Aero Revamp: What do You Want to See?

[Xaiier]

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.

To an extent, it makes sense, but you could apply the same argument to orbital mechanics, and almost nobody has prior knowledge of orbital mechanics. The problem is that referencing realistic aerodynamics significantly limits the creativity of players. You can easily imagine a real world rocket or plane because they basically all look the same in the real world. Changing KSP to a system that works the same way will result in there being only a few effective solutions for any given problem, and thus players will not be able to create those wacky Kerbal designs that somehow fly.

- 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.

This ruins the "more boosters" mantra which has been an integral part of KSP's style for a long time. Also, more challenging isn't necessarily better. KSP is quite difficult already, and adding what basically amounts to "hard mode" isn't a way to expand upon the challenge. Tuning up the difficulty is usually a sign that a games challenges are not complex enough. An example of adding challenge without just boosting the overall difficulty would be adding more planets along the likes of Tylo and Eve, which are very difficult to conquer.

- 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?

Perhaps it is just personal experience, but I've never found KSP flight to be that jarring compared to realistic sims. From my experience with FAR, the only real difference I noticed was that everything is slower and more fragile, which can hardly be called an improvement from the gameplay sense.

- 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.

This is debatable. The joy I get from flying hilarious monstrosities around balances out whatever I'm losing in educational value. Because KSP is meant to be a little bit silly, I enjoy the break from reality sometimes.

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.

You've done better than most at arguing your case without falling to that, but I still have to question how you can simultaneously claim that realistic aerodynamics make it both easier and harder at the same time. Notice that you claim that is makes design easier because we can copy the real world, and also that it makes design harder, because we can't just brute force it.

Edited December 21, 2014 by Xaiier

[Bill Phil]

Fairings:

1.25 meter- satellites that are less than 1.25 meter

1.875 meter- 1.25 meter payloads for 1.25 meter rockets

2.5 meter- less than 2.5 meter payloads on a 2.5 meter rocket

3.25 meter- 2.5 meter payloads on 2.5 meter rockets

3.75 meter- less than 3.75 meter payloads on 3.75 meter parts

...and so on.

Each one would be at different places in the tech tree, but you'd start with none. You have a conicular capsule already, so...

Also, the different panels would be in different tech nodes as well.

Fairings also make rockets look prettier. I don't want to see some weird batteries or goo tanks sticking out of the side.

Oh, and why are so many parts mis-aligned? It makes so many parts useless to me. Like the docking port that opens up, I never use it because it isn't aligned. Can this be fixed? I know it will take a lot of work, but things like this are necessary for a lego space game.

[Kegereneku]

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.

[..............]

I do not disagree with what you said there, but I do not see a contradiction with the feature top-down approach I see required in game-design.

So I have nothing to add.

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.

I'm sorry if I sounded condescending.

However having studied aeronautic design and technology I have been saying that a little too often it is disrespectful and above else nonconstructive to claim aerodynamic as "intuitive", since the most of it is not. (regardless of what one's inflated ego think)

I would counter your example by saying that FAR and NEAR are less realistic than more credible and both model can be broken into equivalent "unrealistic simplification" if given enough attention from the occasional realism-fanatic (sincerely).

Anyway, my point is to focus more on the result (the feature obtained) than the method. If something else can give a more interesting result using a set of rules that do not focus on realism, why not ?

To illustrate what I mean above,

The Realism-Driven approach would make so a badly reproduced Concorde crash like a badly reproduced Concorde

The Feature-Driven approach would make so the Concorde looking thing fly reasonably like a well-made plane of this size would.

Which is NOT a given if you tried to simulate airflow in a realistic way.

@Jouni & @Kegereneku

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 [.........]

I think our disagreement is mostly a question of wording.

You defend realism, but you give more importance to imitation and gameplay than obsessing other a direct transposition of real physics which I warn to make people loose sight of what's the important.

To try to set a common ground, I would also prefer an "aerodynamically unsound" rocket to be less efficient than a streamlined one. But to me the method to determine it must be failsafe and permissive, as in "This design might not seem aerodynamic to you, but for reason unknown to you it is." (and you would be surprised how often it happen)

To keep our asparagus example, 4 parallel 2.5m stage would do not generate more meaningful amount of drag if they had a nose-cone than if they were somehow fused as one serial stage. Plus, Asparagus would actually be more used in the real world if transferring fuel wasn't so complicated.

