Should Squad drop backwards compatibility with the new aerodynamics? (2nd update in OP)

[Renegrade]

Obsessive-compulsive backwards compatibility is for games which:

1) do not allow easy installation of multiple versions.

and

2) are fully released.

I say go for it. Half the game is building new designs. New aero gives us the excuse to go ahead and revamp rusty old craft lines. If people want to play their older designs as is, they can roll a 0.90 or earlier install and play there. Unlike many other games, this is perfectly doable in KSP.

(NB: Both the Steam and Squad Store versions of KSP are 'run anywhere' modular installs - zipping up the KSP directory is literally a full backup of all game code, data, saves, and screenshots, and it can be copied anywhere and run from there.)

I will also spend some time designing absurd pancake shaped asparagus rockets because I like a challenge.

By the way, those can still fly under NEAR/FAR, and presumably under new aero too - and they still have the advantage. Better aero just narrows the gap between the two.. Stability is a bit trickier on a short rocket, but not impossible by any stretch of the imagination.

I think the real challenge would be to make an asparagus pancake that works better than an equivalent serial design in stock air, but worse in the new aero.

[Xavven]

Don't let people's old designs become baggage that prevents KSP from reaching its full potential! Designing stuff is half the fun. Breaking old crafts is a blessing in disguise.

[Junafani]

Why let those ridicilous crafts that clearly should not fly to continue doing it? I really hope that new aerodynamics are much more realistic. But of course this is Squad that had bright idea to let Kerbals to tweak engine thrust and Isp after leveling up (at least that got stalled), so I am not too hopeful.

[Camaron]

Most versions weren't even compatible with past save files.

Don't prevent progress and improvements because old designs might become obselete. That's a Microsoft mistake.

If anyone can't live without a certain spaceplane, they will either play an older version or rebuild.

When I lose designs to the fact that newer designs render them pointless or useless, I don't even hesitate to go on an all new adventure of design.

[montyben101]

NOOOOO I accidently clicked no.... Any way to change my vote???

My iPads fault...

[zarakon]

Design it to be how it always should have been

[Joonatan1998]

I think they should try to focus desing breaking changes in as few updates as possible, but have no problem with them completely breaking all desings.

Trying to fix the aerodynamics without breaking existing desings just doesn't work. (And basically removes any possibility of reentry effects.)

[Jouni]

Almost all patches have broken backward compatibility, even if you rebuild your ships in the new version. Every time Squad changes the stats of a part, something breaks. If you nerf an engine, rockets using it no longer reach orbit. If you make an engine more efficient, rockets using it as a sustainer engine may also fail, because the TWR of the sustainer stage doesn't get up fast enough.

[KerbMav]

Uncountable designs from years ago have been made obsolete by replacing the plane parts - lets not forget the minor issue regarding the landing legs a few more updates ago.

The KSP universe is still evolving, make the aerodynamics as good as they can be.

Do not waste a thought about designs that will most likely never be used again, a big part of the game is designing and building new crafts anyway. Anything else can be adapted.

[Felsmak]

Entire space programs have been wiped from the universe by new, incompatible updates. I think people can survive having a few planes becoming unusable.

[Cirocco]

as just about everyone here has said: just bite the bullet and overhaul the model the way you want it to be. If previous spaceplanes still work, great. If they don't ... well, you're playing a beta for a reason. I like spaceplanes. Like, a LOT. But I would happily throw all my designs out the window for a better stock aero model.

I have some small experience with FAR myself, but I use stock at the moment. It took me less than a day to get used to the new aerodynamics and figure out how to adjust my designs.

Hell if anything it will give people who are a bit bored with the game a good excuse to get back to the designing table!

[BudgetHedgehog]

Drop backwards compatibility. As I said on the blog post, crafts can change, the aero is here to stay - do it once and do it right.

[cicatrix]

I made a brick that flies in stock but doesn't fly with FAR.

A question - will SQUAD keep it flying in the aerodynamics overhaul? If so then the new model would be just as crappy as the present one.

[Frozen_Heart]

Drop the backwards compatibility. We can handle it.

Besides having to learn and design something again is fun and should be a new experience.

[Darnok]

Drop the backwards compatibility.

People will create new amazing designs and forget about old ones as soon as they learn new tricks with improved mechanics.

[Capt Snuggler]

Drop the backwards compatibility. We can handle it.

Besides having to learn and design something again is fun and should be a new experience.

will you marry me?

but yes, break the old designs. then we can develop new ones!

Edited January 14, 2015 by Capt Snuggler

[Commander Zoom]

Yes, absolutely.

And I say this as someone who doesn't use FAR, has barely done anything with planes, and is currently still running a two-year-old save (in its own directory, under .24.2).

Take this chance, do it now, and do it right.

[Monger]

Yes, without hesitation.

Honestly, designing planes currently "kind of" works, but it is not particular fun. It is counter-intuitive, i.e. often misleading. I never took the time to design really big planes, because it is insanely time-consuming to find and fix flaws in the design.

Creating SSTOs is still an interesting experience, but it feels like cheating.

Except some very enthusiastic players, I doubt that that many planes are actually currently roaming across Kerbin (or other atmospheres), designing new planes probably is a task of one or two hours for 99% of all KSP players.

So, yeah. I would probably mind deleting my entire savegame just to start anew, but losing a few airplanes... yeah, why not?

[blizzy78]

If they really want to fix it, they must not pay attention to backwards compatibility. The game is still in beta, after all.

[Cirocco]

Except some very enthusiastic players, I doubt that that many planes are actually currently roaming across Kerbin (or other atmospheres), designing new planes probably is a task of one or two hours for 99% of all KSP players.

as someone who routinely (tries to) create new heavy and super-heavy stock spaceplane designs without trying to slip or exploit too much, I can assure, it's more than two hours before I can get one doing exactly what I want. Granted "what I want" usually entail interplanetary travel without a refuel, but still.

SSTO spaceplanes take huge amounts of my time. I would more than happily throw all my designs away for a better aerodynamics system.

[colmo]

Considering many parts may be rebalanced anyway, I'm fully expectant of having to redo everything. A good builder can fix a plane in a minute anyway.

[cantab]

I don't think it will be much of a problem. Any reasonable vehicle will probably fly in any reasonable aerodynamic model. By way of anecdote, I've flown two planes built in stock - Squad's Aeris 3A and Tanuki's Gunther - in FAR and both flew. They were a bit of a handful sometimes but they still took off.

I've also made weird stuff myself to fly in FAR, and let us not forget that THIS

http://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1907_flying_machine.jpg

Flew in real life.

[nekogod]

To be honest I would fully expect them to release 1.0 and say right that's it we're launched everyone will need to start a new game from here including new vessels. It's rare in games that you can carry over beta progress to release.

[SelectHalfling0]

There is a Stock-Alike Drag Fix Mod (who's creator I cannot recall) which simulates drag as it should, but leaves the aerodynamics relatively untouched. Maybe the plan on integrating something like that?

[helaeon]

If the question is to make old ships function as expected, or to do it right (not necessarily realistic, but what's right for KSP's intended aero model). Then do it right.

I know I usually end up building new ships each version so maybe I'm not one to ask as I re-accustom myself to the rules whenever a new release comes along.