short amount of time,

Edited December 20, 2014 by RevanCorana

[Red Iron Crown]

Anyways, in conclusion, my point is that if we are going to argue over aerodynamics, lets make that argument be based around why realistic aerodynamics would improve the game experience and expand upon the challenge, and not based around "realism because realism".

That's fair. Allow me to suggest the following:

- More realistic aero allows players to leverage their existing knowledge of aerodynamics, however rudimentary, when designing craft. Everyone has seen real life rockets, aircraft, streamlined cars, and other aerodynamic shapes. They should be able to apply those shapes to their benefit in a game that purports to have realistic flight simulation and see good results. Instead, they are punished for making craft that would have good aerodynamic properties IRL, due to dead mass of nosecones, tall and thin being less structurally sound than pancakes, etc.

- More realistic aero is more challenging. Currently, pretty much anything can be thrown into orbit by simply strapping ever more radially attached boosters to the lifter. Having the frontal area of craft matter adds to the challenge by making overly wide designs less efficient.

- More realistic aero allows players to reuse experience from other flying games. Pretty much everyone who has played a non-arcadey flight game has to "unlearn" their piloting techniques and learn new ones when trying to fly in stock aerodynamics. The learning curve for KSP is already pretty steep, why not allow players to tap their existing experience for parts of it?

- More realistic aero is educational. Part of KSP's satisfaction is in figuring out how some of the more complex mechanics work and learning to manipulate them to your advantage. Just about everything I know about orbital mechanics and spacecraft design is from KSP; because of what I've learned here I have a better (though nowhere near perfect) understanding of real life maneuvers in space and I can reasonably claim the title of armchair rocket scientist. Aero is different, it's a mechanic that the player must figure out, only this time the things it teaches you are wrong, wrong, wrong. There's less satisfaction in figuring it out because it doesn't give you a better understanding of real life aero or the feeling that you're an armchair aircraft designer.

None of the above is realism for realism's sake, but instead are ways in which gameplay would be improved with more realistic aero. I agree that the rules in the game are arbitrary, but it seems to me that an arbitrary set of aero rules that are closer to reality and other games would serve KSP well.

(Every time someone trots out that old post from the Orbiter forums I thank the Kraken that it's not how KSP development played out. There's no way it would have held my attention and enthusiasm for so long if everything had been dumbed down.)

[Elington]

Only one thing: whatever the chosen model, and for the sake of all the mods related to trajectory planning and flight guidance, SQUAD please document it!