Jump to content

Devnote Tuesdays: The Aerodynamic Edition


SQUAD

Recommended Posts

One thing which I think would be cool as well as fix a few kerbal related bugs would be making a kerbal able to "walk"/step forwards on any surface he touches. So if you have a centrifuge the kerbal can actually walk around it. Rather than just getting glued to the side. Though would also probably fix the "falling-down-and-not-getting-back-up" glitch I see people getting when EVAing on moving rovers, or just on ground collision. Any chance of a similar thing coming in Beta?

- Great devnotes today guys. My hats already off for the next update.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The aerodynamics sound a bit sketchy, both literally and figuratively, so until more details are released I am quite skeptical. However, as long as Ferram can mod the aero, I'm fine with whatever you do to it. Also on the aero front, will gravity turns be like real gravity turns? The current straight up until 10000m, pitch to 45, so-called gravity turn, is the reason I cannot play wit out FAR.

Good devnotes though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also on the aero front, will gravity turns be like real gravity turns? The current straight up until 10000m, pitch to 45, so-called gravity turn, is the reason I cannot play wit out FAR.

I play with stock aero, and I haven't done an ascent like that in years. Proper gravity turns are as possible in current stock aero as they are in FAR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the idea of aerodynamic settings in the game, I say no, outside of "cheat" options like indestructible ships or zero drag. I don't feel the basic game physics should be messed with as a difficulty option, certainly not in a game like KSP. Difficulty options should come from the currency and resource systems, and maybe the part performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Hatfilms. Although they mainly play modded Minecraft, and I don't like the game at all, I like to hear them talking.

Any word on new landing gear? The old one is almost unbearable with mk3 designs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does that youtuber have to have a gaming channel or anyone? You kinda didn't make it clear and I'm between the two. If it has to be a gamer, it's dslyexcy. If not, KKortez.

Nice to see an aero overhaul coming finally. Are you co-operating with Ferram on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last we heard from ferram4 one or two days ago, they were not talking to him, though he apparently offered. He was very worried that something in the new system would make it impossible for him to continue maintaining FAR.

Thankfully HarvesteR affirmed in his blog today that Squad is keeping an eye on moddability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont watch much youtube. Most of the youtubers annoy me. I like Scott Manley but he is a KSP person.

As for the aerodynamic fixes. If FAR becomes an impossibility I will stop updating KSP from beyond .90. Which is sad due to the amount of time I have in the game. I dont see why they cant just add FAR to the game as an option for those people who want it. And for those who dont can do without it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the aerodynamic fixes. If FAR becomes an impossibility I will stop updating KSP from beyond .90. Which is sad due to the amount of time I have in the game. I dont see why they cant just add FAR to the game as an option for those people who want it. And for those who dont can do without it.

I don't think the update could permanently break FAR. It's not dependent on the stock aerodynamics as far as I know, and can be fixed if there's something incompatible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest it look like a Dry Center of Mass marker (DCoM = Center of mass if all fuel tanks were empty, including monoprop and Xenon, in case you didn't know for some reason)... and to function like one too. That is really all you need to make sure your plane is stable in all situations because the plane's CoM will always be between one of the two markers regardless of fuel load.

This isn't actually true. If you create a plane that has two fuel tanks, one at the front and one at the back, then the wet CoM and dry CoM would be very close together (could well be identical) but when only one of the fuel tanks is empty the CoM could easily be a considerable distance away. I'm not saying this is a sensible design for a vessel, just pointing out that the vessel's CoM does not always lie somewhere between the wet CoM and the dry CoM...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't actually true. If you create a plane that has two fuel tanks, one at the front and one at the back, then the wet CoM and dry CoM would be very close together (could well be identical) but when only one of the fuel tanks is empty the CoM could easily be a considerable distance away. I'm not saying this is a sensible design for a vessel, just pointing out that the vessel's CoM does not always lie somewhere between the wet CoM and the dry CoM...

True, I hadn't considered that. It's kind of a rare case though, and the DCoM marker would still be useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, I hadn't considered that. It's kind of a rare case though, and the DCoM marker would still be useful.

I think Skylon is meant to work like that since it has the cargo bay in the middle, between the fuel tanks.

_75168986_img_0032.jpg

And yes, DCoM would save some time. Wouldn't have to search for all those tanks and slide the sliders.

Edited by Veeltch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve also started a large audio pass on the entire game, adding small sounds to just about every button and UI panel. This is still far from complete, but it’s amazing how much having these sounds in improves the feel of the game as a whole.

Glad to hear the audio system getting some much-needed improvements! Sound has a huge effect on the player's perception of the game; theme, atmosphere, scale; there's a lot of scope there for really bringing KSP together as an experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<strong>anthony (rowsdower):</strong>question for you all. Who’s your favorite non-ksp youtuber? Any game.

When I was heavily into Skyrim, I used to watch a lot of Gopher and Zemalf.

Also, for those of you in the california bay area, i *might* have something of interest for you in the coming weeks. Fingers crossed and all that.

Ooh... Bay Area resident here.. :).. Keeping fingers crossed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve also started a large audio pass on the entire game, adding small sounds to just about every button and UI panel. This is still far from complete, but it’s amazing how much having these sounds in improves the feel of the game as a whole.

So long as it is actual feedback, good. I can't tell you how much hatred I have for a particular touch-screen system I have to sometimes use that beeps whenever you touch the screen - whether you managed to hit an actual button or not. (That system also has no visual indicator that it's processing, incredibly unpredictable latency (between 0.1 second and 20+ seconds) and any user input provided whilst it's actually preparing a new screen will be immediately applied on that new screen when it's finally presented - making you fearful to try pressing a button again just in case the first hit did register)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An important question that needs to be asked about the new aerodynamics, is whether the new model is being designed with re-entry heating in mind. Re-entry heating is obviously a very important aspect of spacecraft design. If parts are being hidden behind nosecones and cargo bays for aerodynamic reasons, then presumably they can be used in the same way to protect vulnerable parts from heating?

In my view, it would be illogical to put lots of effort into re-designing the aerodynamics model now, only to have to revisit it again at a later time to figure out how re-entry heating will work. Therefore, if Squad intend to add re-entry heating to the game in the future, they must presumably be putting some thought into it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing i would suggest to make building aircraft with the new aerodynamics easier and a touch more realistic is to put fuel in the wings and save the fuselage for the main payload and keep the CoM where you want it to be. Just saying, might make it easier, might not. Looking forward to the new aerodynamics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I play with stock aero, and I haven't done an ascent like that in years. Proper gravity turns are as possible in current stock aero as they are in FAR.

Just curious, how much fuel to you waste either going so slowly that you're burning really far upward, or fighting air resistance because you're going really fast for your altitude? Or have you found a way to follow a 3rd option that I can't think of? I'm honestly curious, as I tried to do "real" gravity turns in stock and found them too damaging to my dV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...