Stock Aero News from the Squadcast

[BudgetHedgehog]

We'll see what the aero update brings (probably won't be this one, as outlined in 5th Horsemans summary). When it does come and if it kills FAR while at the same time not being like it, the updates stop for me there. No point in it without FAR.

[biohazard15]

Frankly, I'll happily ditch FAR if this new aero system will dictate the need of fairings and more realistic designs. I do not build super-airplanes, I use FAR just because it adds an additional challenge to my rocket designs. I've never used its analysis tools (hell, I've opened it once, realized that it's all Greek to me, closed it, never opened it again).

[Guest]

I've always been hopeful Squad would implement an actual aerodynamics model, which is why I chose to steer clear of the FAR, NEAR, and DRE mods. The most I've done is use Starwaster's Stock Drag Fix to clean up the most egregious of the placeholder system's annoyances. I'm really looking forward to what this update will bring.

[asmi]

I'd say whatever they do is fine as long as they would make sure FAR can still be implemented to replace it. The reasoning is quite simple - you don't need to be an aerospace professional to build a craft for aerodynamics, but you DO need to be an expert in order to implement a proper simulation. And since to the best of my knowledge Squad ain't got one on their team - well you get the idea. Besides - I use FAR curves and simulations a lot during design (yea I went into "trouble" of reading up on them to figure out what they are and what they mean), and so far Squad seemed to maintain a motto that numbers scare away people (that's why we still don't have deltaV readouts in stock). Well - I DO need these numbers.

For me KSP does not exist without FAR with all its instrumentation since I started using it about 2 years ago or so. This is the single most important mod for me - I can make do without all other mods, but this one is absolutely must.

[Elthy]

I dont realy care about the exact model of the atmosphere if they just dont make it easier to reach orbit. Sadly an ISP nerf wont help that much since it would look even more ridiculos (than the current vertical ascent), staging every 10 seconds...

[Capt Snuggler]

I've always been hopeful Squad would implement an actual aerodynamics model, which is why I chose to steer clear of the FAR, NEAR, and DRE mods. The most I've done is use Starwaster's Stock Drag Fix to clean up the most egregious of the placeholder system's annoyances. I'm really looking forward to what this update will bring.

Yeah, me too. I'm optimistic.

I also don't think it will kill FAR. if the new aero is good there will still be demand for FAR and if it sucks there will be more demand for FAR.

I dont realy care about the exact model of the atmosphere if they just dont make it easier to reach orbit. Sadly an ISP nerf wont help that much since it would look even more ridiculos (than the current vertical ascent), staging every 10 seconds...

lol I call them caterpillar rockets! but pretty sure it wont come to that.

[pizzaoverhead]

I'd say whatever they do is fine as long as they would make sure FAR can still be implemented to replace it.

I also don't think it will kill FAR.

There has been a trend over the last few updates of new changes being made unavailable for modding, the KSC unlocks for example. If the trend continues, it's likely that the new aerodynamics system won't expose information or be able to be disabled, meaning that FAR can never work with it.

[forenci]

Frankly, I'll happily ditch FAR if this new aero system will dictate the need of fairings and more realistic designs. I do not build super-airplanes, I use FAR just because it adds an additional challenge to my rocket designs. I've never used its analysis tools (hell, I've opened it once, realized that it's all Greek to me, closed it, never opened it again).

I'm of the same opinion, truthfully. I just like how FAR forces me to design realistic (relatively speaking) rockets.

That and I want to have gliding as a viable option. There is nothing more exhilarating than having a space plane/shuttle coming in and being forced to nail the landing on the first attempt. Or in the more likely option, overshooting the runway and coming back for a landing. That would mean the need for some stock air brakes though.

[asmi]

There has been a trend over the last few updates of new changes being made unavailable for modding, the KSC unlocks for example. If the trend continues, it's likely that the new aerodynamics system won't expose information or be able to be disabled, meaning that FAR can never work with it.

That is why I'm worried a bit. But I hope they realize the pivotal role of FAR for a big part of community who don't buy this "ololo bam-bam explosions lol lol so kerbal moar busterz" motto and are looking for more realism, and approach this task with utmost care. At the end of the day they've managed to build KSP to enable so many awesome realism-oriented mods that keep myself personally in game.