[Jouni]

I do not disagree with what you said there, but I do not see a contradiction with the feature top-down approach I see required in game-design.

The top-down approach doesn't work with game mechanics that simulate processes. It only works with game mechanics that resolve outcomes.

Mechanism design is difficult, because you're trying to solve an inverse problem. If you start with an idea about how planes should work in the game, and then try to design a simulation where planes work like that, you'll probably get what you want, but there will most likely be major unintended consequences. If you try to fix those consequences, there will probably be major problems elsewhere. If you try to fix the problems, planes might no longer fly as you want. That's just the nature of simulations.

It's much easier to proceed from simulation to gameplay. You first design the simulation, then determine how planes would work in that simulation, and then try to design gameplay around that. If it works, start fine-tuning it. Otherwise discard the simulation and try something different.

Edit: One of the reasons people advocate realism is that it's one of the few situations where top-down design works with simulations. We already know what works in the reality, and we also have a fairly good idea of the mechanisms that lead to that behavior. Instead of having to design entirely new mechanisms that lead to the desired phenomena, we "only" have to simplify the mechanisms we already know without affecting the results too much.

Edited December 21, 2014 by Jouni

[Kegereneku]

Jouni, I still disagree with your first paragraph and will try not to repeat myself.

So called "Simulation game" do require a closer attention to detail which led them to create a system that do react (roughly) to small detail accordingly to what is known of aerodynamic. But those reactions are all in all abstract construct working from a given set of arbitrary parameters.

An example with X-Plane, one of the most advanced plane simulator.

http://wiki.x-plane.com/Supplement:_Airfoil-Maker#Designing_an_Airfoil

The shape of the airfoil is not taken into account. Abstracted parameters from discovered equations are used in place and the physic engine only read the data representing the airfoil.

A bottom approach is indeed used in real -correct use of the word- simulation, when you intend to verify how the shape imagined react to a set of reference rules. This is (as said in the link) how one get the set of arbitrary parameters used in flight simulator out of REAL model (from manufacturer or hightech airflow simulation).

So it is technically right that a bottom-up up approach is used to shape a plane until it react as wanted to imposed physics.

However in the case of KSP (or any video game including simulator-game) a reverse approach is/must be used since you have control over the physics but would anyway be unable to shape a real subsonic-to-hypersonic capable spaceplane. (no really, aerodynamic can do crazy thing out of what you believed failsafe bullet design)

Thus my point stand still that since KSP's part-shape are not actually aerodynamic, you better use a feature-driven approach and create the physic model according to what you want to achieve. That or we've somehow been confusing top-down and bottom-up approach the whole time.

Quote from the link posted above :

The camber page is used to influence the visual representation of the wing profile in X-Plane. Many real wings are almost flat on the bottom or have different bulges to the typical airfoil.

[image]

This has no effect on the way the plane flies in X-Plane - it's just for the visual model. There are only a couple of points so you can't make a detailed 3D model of your wing. There should be enough adjustment here so that your model of the Concorde doesn't look completly stupid with fat wings.

[Jouni]

Thus my point stand still that since KSP's part-shape are not actually aerodynamic, you better use a feature-driven approach and create the physic model according to what you want to achieve.

And my point is that this is almost impossible to do well.

If you start with a set of axioms and a conjecture, it can be quite hard to find a proof to the conjecture. On the other hand, if you start with the conjecture and a proposed proof, it's still much harder to find a set of axioms that would make the proof correct, without causing all kinds of undesired consequences. Similarly, it's much harder to design an aerodynamics simulation where planes would work in a certain way, than to determine how planes would work in a given aerodynamics simulation.

[Kegereneku]

You are taking it backward.

This is not a question of conjecture and proof. You are not trying to find the best wing profile to generate lift from unknown laws of physics. This is a situation where you defined how your "wing" must act and can write the minimal laws to make it act exactly like you want.

