Devnote Tuesdays: The Aerodynamic Edition

[Alshain]

Jim (Romfarer):... So it’s fair to say that at least part of this new GUI will come in the form of an app. We are also looking at ways to improve the whole CoM/CoL trick to gauge the stability of airplanes. What it will look like, i really can’t say, because it’s still on the drawing board. Feel free to add your ideas in a reply.

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.

The only other variable is dropping payload, but I can't imagine how to GUI that, and it can be done by checking CoM/DCoM with an without the load in the SPH.

Really if you want us to have more control over airplane building, all of RCS Build Aid or equivalent functionality... I know that's above and beyond the question you asked but balancing RCS on a symmetrical rocket is easy to eyeball, but an a asymmetrical plane is just almost impossible.

Anthony (Rowsdower): Tuesday is here again and I’ve been going back and forth between the think tank and some very dark corners of YouTube. Question for you all. Who’s your favorite non-KSP YouTuber? Any game.

Paul Soares Jr. - He does a lot of games. I mostly watch his Minecraft and Salt videos.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Alshain

[Kerbart]

From what I read there's a good chance that aerodynamics will work more like we imagine/expect it to work, than it would/should in reality (supersonic aerodynamics is a nasty world very different from our daily walking-speed environment). Not necessarily realistic. Oh boy. Bring on the hate

[mattinoz]

So much in this update makes me happy.

More so reading the wall of text that is the Aero-update.

[Wanderfound]

We are also looking at ways to improve the whole CoM/CoL trick to gauge the stability of airplanes. What it will look like, i really can’t say, because it’s still on the drawing board. Feel free to add your ideas in a reply

It should look like RCS Build Aid. As with things like Kerbal Alarm Clock, it's another "why the hell isn't this stock already?" mod.

As well as the dCoM marker, the ability to measure thrust torque is absolutely essential for building VTOLs or complicated planes. Thanks to tailfins, aircraft are naturally assymetric; precision tweaking of engine position is often required to get them to stop doing backflips when you fire up the rockets in vacuum.

[DundraL]

Well Ill just cut to the chase. THIS is what I think a good stability indicator would look like. It was put together in paint in a few minutes so don't expect anything pretty.

Its based on assets already in-game and is simple to understand compared to the amount of information you get out of it. Its literally a smaller scaled C.O.L. indicator with a stick on it, attached to the existing C.O.L. indicator.

Directions for use:

Try to keep COM indicator (yellow) between the blue spheres for controllable stable flight.

-A- (green) Good positioning: craft is stable and control surfaces can overcome this stability to maneuver. Good for Planes. (Optionally a piece of bacon should appear to let users know it will be wonderful to fly. mmmm bacon.)

-B- (blue) Very Stable positioning: Craft will be very stable, but control surfaces will have great difficulty changing direction of flight. Good for rockets.

-C- (red) Unstable: Craft will have difficulty remaining stable in flight, maintaining control becomes difficult.

That's it. While users may not know the aerodynamic implications of COL/COM positioning, this tool I believe should be enough to learn really quick (You just learned how to use it with 6-7 sentences and a picture) and informative enough to help them design a rocket/plane that can stay in the air. While doing this it can still give the intermediate user a detailed indication of how their plane will (wont?) fly.

Now for the more intricate stuff. By changing/scaling the distance between the stability marker and the COL marker based on control authority, you can see how maneuverable your craft will be. This can help newbies figure out how many control surfaces they need too. How to calculate control authority? That's up to you. Ratio of lifting surfaces to control surfaces divided by mass? Who knows, but I'm sure someone has a better formula than me.

Also, thanks for the update! I always love me some good devnotes. Great to hear about the aero overhaul finally coming and glad to see you guys looking out for our concerns on the forum and in the game!

(Well since you did say you wanted to hear about balancing ideas:) http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92819-An-arguement-for-a-simple-intake-jet-engine-tweak

[likke_A_boss]

Did he say "California Bay Area?" Cuz I live there. I like where this is going.