[Kegereneku]

As expected complete overeaction from people who believe FAR to be "superior" because it give them the illusion of ultimate realism.

And empty threat to stay on version 0.01 as well, yet nobody even SAW the new model in action.

Oh I'm not sure I want to be on this forum when they'll release 0.91.

Dozen thread asking "CHANGE THE AERO MODEL", "Why is my unrealistic plane not flying anymore ?", "HELP can't fly my moonbase in one part anymore !"... and certainly a few one from the same author saying "real athmospheric dynamic is better for new player".

My opinion of "the truth" is that if stock (and FAR) didn't simplified physics you wouldn't be here having fun.

Any protruding part like landing let would destabilize you rocket, you would never have been able to fit mobile-base in a fairing and launch it, you wouldn't be able to build replica of the shuttle or fictional vehicle, it would take you many hours of try&fail experiments to make a simplistic rocket, Cupcake wouldn't have built all his SSTO...etc (I can continue all day)

KSP was never meant as a simulator so I was not surprised to hear a Dev saying "we didn't aim for realism" knowing he have to tiptoe on eggs because of entitled & egocentric vocal minority who believe their way of appreciating the game encompass all the fun that can be had from it.

Remember that the early versions didn't become popular because they "more realistic" than their predecessor, it was because they allowed to play AS IF it was rocket-science but without the boring/unfeasible part.

And so the new aerodynamic model will put gameplay before realism, that's what they always did.

They will hopefully tweak the system to behave as would be expected to without requiring an actual diploma in aeronautic design, by any luck we will still be able to twist the system into a unforeseen variety of fun design and even more luckily it will stay balanced with career mode.

I cannot talk about FAR because I have never used it (though I want better than current stock aero).

But I can tell you the spaceplane part we have now are not strictly speaking "realistic" anyway. At the speed needed to reach orbital velocity aerodynamic change fundamentally and design like a do-everything delta-wing could surprisingly not work because of wake turbulence that would disintegrate the plane... or simply because of drag.

As said by someone else before, you are either building a cool spaceplane, or you are building a Skylon Law-dart

That's was my rant against so called "realism" proponent.

[asmi]

I cannot talk about FAR because I have never used it (though I want better than current stock aero).

So you know nothing about FAR yet you make a statement on how realistic or not it is? Hmmm...

[Red Iron Crown]

*snip*

Rather than try to start yet another realism debate, why not offer some suggestions on how the new model might work in a better fashion? You've alluded to some aeronautical education in some other threads, I'd love to hear your ideas on the level of abstraction that would be desirable for KSP.

[rcp27]

As expected complete overeaction from people who believe FAR to be "superior" because it give them the illusion of ultimate realism.

And empty threat to stay on version 0.01 as well, yet nobody even SAW the new model in action.

Snip discussion for brevity. I was going to write a long discussion saying something pretty similar. What I will add is that Squad have said on many occasions that they very much support keeping KSP open to modding, and there is no reason to expect FAR to cease to be an option if people want to ramp up the realism.

Keep in mind, also, that FAR lets you get to orbit with quite a bit less dV than stock, and the implications this has on game and part balance is something that Squad are no doubt concerning themselves with. Maybe one of these days I'll dive into various modding options to make the game harder and more realistic, but for the time being I am happy to play KSP as a game, and build big, unrealistic but fun and cool looking rockets and space planes.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Also, I like how you assume it's a vocal minority. That instantly makes you right and all people in disagreement with you wrong. Unless you have numbers to say it is indeed a vocal minority, you're the one who's wrong. So far, I've seen more people saying they're apprehensive about the aero, that FAR is better, that it better at least allow FAR to still work etc than not, so.. it's pretty much a majority. Everyone has a voice - if they choose not to use it, that's up to them. But they shouldn't expect things to go their way either.

I'm not saying anyone's entitled or egocentric, but KSP deserves so much better than 'lolsplosion ~so kerbal~'.. and if it chooses not to be, then it should at least allow itself to be modded for the people who want it to be. Also, I will point out on KSP's About page, it says it is a "[f]ully-fledged, Physics-based Flight Simulation [that] ensures everything will fly (and crash) as it should". Asparagus pancakes getting to orbit with the same amount of fuel as an actually aerodynamic rocket would use it not everything flying as it should. Stacking wings to get more lift and ignoring mach tuck and effects is not ensuring things fly as they should.