Opposite to what you said I can demonstrate how a top-down approach make easier to avoid undesired consequences. While a bottom-up approach make things harder.

Example :

You plan from the TOP (feature) that you do not want some part to unbalance thing (landing gear for example), so you create from start a distinction between physical part and physic-less part, as well as give part individual drag value.

In result : Your plane (imagine a 100% symmetrical bullet with delta mid-wing) can fly at supersonic speed without pulling downward. Also rocket are able to fly with no fairing (while keeping the possibility for later to advantage those who do by negating drag value under fairing...etc)

Basically that's KSP right now and it can be improved to make shape matter the same way.

Counter example :

Had you wrote first a very complicated physic model to apply complex force on any shape, considering that "any shape ever must be accounted for" and "we can find out afterward the shape needed to make thing fly".

In result : You are tearing your hair out because hypersonic speed amplify any single misalignment, because you do not know how your parts will react or how to keep a plane stable flying at hypersonic speed under those complicated laws.

Basically that's the conundrum REAL ENGINEER face in the real world, except that you are a player, you have no real knowledge about how some benign design can fall into a "deep stall" with no chance of recovery, you just wanted to have fun but are now frustrated because you can't have your cake.

Note : Obviously the counter example is assuming irrational obsession with both realism and bottom-up thinking. Any developers worth its salt would work differently, first defining what he want to do (and switch between the two way as needed). This counter example was to magnify the absurdity of thinking only one way

If this demonstration do not make you reconsider, I do not know what more to tell you.

Edited December 21, 2014 by Kegereneku
correction

[Red Iron Crown]

To an extent, it makes sense, but you could apply the same argument to orbital mechanics, and almost nobody has prior knowledge of orbital mechanics. The problem is that referencing realistic aerodynamics significantly limits the creativity of players. You can easily imagine a real world rocket or plane because they basically all look the same in the real world. Changing KSP to a system that works the same way will result in there being only a few effective solutions for any given problem, and thus players will not be able to create those wacky Kerbal designs that somehow fly.

Wacky things can still be made to fly under NEAR/FAR, it's just a bit tougher to do so. It is easier to make things that look like they should fly work properly, because it's closer to the real principles that shape real life aircraft/spacecraft.

Not sure how orbital mechanics are related here, as you say few players have any intuition or real world experience with them so there are no preconceptions to overcome. If a realistic orbital mechanics model is good when players have no preconceptions, why is it bad to have aero be more realistic when they do have preconceptions?

This ruins the "more boosters" mantra which has been an integral part of KSP's style for a long time. Also, more challenging isn't necessarily better. KSP is quite difficult already, and adding what basically amounts to "hard mode" isn't a way to expand upon the challenge. Tuning up the difficulty is usually a sign that a games challenges are not complex enough. An example of adding challenge without just boosting the overall difficulty would be adding more planets along the likes of Tylo and Eve, which are very difficult to conquer.

"More boosters" still works in a more realistic model, just not as well. For simple, early rockets, a realistic aero model is actually easier because they benefit from the easily-discovered low drag single-stack shape.

I'm interested in your differing definitions of difficulty and challenge, can you expand on it?

Perhaps it is just personal experience, but I've never found KSP flight to be that jarring compared to realistic sims. From my experience with FAR, the only real difference I noticed was that everything is slower and more fragile, which can hardly be called an improvement from the gameplay sense.

This is debatable. The joy I get from flying hilarious monstrosities around balances out whatever I'm losing in educational value. Because KSP is meant to be a little bit silly, I enjoy the break from reality sometimes.

That's fair, different strokes for different folks and all that, plus I agree that aero structural failures are probably a bad idea for stock. I have to say that if the only difference you found with NEAR/FAR is things being slower and more fragile then you didn't give it a fair shake. (I play stock aero, having only tried FAR for a few hours back in 0.23.5, but even in that limited time the difference was very apparent. AoA matters immensely, shape matters, wing/control surface layout is much more important, etc, etc.)

You've done better than most at arguing your case without falling to that, but I still have to question how you can simultaneously claim that realistic aerodynamics make it both easier and harder at the same time. Notice that you claim that is makes design easier because we can copy the real world, and also that it makes design harder, because we can't just brute force it.

