The Unofficial Next Update Discussion Thread.

[RAINCRAFTER]

Was going to base it around 0.91, but I wanted it to be perpetual.

Next Update: 0.91

Now all you gotta do is discuss it in the replies!

Cheers, rainup9 (my minecraft username.)

[problemecium]

Inb4 thread closed as per tradition. I do actually like the idea of having one persistent HypeTrain thread.

Personally I'm hyped about the vague promise of "deep-space refueling" - meaning resource harvesting, we can only hope!

[RAINCRAFTER]

Yea, too bad they didn't add that in 0.90. Also, sorry if you disapprove of this thread. Just trying to get some rep!

[Yellowburn10]

I'm interested to see what they will do with aerodynamic overhaul, or "aerohaul" as I'm calling it. Are they gonna do it all themselves, or might they call someone like ferram to help? And if they did, how different would it be from FAR/NEAR?

[redsh]

I'm afraid of the next update. There are rumors about "improving" aerodynamics. I have not tried FAR, but I strongly dislike that i've seen. Needle-shaped "aerodynamical" form is bad for KSP!

Firstly, effective KSP rockets are short and wide base due to part balance (weak engines, dense fuel/small tanks etc.)

Secondly, payloads tends to be very bulky. We have very limited options to deploy and assemble (firmly) something outside VAB/SPH compared to IRL. You can launch small useless satellite with needle aerodynamical rocket with no problems. But how about space station segment? You can't drop bundle of girders to cargo bay and weld them in space (in stock). You should launch it as is. And same for other mega things. Maybe FAR users don't need them, but I (and other players) do!

I think now KSP is pretty balanced with bulky crafts, asparagus staging and so on. Hope very much dev doesn't break this balance. I'm worry my 20-seat sea level Eve lander won't fit in "aerodynamical" Mk3 bay, but I don't want to give up launching it for dubious pleasure of playing with improved aerodynamics.

Edited January 9, 2015 by redsh

[Frank_G]

Well... better aerodynamics will not make many sense without proper fairings. I am really looking forward to finally get some stock fairings.

[Parkaboy]

I'm afraid of the next update. There are rumors about "improving" aerodynamics. I have not tried FAR, but I strongly dislike that i've seen. Needle-shaped "aerodynamical" form is bad for KSP!

Firstly, effective KSP rockets are short and wide base due to part balance (weak engines, dense fuel/small tanks etc.)

Secondly, payloads tends to be very bulky. We have very limited options to deploy and assemble (firmly) something outside VAB/SPH compared to IRL. You can launch small useless satellite with needle aerodynamical rocket with no problems. But how about space station segment? You can't drop bundle of girders to cargo bay and weld them in space (in stock). You should launch it as is. And same for other mega things. Maybe FAR users don't need them, but I (and other players) do!

I think now KSP is pretty balanced with bulky crafts, asparagus staging and so on. Hope very much dev doesn't broke this balance. I'm worry my 20-seat sea level Eve lander won't fit in "aerodynamical" Mk3 bay, but I don't want to give up launching it for dubious pleasure of playing with improved aerodynamics.

The new aerodynamic rules are probably going to be something simpler, more like NEAR than FAR. But drag is likely to become an issue to people who launch huge unprotected payloads. I hope they include stock fairings in the update, although I don't see them going the procedural route, and the larger fairing size probably won't be able to fit an entire Eve lander. Mission profiles will naturally have to change, and nosecones are going to be an obligatory item in most rockets.

[problemecium]

sorry if you disapprove of this thread.

No, no, the opposite xD I'm in favor of this thread existing. In fact I'd sticky it were I a mod. But threads like this tend to get closed until the last two weeks or so before a new update.

[vexx32]

That's not true; we've had plenty of 'what do you want to see in version X' threads around here and there, that often persisted for a very long time.

However, they were not in General Discussion. This doesn't have a place there either; I'll move it to Development Discussion.

[tater]

I've barely noticed FAR installed, but I don't make idiotic looking rockets. The idea that they shoud not fix the fact the game is broken because it encourages pancake rockets (which are rediculous) is pretty silly. Making them is simply exploiting the way the game is broken.

One aspect of upgradable, destructible buildings is that perhaps they can allow them to be constructed someplace other than KSC. If so, you could make a VAB/launch facility on the Mun, and launch your pancakes from there.

[CaptRobau]

The new aerodynamic rules are probably going to be something simpler, more like NEAR than FAR. But drag is likely to become an issue to people who launch huge unprotected payloads. I hope they include stock fairings in the update, although I don't see them going the procedural route, and the larger fairing size probably won't be able to fit an entire Eve lander. Mission profiles will naturally have to change, and nosecones are going to be an obligatory item in most rockets.

I say that the procedural route is only one I'm seeing Squad taking. Part-based fairings are either limiting (too few parts) or clutter up your part list (too many parts) and I think Squad knows that. With procedural fairings, you'd only need three parts or so parts: a 1.25m, 2.5m and 3.75m fairing base. Like the stock, procedural engine fairings and decouplers, you'd only have to put the base beneath the start of the fairing section and its done. Two wireframe/translucent fairing parts would spawn so you can see the dimensions of the fairings and to move their staging, etc. When you launch the thing the parts turn solid and it's done... Fewer parts, less limiting, more intuitive and less time consuming. Procedural beats part-based by a landslide.