Ferram's right, they backed themselves into a corner with this. Shame really. Hope it will stay open to modding.

- - - Updated - - -

What I will add is that Squad have said on many occasions that they very much support keeping KSP open to modding, and there is no reason to expect FAR to cease to be an option if people want to ramp up the realism.

And yet....

There has been a trend over the last few updates of new changes being made unavailable for modding, the KSC unlocks for example. If the trend continues, it's likely that the new aerodynamics system won't expose information or be able to be disabled, meaning that FAR can never work with it.

[WanderingKid]

Also, I like how you assume it's a vocal minority. That instantly makes you right and all people in disagreement with you wrong. Unless you have numbers to say it is indeed a vocal minority, you're the one who's wrong. So far, I've seen more people saying they're apprehensive about the aero, that FAR is better, that it better at least allow FAR to still work etc than not, so.. it's pretty much a majority. Everyone has a voice - if they choose not to use it, that's up to them. But they shouldn't expect things to go their way either.

The rest of us are ducking and waiting to see what Squad comes up with. I'm not a fan of FAR. I tried it once, didn't like it. I'm used to the existing atmo and like goofing around in it. I'm concerned about the new aero model not because they won't take it far enough to be like FAR, but the exact opposite. I'm concerned that I'll be relearning half the game. Such is the life in Alpha/Beta however.

Most of us know the FAR proponents are very vocal bunch. I don't come to the boards to get into massive discussions, usually. This comment you made though needed addressing. Just because we don't need to post in EVERY thread about it, doesn't mean we're not here. I'm waiting for Squad to show us what they're going to do before I bring up my concerns to it. It might be great, it might be fun, it might be a real PITA. Don't know yet. That's me though.

Edited January 13, 2015 by WanderingKid
Removing inflammatory language, not the point of this post.

[BudgetHedgehog]

I'm waiting for Squad to show us what they're going to do before I bring up my concerns to it.

That's the point though - by that time, it's too late to change things. It's better that Squad knows what to do and what some players expect of them now than for them to make their own aero model and it fall short of expectations/hopes. Take KXP for instance - if they hadn't told players about that when they did, they'd have likely carried on with the original draft and released it (and gotten the same reaction) which means they'd have to change it anyway and waste the previous work.

Far better to raise opinions and concerns before it's too late to listen to them, that's all. That's why I'm speaking up, anyway. Not that Squad will listen to me, but hey ho.

[GusTurbo]

That is why I'm worried a bit. But I hope they realize the pivotal role of FAR for a big part of community who don't buy this "ololo bam-bam explosions lol lol so kerbal moar busterz" motto and are looking for more realism, and approach this task with utmost care. At the end of the day they've managed to build KSP to enable so many awesome realism-oriented mods that keep myself personally in game.

I don't like the implication that non-FAR users are generally of the "moar boosters" mentality. I've never used FAR, but I'm not a "lol explosions" kind of player. Let's be careful not to alienate people here.

[asmi]

I don't like the implication that non-FAR users are generally of the "moar boosters" mentality. I've never used FAR, but I'm not a "lol explosions" kind of player. Let's be careful not to alienate people here.

My statement still stands - if they will make aero system (un-)pluggable, dedicated enough fans of stock "aerodynamics" can build a mod that recreates their experience, while if they will hardcode new implementation we all will be stuck with that option. I prefer to have a choice.

Honestly I don't see any reasons NOT to use FAR/NEAR other than building lolcraft, infinigliders, pancakes and similar ridiculous stuff. The perception that FAR is complex is grossly overstated. But this is just my personal opinion as someone who haven't played non-RSS KSP for over a year.

[GusTurbo]

Honestly I don't see any reasons NOT to use FAR/NEAR other than building lolcraft, infinigliders, pancakes and similar ridiculous stuff. The perception that FAR is complex is grossly overstated. But this is just my personal opinion as someone who haven't played non-RSS KSP for over a year.

I can appreciate that point. I must also state my bias in favor of aesthetically pleasing/plausible looking craft, so that acts as a check on building ridiculous things for me and other players.