It's not as simple as "easier" and "harder". More realistic aero makes flying streamlined things easier (which includes most realistic-looking designs that new players are likely to try), but flying unstreamlined things more difficult. So the early game gets a bit more intuitive and approachable than it is now, but as your experience grows and you want to try things that likely wouldn't work in real life it becomes harder than it is now.

[Jouni]

Example :

You plan from the TOP (feature) that you do not want some part to unbalance thing (landing gear for example), so you create from start a distinction between physical part and physic-less part, as well as give part individual drag value.

In result : Your plane (imagine a 100% symmetrical bullet with delta mid-wing) can fly at supersonic speed without pulling downward. Also rocket are able to fly with no fairing (while keeping the possibility for later to advantage those who do by negating drag value under fairing...etc)

Of course things are easy, when you only consider a single feature in isolation from the rest of the game. Top-down design only becomes hard, when you want to design entire systems that aren't based on something that already exists.

Note that this has nothing to do with aerodynamics in particular. We could equally well be talking about designing a combat system for a game about medieval warfare. My point is that, given a complete set of requirements for one subsystem of the game, it's very hard to design a subsystem that fulfills the requirements, without breaking any of the other subsystems of the game. This is not about aerodynamics at all, but about complexity and game theory; about mathematics, computer science, and economics.

[aeTIos]

I'm fine with our current ultra-thick atmosphere, I only think some work should be done to fix how lift works; I'd like to actually lift off from the runway one time. That and part shielding.

[Superfluous J]

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

True this. If they have to do it in stages I'd love this to be the first stage. Presuming they have stock fairings. Preferably procedural*

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.

After playing FAR with KIDS and then FAR without KIDS, I have (for myself) realized that the "must-have" 4.5km/s dV to orbit is not actually all that "must-have." The increased need for your rockets to be sleek (for me) more than makes up for all this great savings on dV. Sure, you can put more up but you have to figure out how to put it on the top of your spindly little rocket.

*Wings, too, but that's a different discussion ;D

Edited December 22, 2014 by 5thHorseman
Added that if drag is changed to care about shape, fairings are necessary.

[Nemrav]

Well, calculation of exposed surface so that cargo bays and fairings do what they are meant to do would be nice... same goes for wings and maybe stalling..

But really, Squad should simply do something independently of the forum, it always creates crying when things aren't perfect to the way 2 polar opposite opinions want, but it always tends to work out in the end...

[chaos_forge]

I for one would like to see something along the lines of NEAR levels of realism, plus deadly reentry and stock fairings.

[Captain Sierra]

On procedural fairings:

Stop asking for them, seriously. I cannot find the quote but HarvesteR has said that they (Squad) do not want to do procedural in the stock game. On that knowledge, I think the KW system of fairings is the best alternative implementation.

On 4.5k dV:

I think if you can design a sleek enough lifter with payload capacity, good on you! You should be able to coast to orbit on <4k dV. Alternatively, if you need a lotta (and/or unwieldy) mass to space, you gotta do it with >5k dV because that aint gonna be streamlined, but you can still brute force it. Do remember that with a 'realistic' drag model, the dV to orbit becomes highly variable based on the drag factor of the rocket.

A new idea:

We'll need a CoD (Center of Drag) indicator in the editor. If the CoD is no longer the same as the CoM (which it currently is), this needs adding.

There is however the problem of crafts having different drag based on orientation relative prograde. As such, I think the calculation needs to assume the vessel is moving in the direction of foward/up relative the editor (SPH/VAB respectively). This also lets you assess drag profiles of different angles and positions by rotating the craft in editor.

EDIT: On NEAR

NEAR does not model the physics changes with supersonic flight. Aside from the terrible loss of stability that occurs with all but my rock steady planes at Mach 4+, those effects are rather positive on flight characteristics. It's statistically easier to fly under FAR with said changes than under NEAR which does not have them. That said, the less complicated model of NEAR is generally more intuitive to people with less real-world aerospace experience. I'd even go so far as to say 'make a more complex aero model a hard-mode option'.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Captain Sierra

[Bill Phil]

Atmo drag to orbit is nearly 1% the Dv for most cases. A lot of the required Dv comes from just having to get up there, and to account for gravity losses. All of this for real life of course.