[Streetwind]

<p><span><strong>Anthony (Rowsdower):</strong> Tuesday is here again and I’ve been going back and forth between the think tank and some very dark corners of YouTube. Question for you all. Who’s your favorite non-KSP YouTuber?<br/></span></p>

I like Totalbiscuit, and among my native language community, Gronkh.

Now, off to read the aerodynamic wall of text, as much of an oxymoron as that is...

[artwhaley]

Filtering the menu by node size is a great idea! What about giving part makers the ability to also control attachment by node size? Meaning I'd like the ability, as a modder, to make nodes that ONLY attach to certain other nodes. Ideally... I'd love for you to add support for node 'sizes' beyond the stock 0,1 and 2... to have all nodes other than size 0,1 and 2 show up as size 0... and anything above 0,1 and 2 would only be able to attach to nodes with the same size. So anything about 0,1 or 2 would work similar to docking port ID numbers, but in the VAB instead of flight... and with assembly nodes instead of docking. Clear as mud? This way, for example, since it doesn't make any sense to put anything except my landing gear into the landing gear bay of my spaceplane... I could set the gear and the gear attachment points to both have the same arbitrary id number and other things wouldn't try to snap into the spot... and the gear wouldn't try to grab onto the wrong place.

And... I probably need to make this a proper bug report, but while I'm talking about nodes and the editor in the place most likely to be seen by actual devs... one little editor bug you might squash while fine-tuning things - Nodes are directional.. but things can attach 180 degrees opposite the intended direction, and this makes it a big pain to attach thin stack parts. The docking ports are the biggest stock culprits, frequently having the wrong node snap to attach, leaving the docking port embedded entirely in the ship. It gets worse with mod parts that are any thinner than the docking ports. Nodes should only attach when the vector has both the correct alignment AND direction.

Great devnotes in general!

[Superfluous J]

<p><span><strong>Anthony (Rowsdower):</strong> Who’s your favorite non-KSP YouTuber? </span></p>

Most of the YouTubers I watch play at least a little KSP, but one guy (and one game) who deserves more views is Jay Riviera who plays Invisible Inc, another in-development game worthy of everybody's monies (which is what Jay refers to the in-game currency as).

[*Aqua*]

<strong>Anthony (Rowsdower):</strong> Who’s your favorite non-KSP YouTuber? Any game.

Gronkh

Most known (3.4 million subscriber) and most watched (1.3 billion views) Let's-Player in Germany (only 80 million people). Even the print press writes about him like he's somekind of VIP.

[Moesly_Armlis]

Couple of suggestions for the User Interface Sound FX and the EVA Ledge Climbing ability.

Would the U.I. Sound FX have a slider for volume control?

To have audio feedback for the users is great and adds atmosphere. It is disappointing when clicking the U.I. button and it is at the same level as the rocket engines, especially when the volume on the amplifier is cranked to eleven.

Will Ledge Climbing be automatic?

Climbing over ledges will open up new areas to explore (Lara Kroft

comes to mind). The ability of the kerbal to clamour on top of the vessel is great and will improve realism. The suggestions is to make it a keybind because sometimes I like to push pods around.

Happy Joolian New Year Everybody!!!!

[Wanderfound]

Anthony (Rowsdower): Tuesday is here again and I’ve been going back and forth between the think tank and some very dark corners of YouTube. Question for you all. Who’s your favorite non-KSP YouTuber? Any game.

Wil Wheaton. Tabletop!

[Streetwind]

Hah. I don't watch him that often, but I must admit that Will Wheaton's board game sessions can be pretty entertaining.

Which, of course, directly leads to the need for Kerbal Space Program: Tabletop Edition!

[Th3F3aR]

Great Dev Notes!

But...

haven't read thorugh all posts, the Aerodynamics changes seem ok. If you guys want to stay with the fun but want to improve the Aerodynamics, why don't you just combine the 2 sides.

I think of something like an "arcade Mode" with less realistic Aerodynamics Model and a "simulation Mode" with the realistic Aerodynamics Model.