[Kegereneku]

So you know nothing about FAR yet you make a statement on how realistic or not it is? Hmmm...

I didn't make a statement about FAR's realism, I made a statement about STOCK PART realism which are only approximation of what many would imagine a spaceplane to look like.

Myself I do not actually care about whether or not those part are, aerodynamically sound. Reality surprised us more than enough to suspend disbelief in a game as long as it look grossly right.

For example :

Do anybody here know why the Skylon engine look bent on its usual representation ? (although the plane is mostly a big rocketplane)

Do anybody here know why the X-43 (fastest air-breathing vehicle made) fly straight although its wingbody/engine look asymmetrical ?

Rather than try to start yet another realism debate, why not offer some suggestions on how the new model might work in a better fashion? You've alluded to some aeronautical education in some other threads, I'd love to hear your ideas on the level of abstraction that would be desirable for KSP.

I'm afraid many would disagree with my vision over misunderstood point. My idea is that although the engine should encourage streamlined details like fairing, it should allow to overlook the actual plane form (as it do now) so that many fun design stay possible, and balance through parts-spec.

Something which can in fact be considered realistic (jet-engine design change considerably depending of speed/pressure)

I posted that recently, feel free to up it if you like.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/105041-Jet-engine-Intake-velocity-ranges?p=1632859#post1632859

To give an analogy : in a game with sword and mace, do you determine blunt vs slice damage over form, or do you just create two distinct abstraction ?

In any case, don't worry I'll keep my answer to clarifying my "rant" rather than defending it.

Keep in mind, also, that FAR lets you get to orbit with quite a bit less dV than stock, and the implications this has on game and part balance is something that Squad are no doubt concerning themselves with. Maybe one of these days I'll dive into various modding options to make the game harder and more realistic, but for the time being I am happy to play KSP as a game, and build big, unrealistic but fun and cool looking rockets and space planes.

Indeed.

It was to be expected of SQUAD to look deeper in their code anyway but I believe that balancing the game will more be a question of internal part-spec than shape.

As you point out, MODS will still allow to increase difficulty, but for that the game need to be more simple and open than what you want to make. (it is not always possible to mods into something easier if the base game mechanic is extremely interdependent)

Also, I like how you assume it's a vocal minority. That instantly makes you right and all people in disagreement with you wrong.

Well, to cut short in a potential flame war, I excuse myself if it feel a cheap fallacious rhetoric trick. However I do not call multiple instance of ONE GUY posting 3 threads implying he know best and at best a few non-representative figure over the thousand player of KSP a "vast majority". Just like I do not assume that all player using FAR do it because they believe it's more realist. (someone earlier just said he did so for extra challenge) (edit : including missing feature from stock aero like DR)

As said above : Mods can give you the increased realism you want.

But for that the base game need to be Open&Simple enough that it IS possible.

some minor note : I do agree on "pancake" but "asparagus" is a design that work more efficiently. It's not commonly used in rocket design because (1) it's complicated (2) it's not worth the complexity yet

Ferram's right, they backed themselves into a corner with this. Shame really. Hope it will stay open to modding.

As much as I'll give respect to anybody who DO great code, sometime the opinion of even a professional can be wrong because of different point of view.

Analogy : Americain "Few beefy engine" versus Russian "Lot of simpler engine", and none is ultimately wrong as right now Space X's engineer went with a 9 engine stack in between.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Kegereneku
various correction

[tater]

My statement still stands - if they will make aero system (un-)pluggable, dedicated enough fans of stock "aerodynamics" can build a mod that recreates their experience, while if they will hardcode new implementation we all will be stuck with that option. I prefer to have a choice.

Honestly I don't see any reasons NOT to use FAR/NEAR other than building lolcraft, infinigliders, pancakes and similar ridiculous stuff. The perception that FAR is complex is grossly overstated. But this is just my personal opinion as someone who haven't played non-RSS KSP for over a year.

I agree completely on both counts. I put FAR on after playing a few weeks, and honestly I have not noticed it was there (though I added PF to deal with things like landers, station parts, etc). This is perhaps because if it were not for these forums, I would still be assuming that aerodynamics was in the game anyway, and I would still be putting nosecones on things, making rockets that look like rockets, as I did from the very start. Related to aero, they certainly need to make reentry meaningful.

