Stock Aero News from the Squadcast

[Alshain]

Around 38 minutes he ended all hopes for FAR users that were looking forward to stock aerodynamics. I'm really no longer interested in the next patch now.

[Streetwind]

Here's a tip: install FAR and enjoy the other features instead.

Videogames are a lot more fun if you don't go out of your way to ruin your own enjoyment

[JimmyAgent007]

what was actually said?

[Alshain]

Here's a tip: install FAR and enjoy the other features instead.

Videogames are a lot more fun if you don't go out of your way to ruin your own enjoyment

Well the problem is those that like to share crafts or even just like to help people with questions in the gameplay forum have difficulty figuring out if they are using FAR or not. I was kind of hoping that the disparity would be eliminated with stock aero, but it looks like it's going to make it worse by adding yet another option.

what was actually said?

He said the new aero is not FAR or NEAR, it's something different entirely. Since FAR is pretty much perfect, it can't possibly be better than FAR so I am no longer interested. Even NEAR would have been perfect if you didn't want it too overcomplicated.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Alshain

[JimmyAgent007]

Didnt they say something about hitting a good middle ground between the two of those? Not everyone likes FAR, thats why NEAR exists. More complex than NEAR but not quite FAR sounds good to me, but ive only ever played stock so I shall wait and see.

[Grover]

Something like FAR was never going to be added as stock. Whilsg i agree that it does a fantastic job of modelling aerodynamics, it makes craft design significantly harder than stock, Especially for newer players who arent clued up on aerodynamic designs.

The magic of ksp is that almost anyone can cobble together a spaceworthy rocket in a few minutes and a few "tests". Making the step from simplified aero (though not as broken as current stock) to realism and difficulty should be a choice. And lets be fair, its not hard to install FAR to an install.

With ksp, its often hard to remember that there are thousands of people still struggle to get stuff to LKO. Imagine their despair when once-stable craft suddenly start flipping and tearing themselves apart, and once-agile craft suddenly resemble lawn darts.

[Alshain]

Something like FAR was never going to be added as stock. Whilsg i agree that it does a fantastic job of modelling aerodynamics, it makes craft design significantly harder than stock, Especially for newer players who arent clued up on aerodynamic designs.

The magic of ksp is that almost anyone can cobble together a spaceworthy rocket in a few minutes and a few "tests". Making the step from simplified aero (though not as broken as current stock) to realism and difficulty should be a choice. And lets be fair, its not hard to install FAR to an install.

With ksp, its often hard to remember that there are thousands of people still struggle to get stuff to LKO. Imagine their despair when once-stable craft suddenly start flipping and tearing themselves apart, and once-agile craft suddenly resemble lawn darts.

No, it's not that hard to install except it IS a mod and ferram4 has made comments regarding abandoning the projects rather than updating them to work with the next patch (possibly frustration and idle threats but I don't know). I can understand getting burned out on development, I've been there. But, if he does choose to abandon them, I won't be able to play KSP anymore which I certainly do not want to stop. Many others likely feel the same way or it wouldn't be so popular.

So if FAR and NEAR are gone and stock is neither of those, and as Maxmaps put it "completely different"... you lose a lot of players.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Alshain

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

Thank God there will be no FAR in Stock-KSP

[JimmyAgent007]

"completely different" might mean "a lot like, but not in any legally inconvenient way" since its hard to redo the aero without comparing it to FAR and NEAR.

[Alshain]

"completely different" might mean "a lot like, but not in any legally inconvenient way" since its hard to redo the aero without comparing it to FAR and NEAR.

Lol, let us hope.

[Kanukki]

This is the one you're looking for, Twitch labelled it wrongly: http://www.twitch.tv/ksptv/v/3675242

Thanks Kasper... Just accidentally discovered this by playing Koffey's Morning Brew... which was not, but a nice MaxMaps surprise.

Summary so far... (not anything radically new)... although already "beta", the extra feature of a resource system will still be added. And major rehaul to aerodynamics, although this "feature" already exists.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Kanukki

[Motokid600]

Why is it people are so turned off by FAR? I say make FAR as is stock. Now when I first started looking into FAR for my game I was intimidated. Intimidated by all the charts, graphs and supposed complexity that comes with the mod. So after installing it and getting used to how to perform a proper gravity turn ( only took a few tries honestly, no harder then first learning how to get to orbit stock ) I realized.. this is EASIER then stock. 3600dV to LKO instead of 4600. This here can be a turn off for people, but once your payloads increase in size things become more proportioned as they should. As for those complex graphs in the VAB/SPH.. I don't use them. Haven't referred to them once. And all the planes and rockets ive created flew beautifully.