A lot of Games work like this (WarThunder is an example for that they provide arcade battles and realistic battles with different plane behaviour) and the bonus on top would "simply" be to let the player chose his Mode by combining different settings/stages between arcade and simulation. That way you might reach all players of KSP out there, those who like to play for fun and not to do it realistic and those who like realistic behavior and have fun with that. Same goes for things like Antennas and the realism provided by remoteTech.

I personally think that you should (it's still your game and the modding community does a lot) work in the direction to provide a fun base and a realism based game with the choice to play a career arcade Mode or simulation Mode.

but just my 2 cents

[KerbMav]

Would it be possible to have the Kerbals point of reference set to the nearest vessel (within reason) to stop them sliding around on orbiting vessels ladders (or flying off into space when EVA'ing, unless that's a different issue) due the difference in their CoM vs the ships CoM and the slight orbital difference this seems to make

Making the Kerbals really hold on to ladders ("brakes on") and only allowing movement along the ladder upon input would be great - with a maximum grip-force to keep them flying off the ladder when flying in atmospheres, sitting on crafts with running engines etc.

Would the U.I. Sound FX have a slider for volume control?

Seconded.

Will Ledge Climbing be automatic?

Climbing over ledges will open up new areas to explore (Lara Kroft

comes to mind). The ability of the kerbal to clamour on top of the vessel is great and will improve realism. The suggestions is to make it a keybind because sometimes I like to push pods around.

As I understand it, the ledge will either work as an extension of the ladder or the Kerbal will keep on climbing/walking when hitten a ledge.

[TonyC]

Looking forward to the new aerodynamics, though I may suggest something :

We should be able to choose the difficulty of aerodynamics in a dedicated UI :

Old

Easy (SDF)

Medium

Hard

Insanity (FAR)

Alternate (NEAR)

Who’s your favorite non-KSP YouTuber?

Hesitating between Yogscast and...I have no idea.

Edited January 14, 2015 by MegaUZI

[cicatrix]

Will Kerbals be able to climb over (on) the ledges finally? This is the most frustrating thing in KSP for me right now.

[Wanderfound]

Hah. I don't watch him that often, but I must admit that Will Wheaton's board game sessions can be pretty entertaining.

Which, of course, directly leads to the need for Kerbal Space Program: Tabletop Edition!

Rocket Jenga?

[grosser_Salat]

Well, refering to the youtubers-question:

I would just like to point out, that Project Alexandria by Bob Fitch is an awsome work, with a possible outreach far beyound the originally KSP-community, or at least towards KSP-Edu.

[Starhawk]

I have to say that, for me, backwards compatibility for spaceplanes isn't an issue at all. I always expected to have to reengineer my whole fleet once the new aerodynamic model is implemented.

[colmo]

I have to say that, for me, backwards compatibility for spaceplanes isn't an issue at all. I always expected to have to reengineer my whole fleet once the new aerodynamic model is implemented.

+1. We expect saves to be broken every version, same goes for craft IMHO.

[Corw]

Looking forward to the new aerodynamics, though I may suggest something :

We should be able to choose the difficulty of aerodynamics in a dedicated UI :

Old

Easy (SDF)

Medium

Hard

Insanity (FAR)

Alternate (NEAR)

You have no idea what you are asking for.

[SmashBrown]

Wonder what this latest version of unity will do for RAM usage....

Also, i want to tether my kerbals to ladders and other bit of the spaceships/planes. Just because.

[DaPatman]

Question for you all. Who’s your favorite non-KSP YouTuber? Any game.

The Runaway Guys.

[DBT85]

Looking forward to the new aerodynamics, though I may suggest something :

We should be able to choose the difficulty of aerodynamics in a dedicated UI :

Old

Easy (SDF)

Medium

Hard

Insanity (FAR)

Alternate (NEAR)

I just think we need to still retain the ability to let people like Ferram do their good works. I'm happy if Squad want to pick a middle of the road option that removes the soup, sorts some of the drag and stuff, but letting people mod it from there should remain an option.

Trying to get the stock game to implement 5 different options is just asking a huge amount.