[Ziff]

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:

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

First, don't confuse the words realism and simulator. They do not mean the same thing. The very quote you linked has Harvester saying "It is not a full blown simulator" which means it IS part simulator. Regardless of what you believe about that, it is in fact about realism. The orbital mechanics in this game are based on solid real principles and that is what makes it based on realism. KSP doesn't try to simulate launching an actual rocket into space or piloting a space shuttle to a landing. It does use real physics principles in it's orbital mechanics. There is a big difference there.

Here is proof that it IS based on realism. Also, from the orbiter forums.

Realistic space flight in games

Postby HarvesteR » Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:05 pm UTC

Hello,

I've been meaning to ask this... What other games, besides Orbiter, have actual realistic space flight?

Not many, I imagine... Now why is that? Are orbital mechanics that hard to understand that most players won't even go there?

Most space games I've seen, excepting Orbiter, have grossly oversimplified or downright unrealistic orbital mechanics... most just go the Star Wars way and have their spaceships flying like WWII fighters...

Why is it that gamers are willing to spend hours learning their way through MMO stats, RTS strategies and FPS exploits, but won't delve into learning space flight?

It actually seems counter-intuitive, given that so many games from the 80's and 90's were set in space... You'd think more people would have grown an interest for that kind of realism...

So, thoughts?

Cheers

The next sentence is the truth. - The previous sentence is a lie.

User avatar

HarvesteR

I am not sure how you've come to the belief that one little quote you linked somehow says that KSP isn't part simulator and isn't based on solid orbital mechanics. It is part both of those things.

I don't think anyone here is saying that aerodynamics has to be exactly as real life is. I also can't imagine anyone who plays KSP would think an aerodynamic system in which a full fuel tank with an aerodynamic nosecone has MORE drag than a fuel tank without it doesn't have room for some kind of improvement.

[Xaiier]

Wacky things can still be made to fly under NEAR/FAR, it's just a bit tougher to do so. It is easier to make things that look like they should fly work properly, because it's closer to the real principles that shape real life aircraft/spacecraft.

Not sure how orbital mechanics are related here, as you say few players have any intuition or real world experience with them so there are no preconceptions to overcome. If a realistic orbital mechanics model is good when players have no preconceptions, why is it bad to have aero be more realistic when they do have preconceptions?

"More boosters" still works in a more realistic model, just not as well. For simple, early rockets, a realistic aero model is actually easier because they benefit from the easily-discovered low drag single-stack shape.

I don't know if you have ever had the experience of showing someone KSP who has never played it before, but no matter what kind of person they are or the experience they have had with other similar things, the first rocket they throw together in KSP is always some hideous monstrosity with engines bolted on randomly at the top and fuel tanks and boosters slapped on everywhere. That is a mentality that continues for quite awhile as they learn what works and what doesn't. It is from my experience with this that I don't think most people really have an inherent understanding of aerodynamics and the way a rocket or plane works. As such, a lot of new players will now be faced with an extra challenge that they have yet to consider and will have to endure more of the frustration of trial and error before realizing what works.

I'm interested in your differing definitions of difficulty and challenge, can you expand on it?

Difficulty is applied to everything, it takes every part of the game and makes it harder. Challenge adds a new portion of difficulty at the "end" so to speak, meaning it takes longer before you master everything. Realistic aerodynamics falls under the "difficulty" section because it inherently makes every stage of your experience more difficult. My planets example on the other hand doesn't affect a player until they have progressed to the point where they can begin to consider them, meaning that that learning stage lasts a bit longer. It is like a FPS game where you can turn up the difficulty and all the enemies become better shots and move around more tactically, as opposed to adding another level at the end which includes more enemies which you must fight at the same time. To an experienced player, both are essentially the same, but for a new player, it dramatically increases that basic level of competency required to succeed.

That's fair, different strokes for different folks and all that, plus I agree that aero structural failures are probably a bad idea for stock. I have to say that if the only difference you found with NEAR/FAR is things being slower and more fragile then you didn't give it a fair shake. (I play stock aero, having only tried FAR for a few hours back in 0.23.5, but even in that limited time the difference was very apparent. AoA matters immensely, shape matters, wing/control surface layout is much more important, etc, etc.)