FAR is not some complex monster that completely changes the game to the point where you have to forget everything you learned ( that's RSS/RO ). FAR can be as complex or simple as you want it to be. To a new player. The learning curve with FAR would be just as easy if not easier then with stock. Ill stand firm on that comment. Less dV to orbit and practical common sense rewards you instead of penalizing you. When I first started the game years back it was learning how to play with the games unrealistic aspects that made it hard for me. IF I had FAR installed when I first started playing the learning curve would've been alot less steep. Again I dont see why people say it makes the game harder... it just doesn't. Whats hard about it is having to relearn how to ascend with launches, but had I learned that from the get-go... I mean c'mon.

[Alshain]

Honestly Motokid600, I think the biggest complaints were the ones that NEAR took care of. Complex GUI with near meaningless info to non-experts (which you don't actually need), Aerodynamic dis-assembly (which can be turned off), and behavior change between sonic and subsonic speeds. That is why NEAR would be ideal as stock and then FAR can be "dumbed down" to provide just those items on top of stock. But sadly it's not happening.

[Motokid600]

So.. is it just ignorance then when people say FAR is too difficult for a new player? Doesn't matter what ones opinion is on the mod, but the fact of the matter is FAR makes KSP easier and more intuitive.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Motokid600

[worir4]

Before we get an improved aerodynamic model (Amusing it calculates drag properly), we must have fairings!!

[Ikaneko]

Before we get an improved aerodynamic model (Amusing it calculates drag properly), we must have fairings!!

This so much! What's the point of improved aerodynamics if you don't have fairings? It's the cart before the horse.

[SSR Kermit]

I can understand getting burned out on development, I've been there. But, if he does choose to abandon them, I won't be able to play KSP anymore which I certainly do not want to stop. Many others likely feel the same way or it wouldn't be so popular.

So if FAR and NEAR are gone and stock is neither of those, and as Maxmaps put it "completely different"... you lose a lot of players.

I wouldn't worry, even if ferram4 decides to move on, which shouldn't be anything strange considering it's a mod and he really has no obligations here, there's a community of talented people who can carry the torch -- as huge a loss to said community as it would be.

[Superfluous J]

Before we get an improved aerodynamic model (Amusing it calculates drag properly), we must have fairings!!

Why can't we get both at the same time? Or did they say they weren't going to do fairings?

My Twitch downloader (I hate using their streaming crap) isn't working because Twitch changed the way they store videos, probably to break downloaders.

EDIT: I found a new one. Sweet, I can watch it myself now.

Edited January 12, 2015 by 5thHorseman

[Vanamonde]

As this discussion has wandered quite far from the Squadcast itself, this discussion has been moved to its own thread in Development.

[Motokid600]

This so much! What's the point of improved aerodynamics if you don't have fairings? It's the cart before the horse.

The cart and the horse will probably come at the same time. But take note. Squad said they have no interest in procedural fairings or any parts. So if Squad comes out with sized fairings players are gonna have to start building payloads to fit in those fairings. So at that point why not just implement FAR/NEAR into the vanilla game?

That's why I started using FAR. When I first started playing my rockets went from pancake monstrosities and slowly graduated to more realistic builds. At one point I started using procedural fairings despite still being tunred off by FAR ( Omg its too complex im scared ) just for the look. And one day I decided lets make things more practical and tried FAR. Low and behold.. it was the bees knees. Not even a fraction of the difficulty I thought I was in for. And damn how good does a rockets look pitching over at 600 meters then at 10km? It just looks right.. looks awesome. Far more pleasing then 10km.

I just hope all the people who say and vote in the various polls that FAR is too complicated and KSP should stay as it is have tried and played with the mod.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Motokid600

[Alshain]

The cart and the horse will probably come at the same time. But take note. Squad said they have no interest in procedural fairings or any parts. So if Squad comes out with sized fairings players are gonna have to start building payloads to fit in those fairings. So at that point why not just implement FAR/NEAR into the vanilla game?