[Rocket Farmer]

Well obsessed with KSP your name is accurate. At the end of the day you paid $30 for entertainment. By any measure you have gotten that out of it. It's great that you are skilled and push the game but please realize you aren't the core market.

A recent survey of forum users (which would still represent the best players as many people never use the forum or reddit) showed only 10% of players ever visiting Moho, Eeloo and Dres. Only 20% of that same group have ever successfully launched a Spaceplane to orbit (let alone landed it). Heck 20% of players have t made or it yet.

So realize it's that type of user Kerbal is designed for. If that doesn't work for you use what addons are available or rage quit. Either way Kerbal will cater to the beginner.

TLDR: People who pay $30 and demand a game be built around their unusual play styles are delusional.

[SkyRex94]

Adding to this:

Who I am: I'm using FAR and DRE. I started with stock and also used NEAR at some point. I'm able to build Rockets and SSTO's and Planes in any of those.

What I think stock should get: something like NEAR. Most importantly: The shape and orientation has to affect the performance and behaviour in a plausible (=not neccesary equals realistic) way, if Squad is smart they could add Reentry Heat simultanously. Additionally the Aerodyn. should still be modable.

What I think the people here should do: If you say 'No keep stock, FAR is too complicated' , install FAR and try it out, you don't need all the data, just build intuitive: If it looks like a Rocket it will fly like one. And after you tested FAR, then you can come back and say your opinion.

If you say "FAR is the only way to go!!!" , keep in mind things like High Dyn. Pressure and Aerodynamic Failures will probably not happen in stock, and I think that should be that way: If something flips out of control, even a newbie can guess that this is related to the Aerodynamics, if something spontanously disassembles, a newbie could stand in the rain with no clue, because that isn't intuitive and there haven't been many news reports of "Plane crashed, cause it break apart in mid air due to bad design" in our real world.

[asmi]

I can appreciate that point. I must also state my bias in favor of aesthetically pleasing/plausible looking craft, so that acts as a check on building ridiculous things for me and other players.

THAT is the thing - most plausible-looking designs I came up with actually perform well with FAR, or can be made as such with relative ease. Basically if the vessel looks like it will fly - it most likely will fly with FAR. I would like to see practical examples of "plausible" builds that would have problems with FAR and yet not belong to any of categories I've mentioned above.

If you say "FAR is the only way to go!!!" , keep in mind things like High Dyn. Pressure and Aerodynamic Failures will probably not happen in stock, and I think that should be that way: If something flips out of control, even a newbie can guess that this is related to the Aerodynamics, if something spontanously disassembles, a newbie could stand in the rain with no clue, because that isn't intuitive and there haven't been many news reports of "Plane crashed, cause it break apart in mid air due to bad design" in our real world.

That sounds like a good candidate for inclusion into difficulty settings.

Although I'm not so sure about aerodynamic failures - I'd dare to say most (unprepared) people would expect planes to fall apart during high-G manoeuvres. I'm sorry but from my own experience with FAR it's not that easy to build a plane such that it would fall apart from aerodynamic failure, moreso when I totally didn't expect it to.

Related to aero, they certainly need to make reentry meaningful.

I think the problem with reentry heat is that existing thermal management system is also kinda "placeholder'y", and that was a major issue DR had to deal with at some point (and there are still issues in DR that crop up every so often).

Edited January 13, 2015 by asmi

[KrazyKrl]

(snip...)

That sounds like a good candidate for inclusion into difficulty settings.

Although I'm not so sure about aerodynamic failures - I'd dare to say most (unprepared) people would expect planes to fall apart during high-G manoeuvres. I'm sorry but from my own experience with FAR it's not that easy to build a plane such that it would fall apart from aerodynamic failure, moreso when I totally didn't expect it to.

(snip...)

I would be all for aerodynamic failures. The log of your flight just needs to somehow reflect that a joint failed due to aerodynamic loads.

The flight log needs some love though. Possibly something that would enable you to see how your craft failed. Something like a pseudo-VAB, where for each failure or error-type message in the flight log; it records the state of the craft, and the environmental conditions for a few seconds in either direction. Sort of like a "Kerbal highlight reel". This would help newer players deduce not just how their craft failed, but why.