[redsh]

I don't care specially how rocket looks. But pancake shape and bulky payloads are dictated by current balance/limitations. Any game always will be limited in options compared to IRL. There should be simplifications to allow player do missions he wants.

- - - Updated - - -

e.g. Limitation: payload can't be reshaped when deployed. Simplifiaction: ignore shape.

[tater]

They are dictated by broken physics.

[redsh]

I think proper physics isn't main objective of KSP. It's a game.

[Anquietas314]

I think proper physics isn't main objective of KSP. It's a game.

While I agree KSP shouldn't necessarily follow real-world physics to the letter, they do at least need to be reasonably close, especially given KSP is teaching loads of people the basics of rocket science. Aerodynamics is incredibly important to get right.

Stations: Launch them in multiple pieces. If we have something like procedural fairings and aerodynamics is similar to FAR/NEAR, launching giant payloads won't actually be that difficult once you get used to doing a proper gravity turn. The one time I did try FAR, it only took me about 5-6 attempts to launch a ridiculously huge payload that was bigger (but lighter) than the launcher, and the problem was learning to do a proper gravity turn that didn't rip the rocket apart due to aerodynamic stresses, not getting the payload up there.

Pancake rockets: mostly necessary because of the "souposphere" we have at the moment. Try playing with FAR/NEAR; you'll find you need a far smaller rocket to launch a given payload to orbit once you get the hang of it. Even with FAR, asparagus staging is still perfectly viable if you have nose cones or fairings on everything, as long as you're not talking a 5-layer 50-stage beast that drops tanks at a rate of 3 per second

EDIT: Like

Added bonus of realistic aerodynamics: landing on (and returning from) Eve will be far easier than it currently is.

Edited January 10, 2015 by armagheddonsgw

[redsh]

I'm not against better aerodynamics at all. I just want KSP stay fun.

[Anquietas314]

I'm not against better aerodynamics at all. I just want KSP stay fun.

You should try FAR/NEAR. Also, anything that involves more explosions caused by user incompetence (rather than physics weirdness, bugs/glitches and such) is awesome for a game like KSP. I've been playing the game so long that there's almost nothing I can't do quite reliably within 3 attempts and (unintended) explosions are rare. That makes the game really boring if you don't enjoy the process of assembling things in orbit or role playing or similar.

[RAINCRAFTER]

That's not true; we've had plenty of 'what do you want to see in version X' threads around here and there, that often persisted for a very long time.

However, they were not in General Discussion. This doesn't have a place there either; I'll move it to Development Discussion.

Thank you vexx for your help.

[Starwhip]

I say that the procedural route is only one I'm seeing Squad taking. Part-based fairings are either limiting (too few parts) or clutter up your part list (too many parts) and I think Squad knows that. With procedural fairings, you'd only need three parts or so parts: a 1.25m, 2.5m and 3.75m fairing base. Like the stock, procedural engine fairings and decouplers, you'd only have to put the base beneath the start of the fairing section and its done. Two wireframe/translucent fairing parts would spawn so you can see the dimensions of the fairings and to move their staging, etc. When you launch the thing the parts turn solid and it's done... Fewer parts, less limiting, more intuitive and less time consuming. Procedural beats part-based by a landslide.

But in stock, engine fairings are not procedural. Or do you mean to say how the new system would work with the fairings?

Indeed, if they got the drag model working I could actually do something with smooth rockets besides making them look good.

[RAINCRAFTER]

I'm afraid of the next update. There are rumors about "improving" aerodynamics. I have not tried FAR, but I strongly dislike that i've seen. Needle-shaped "aerodynamical" form is bad for KSP!

Firstly, effective KSP rockets are short and wide base due to part balance (weak engines, dense fuel/small tanks etc.)

Secondly, payloads tends to be very bulky. We have very limited options to deploy and assemble (firmly) something outside VAB/SPH compared to IRL. You can launch small useless satellite with needle aerodynamical rocket with no problems. But how about space station segment? You can't drop bundle of girders to cargo bay and weld them in space (in stock). You should launch it as is. And same for other mega things. Maybe FAR users don't need them, but I (and other players) do!

I think now KSP is pretty balanced with bulky crafts, asparagus staging and so on. Hope very much dev doesn't break this balance. I'm worry my 20-seat sea level Eve lander won't fit in "aerodynamical" Mk3 bay, but I don't want to give up launching it for dubious pleasure of playing with improved aerodynamics.

Just hopefuly it gets easy to play with these aerodynamics at some point.

- - - Updated - - -

Well... better aerodynamics will not make many sense without proper fairings. I am really looking forward to finally get some stock fairings.

I want stock fairings too...

[Bill Phil]

I think that if they're going for aerodynamics, a new UI would be needed...

Sort of like the rotation gizmo, but oriented around the 0,0,0 point of the SPH/VAB.

It would show drag, lift, and a few other forces to help out.

Also, maybe for Hard Mode, Max Q and reentry heat, but not based off of orientation, just a Max Temp or something.... Perhaps a way to measure pressure, oh wait, the pressure meter! This wouldn't be that bad, actually. Plus, it increases explosions.

[vexx32]

We already have UI for lift, thrust, and mass vectors. The lift one really needs an overhaul along with the rest of the aerodynamics, though, and a drag one needs to be added.