That's why I started using FAR. When I first started playing my rockets went from pancake monstrosities and slowly graduated to more realistic builds. At one point I started using procedural fairings despite still being tunred off by FAR ( Omg its too complex im scared ) just for the look. And one day I decided lets make things more practical and tried FAR. Low and behold.. it was the bees knees. Not even a fraction of the difficulty I thought I was in for. And damn how good does a rockets look pitching over at 600 meters then at 10km? It just looks right.. looks awesome. Far more pleasing then 10km.

I just hope all the people who say and vote in the various polls that FAR is too complicated and KSP should stay as it is have tried and played with the mod.

While we are on the aesthetics, I haven't used asparagus staging since starting FAR (actually NEAR at the time, but you get the idea). My rockets look like... who would have guessed... rockets!

I wouldn't worry, even if ferram4 decides to move on, which shouldn't be anything strange considering it's a mod and he really has no obligations here, there's a community of talented people who can carry the torch -- as huge a loss to said community as it would be.

Someone with an expertise in both aerodynamics AND software development is rare. In fact it's quite amazing we have ferram4.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Alshain

[Renegrade]

He said the new aero is not FAR or NEAR, it's something different entirely. Since FAR is pretty much perfect, it can't possibly be better than FAR so I am no longer interested. Even NEAR would have been perfect if you didn't want it too overcomplicated.

I wouldn't call FAR perfect (it can't be, since it has to run in realtime AND deal with the lack of underlying aero data on/lack of suitability of parts). It's just orders of magnitude better than the placeholder joke we have now.

I am deeply concerned about what Squad's come up with though, given what was said. I'm hoping that JimmyAgent007 is right about it being completely different in a legal manner. Or that it's different in a marketing manner - ie, it really is FAR with disassembly turned off, but they're calling it stock so people don't pee themselves like frightened five year olds.

Thank God there will be no FAR in Stock-KSP

Yes, because Squad's never messed up any new systems.

Like energy flow in 0.23.

Or joint reinforcement in 0.23.5.

Or claws/shielded docking ports in 0.24.

Or my damn map icons in 0.25!!!!

Or the version number in 0.26.

Ohwaitaminute.

INB4 they assign ALL drag to the leftmost engine of a multi-engine ship (and explode any single-engine ships the moment they launch or stage) resulting in endless spins.

Or.. maybe they'll just take air out entirely, that would solve the problem. Hah.

[klgraham1013]

Around 38 minutes he ended all hopes for FAR users that were looking forward to stock aerodynamics. I'm really no longer interested in the next patch now.

I have every intention of sticking with 0.90 unless something amazing happens. I'd still be on 0.24.2 if gizmos didn't exist.

But take note. Squad said they have no interest in procedural fairings or any parts. So if Squad comes out with sized fairings players are gonna have to start building payloads to fit in those fairings..

Already there as I'm using KW for my fairings.

[Daze]

The cart and the horse will probably come at the same time. But take note. Squad said they have no interest in procedural fairings or any parts. So if Squad comes out with sized fairings players are gonna have to start building payloads to fit in those fairings. So at that point why not just implement FAR/NEAR into the vanilla game?

That's why I started using FAR. When I first started playing my rockets went from pancake monstrosities and slowly graduated to more realistic builds. At one point I started using procedural fairings despite still being tunred off by FAR ( Omg its too complex im scared ) just for the look. And one day I decided lets make things more practical and tried FAR. Low and behold.. it was the bees knees. Not even a fraction of the difficulty I thought I was in for. And damn how good does a rockets look pitching over at 600 meters then at 10km? It just looks right.. looks awesome. Far more pleasing then 10km.

I just hope all the people who say and vote in the various polls that FAR is too complicated and KSP should stay as it is have tried and played with the mod.

Whaaaat? If Squad did not implement procedural fairings they will KILL che "fun" that they are saving without using FAR/NEAR. It's a nonsense guys.

[NoMrBond]

...Squad said they have no interest in procedural fairings or any parts...

Maxmaps said they're not interested in having procedural everything, but would be fine with procedural elements for some things like structural members (I believe the specific examples were the I-beams and trusses).

So I'm not sure whether that would extend to fairings but could go as far as 1.25/2.5/3.75m shrouds which are as long as they need to be (within reason)?

Hopefully there will be more information in the impending dev blog mentioned in the Squadcast