Even with structural failures turned off, you can still shred your craft due to the way forces are distributed across parts. This obviously depends on the final implementation from SQUAD though. One thing I found particularly irritating was how more jet engines didn't equate to more speed, due to the way FAR nerfs them. It is going to require a careful balance act to make sure everything continues to play nice together. Another thing to note is FAR's DCA system which decreases maximum deflection based on speed. Its essentially required for a keyboard user as otherwise you will quickly find yourself either torn into pieces or in a terrible spin from overdoing a control input. These are all things that have to be kept in mind when making a new system.

It's not as simple as "easier" and "harder". More realistic aero makes flying streamlined things easier (which includes most realistic-looking designs that new players are likely to try), but flying unstreamlined things more difficult. So the early game gets a bit more intuitive and approachable than it is now, but as your experience grows and you want to try things that likely wouldn't work in real life it becomes harder than it is now.

As I said above, I don't agree with your reasoning that it makes it easier, because in my experience that isn't what new players do. As you have probably seen, the first few flights of a player trying out FAR are always frustrating, as they now have to deal with not only do they have enough thrust and fuel, but also whether their rocket is aerodynamically stable and a more advanced gravity turn. Throwing a new player into that from the beginning isn't a good idea.

------

First, don't confuse the words realism and simulator. They do not mean the same thing. The very quote you linked has Harvester saying "It is not a full blown simulator" which means it IS part simulator. Regardless of what you believe about that, it is in fact about realism. The orbital mechanics in this game are based on solid real principles and that is what makes it based on realism. KSP doesn't try to simulate launching an actual rocket into space or piloting a space shuttle to a landing. It does use real physics principles in it's orbital mechanics. There is a big difference there.

...

I am not sure how you've come to the belief that one little quote you linked somehow says that KSP isn't part simulator and isn't based on solid orbital mechanics. It is part both of those things.

There is nothing wrong with a game containing elements which match that of reality. That doesn't make it a simulator any more than any game with gravity makes that a simulator of gravity. I think it is obvious from Harvester's original post that KSP was meant primarily to be a fun game which happens to contain a not-oft used bit of reality (which wasn't even decided at that point).

I don't think anyone here is saying that aerodynamics has to be exactly as real life is. I also can't imagine anyone who plays KSP would think an aerodynamic system in which a full fuel tank with an aerodynamic nosecone has MORE drag than a fuel tank without it doesn't have room for some kind of improvement.

I never said I didn't want improvement. What I want to discourage is how people demand realism because KSP should be a simulator without realizing that at its roots, it has never been about that. It is just a game with mechanics like any other.

If I had to describe KSP in a sentence, I would say that it was "A game about building rockets to fly to space and land on other planets." I don't need to use "realistic orbital mechanics" or "simulation" because those aren't important.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Xaiier

[King Arthur]

It is from my experience with this that I don't think most people really have an inherent understanding of aerodynamics and the way a rocket or plane works.

I share this sentiment. With all due respect to newbies and the ignorant out there, it pains me everytime I see "planes" spammed with control surfaces everywhere as it signifies the person who made the thing doesn't understand the fundamentals of aerodynamics at all.

I think this is better with rockets though, most newbies still have the sensibility to at least point rocket engine nozzles down and aim up for the sky. Planes though...

[Wanderfound]

Even with structural failures turned off, you can still shred your craft due to the way forces are distributed across parts. This obviously depends on the final implementation from SQUAD though. One thing I found particularly irritating was how more jet engines didn't equate to more speed, due to the way FAR nerfs them.

The horribleness of the soupmosphere is my main reason for using FAR, but the nerfed jets are another selling point to me. Simply packing more conventional jets onto an airplane will not make it go further into the hypersonic, in reality or in FAR. Turbojets just don't work like that. This is how it should be, IMO.

Despite the massive nerf from stock, it is still extremely easy to take a FAR spaceplane to orbit and beyond (a long way beyond; I can do KSC-Duna-KSC without even pausing to refuel). Mostly, this just illustrates how insanely overpowered jets are in stock.

Another thing to note is FAR's DCA system which decreases maximum deflection based on speed. Its essentially required for a keyboard user as otherwise you will quickly find yourself either torn into pieces or in a terrible spin from overdoing a control input.

That is not accurate.

I fly by keyboard, I fly FAR spaceplanes almost exclusively, and I never use any of the FAR assistance toggles. They are not at all necessary.

[thereaverofdarkness]

The #1 most important change we want is no drag on covered parts, so that long rockets don't fly as if they are going through soup. The second most important change we want is the removal of infinigliding; for wing surfaces to reflect lift rather than create it. Other than that, I think NEAR is probably a pretty good example of what the stock aerodynamic model should look like. One thing in particular I think the stock aerodynamics should differentiate from reality on is angle of attack stress on wings. In real life, turning your plane too fast will rip the wings off. In KSP we are impatient and have engines with absurdly high thrust, so it's all too easy to, and perhaps too difficult not to turn quickly.

[Xaiier]

The horribleness of the soupmosphere is my main reason for using FAR, but the nerfed jets are another selling point to me. Simply packing more conventional jets onto an airplane will not make it go further into the hypersonic, in reality or in FAR. Turbojets just don't work like that. This is how it should be, IMO.

Despite the massive nerf from stock, it is still extremely easy to take a FAR spaceplane to orbit and beyond (a long way beyond; I can do KSC-Duna-KSC without even pausing to refuel). Mostly, this just illustrates how insanely overpowered jets are in stock.

Every argument here is based on comparing KSP to real life and then claiming that KSP is wrong because it isn't real life. This is exactly what I wanted to avoid in this discussion.

I fly by keyboard, I fly FAR spaceplanes almost exclusively, and I never use any of the FAR assistance toggles. They are not at all necessary.

I must ask, do you do much flying around the KSC, or is it just forward and up into space?

[Wanderfound]

Every argument here is based on comparing KSP to real life and then claiming that KSP is wrong because it isn't real life. This is exactly what I wanted to avoid in this discussion.

Although you seem to be of the view that realism is irrelevant, you must be aware that this is very much not a universally held opinion.

The relatively realistic nature of KSP is what drew me to the game; if it wasn't there, I wouldn't play. I don't play any computer games apart from KSP (been a committed gamer for 30+ years, but my preferences run mostly to tabletop gaming), and I have no interest in physics-free space-themed fantasy. I have no problem with continuing to include low-realism options in the game for those that want them, but if they were the only option available I would rapidly abandon the game.

I must ask, do you do much flying around the KSC, or is it just forward and up into space?

All of the above.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Wanderfound

[Jouni]

As I said above, I don't agree with your reasoning that it makes it easier, because in my experience that isn't what new players do. As you have probably seen, the first few flights of a player trying out FAR are always frustrating, as they now have to deal with not only do they have enough thrust and fuel, but also whether their rocket is aerodynamically stable and a more advanced gravity turn. Throwing a new player into that from the beginning isn't a good idea.

For my first flight in FAR, I took a rocket designed for the stock game, and reached orbit without having to use the upper stage at all. The next few flights were similar. Reaching orbit was easy, because there was nothing complicated in it at all. Just build a rocket that looks like a rocket, turn a few degrees at 70-100 m/s, and follow the prograde marker. It was much more forgiving than with stock aerodynamics. If you turned too quickly, the rocket might level at 30 km, but it just meant that the ascent was slower, because you couldn't use time warp. With stock aerodynamics, turning too soon meant that you didn't reach orbit due to excessive drag.

[Red Iron Crown]

I don't know if you have ever had the experience of showing someone KSP who has never played it before, but no matter what kind of person they are or the experience they have had with other similar things, the first rocket they throw together in KSP is always some hideous monstrosity with engines bolted on randomly at the top and fuel tanks and boosters slapped on everywhere. That is a mentality that continues for quite awhile as they learn what works and what doesn't. It is from my experience with this that I don't think most people really have an inherent understanding of aerodynamics and the way a rocket or plane works. As such, a lot of new players will now be faced with an extra challenge that they have yet to consider and will have to endure more of the frustration of trial and error before realizing what works.

Our experiences differ a bit here. The handful of people I've shown KSP to IRL have all tried to make realistic looking rockets at first. Single stack, with big tanks and a big engine, and the Apollo-style command pod. *Shrug* Anecdotes.

Players are going to have to experiment to discover what works and what doesn't under any aero system, I don't really see this as an inherent benefit of the current aero system.

Difficulty is applied to everything, it takes every part of the game and makes it harder. Challenge adds a new portion of difficulty at the "end" so to speak, meaning it takes longer before you master everything. Realistic aerodynamics falls under the "difficulty" section because it inherently makes every stage of your experience more difficult. My planets example on the other hand doesn't affect a player until they have progressed to the point where they can begin to consider them, meaning that that learning stage lasts a bit longer. It is like a FPS game where you can turn up the difficulty and all the enemies become better shots and move around more tactically, as opposed to adding another level at the end which includes more enemies which you must fight at the same time. To an experienced player, both are essentially the same, but for a new player, it dramatically increases that basic level of competency required to succeed.

I see what you're saying here, thanks for clarifying. I'm not convinced that a FAR-like system is as big a difficulty bump as you imply.

Even with structural failures turned off, you can still shred your craft due to the way forces are distributed across parts. This obviously depends on the final implementation from SQUAD though. One thing I found particularly irritating was how more jet engines didn't equate to more speed, due to the way FAR nerfs them. It is going to require a careful balance act to make sure everything continues to play nice together. Another thing to note is FAR's DCA system which decreases maximum deflection based on speed. Its essentially required for a keyboard user as otherwise you will quickly find yourself either torn into pieces or in a terrible spin from overdoing a control input. These are all things that have to be kept in mind when making a new system.

Have you tried FAR since 0.23.5? The new joint strength introduced then makes craft basically invulnerable to non-impact structural failure, I'm not sure a craft will shred as easily from varying drag forces as before.

As for jet engines being nerfed, that's not really related to the atmospheric model. It is included in FAR because that is a realism mod, but it isn't required for a more realistic aero model. I'm kind of on the fence about nerfing jets, on one hand I'd like a more realistic simulation of jets, on the other flying unrealistic SSTO planes is fun for me.

Can't speak to needing DCA with FAR, didn't need it in the bit of time I spent with it but maybe things have changed.

As I said above, I don't agree with your reasoning that it makes it easier, because in my experience that isn't what new players do. As you have probably seen, the first few flights of a player trying out FAR are always frustrating, as they now have to deal with not only do they have enough thrust and fuel, but also whether their rocket is aerodynamically stable and a more advanced gravity turn. Throwing a new player into that from the beginning isn't a good idea.

The first few flights are a bit frustrating no matter the aero model, it's rare that a player can into space on the first try (I'm sure there are some, I certainly wasn't one of them). FAR doesn't require a more gradual gravity turn to make orbit, the "fly straight up out of the atmosphere then burn horizontally to circularize" works just fine for newbs.

[Capt Snuggler]

Its concerning how "realism" is becoming a dirty word around the forums.

I'm not an advocate for FAR or Real Solar System, but there are some things in the KSP physics model that I believe NEED to be corrected:

The link between MASS and DRAG needs to be broken. Center of drag, center of mass, and center of lift are separate things. Currently in KSP the Center of mass IS your center of drag. This is what can cause your pointy delta wing space planes to flip backwards on re-entry. right now a heavy nose is also the point of most drag, rather than the big flat wing surfaces at the rear.

Fuel mass should NOT contribute to drag. This can be easily fixed in the stock model. Currently an empty fuel tank falls faster than a full one. there is no reason to preserve this mistake. I believe this is a major reason why people use the term "souposhere". note that fixing this exasperates the issue above. ^^^

Aerodynamic shielding should be implemented. Fairings YAY!. IRL they are an important functional part of a launch vehicle and they also look cool. KW style would be my preferred choice. procedural fairings are great, but maybe too great. Fairings could be more easily implemented by solving the two problems above.^^^

Edited December 22, 2014 by Capt Snuggler