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

[Guest]

Hang the old and get things right with regards to balancing realism and gameplay. It's the only sensible way forward.

[Red Iron Crown]

New aero, and last week Ted mentioned he's doing some rebalancing of part stats.

Kerbal Space Program 0.91: Break All the Things! Edition

[DBT85]

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Do not hold your ideas and designs back by trying to make things work that were based on a bad starting model.

[jdmgto]

I'm perfectly ok with old spaceplane designs being non-viable with the new aero system. Given the severe overhaul that looks to be in the works I think it might also uncomplicate things to not worry about the old stuff. Get the new system working and if it breaks all my old ships that's ok. It's beta.

[leopardenthusiast]

Backwards compatibility should not be an issue for a game in beta. Bring new aerodynamics, make them good, and disregard all prior aircraft - if they don't work afterwards, then they'll just have to be redesigned.

[Van Disaster]

I will continue to use FAR as long as it's updated, but it'd be nice to be able to run a stock game occasionally without grinding my teeth to dust... and as everyone else has said, new version usually means new craft anyway.

[rtxoff]

I think they should keep the old aerodynamics as an option if it is possible in a way or other. So an checkbox to activate it in the options/difficulty screen will be very much appreciated by me.

[EdFred]

No backwards compatibility.

Keep moving forward.

"What? you mean I can't use my old MFM 20MB hard drive in my new computer? Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!"

Edited January 14, 2015 by EdFred

[NecroBones]

New aero, and last week Ted mentioned he's doing some rebalancing of part stats.

Kerbal Space Program 0.91: Break All the Things! Edition

That's a theme I can get behind. It's very Kerbal.

[LameLefty]

Drop backwards compatibility and do it right.

But either way, I will continue to play with FAR/NEAR. As long as Ferram keeps updating them, it won't affect me much.

[rkman]

I think it's only a few die-hards who have fallen in love with the game as it was when they first started playing it, who cling to their old saves.

[MacroNova]

Concentrate on making the new aerodynamic model the best possible blend of realism and fun. If that means some old designs don't work, then so be it.

[Thomas988]

KSP is in development. By buying the game we all agree that we will accept changes to the game that could potentially destroy saves and crafts, no matter how infuriating it may be. I do not believe that Squad should let compatibility with older crafts stand in the way of releasing a long-overdue system that will need lots of work.

[Travisfv]

For me, 75% of the fun of this game is in design. I could never settle though on designs. I don't have launcher families, I don't reuse unless its to fulfill the simplest of contracts. Designing new ships is so much fun. I just created a new VTOL with variable rockets. I spent hours designing it for one purpose. If that broke, no big deal, I'll do it all again with a new ship and design.

Trying to save peoples designs is admirable, but if those people stop playing the game (although who can quit such a drug as KSP), shouldn't the game be the best of the developer can do, and not what is best for the present community's ship designs? And lets not forget that such feeble things as ship designs can be lost when a computer crashes entirely. Are we willing to sacrifice a better aerodynamics model for things that can be lost so easily?

Kerbal Space Program is an established, successful, albeit early access title. Past, present, future, it will be here for this community that loves it so much. Does Squad really plan to cater solely to the past and present, or do they wish to create the game of the future that HarvesteR had originally dreamed of years ago when he was strapping tinfoil "Kerbals" to homemade rockets?

[zarakon]

I say break compatibility every 3 months, even if there's no particular reason to. Building new stuff is the biggest incentive to get me playing again

[WeirdCulture]

No to 640Kerbalbytes backward compatibilty!

[JimmyAgent007]

I'm in the break compatibility camp. We love redesigning stuff. Like with anything else, people can keep old versions to play with.

[phunk]

If you guys didn't know already, Squad has been working on revamping the aerodynamics for the next update, with a nice new devblog on the subject by HarvesteR right here. If you have any suggestions or feedback, go put it in the comments on that thread.

For this thread I want to focus on one paragraph in particular:

Do you think Squad should drop backwards compatibility with the new aerodynamics?

<rant>

Who cares about backwards compatibility. It's beta, they shouldn't be hindering themselves by trying to keep people's precious saved games from previous versions working. Those people can keep playing the old version if they don't want to restart.

</rant>

[Vindaloo]

News to the Devs: your player base wants it realistic!!

Seriously, why do you think I downloaded and installed KSP last week? It wasn't for the funny green guys (though I do love them so); it was because the game offered me the chance to fly "real" rockets. In order to advance in this game I've had to learn delta-v, orbits, transfers, prograde, retrograde, etc. Maybe its because I am an engineer but I LOVE THIS GAME. And sure enough I am now looking at mods that make the game more realistic, FAR, Deadly Re-entry, TAC, etc.

Realism is what brings the player base to the game. And of course planes are harder than rockets, but you don't need planes to play the game. I have been trying for 2 days now to land a plane on the small runway on the island and so far no go, but once I succeed I will be ecstatic. That is the fun of the game, trying challenging things, working through it, then finally succeeding. Trying to understand the calculations in FAR is quite the challenge for me, but the great thing is I don't need to in order to play the game. There is plenty to do in KSP without ever stepping into the SPH (in fact I would say that the SPH is a whole side-game).

So, please, get aerodynamics right! Break all the things!

[cantab]

No backwards compatibility.

Keep moving forward.

"What? you mean I can't use my old MFM 20MB hard drive in my new computer? Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!"

An ironic comment given both PC hardware and the major PC operating systems have always held backwards compatibility as important. Maybe not MFM, but with an inexpensive SATA-PATA adapter you can use a 20+ year old PATA hard drive in a modern PC if you need to.

[Andrew_C]

News to the Devs: your player base wants it realistic!!

Seriously, why do you think I downloaded and installed KSP last week? It wasn't for the funny green guys (though I do love them so); it was because the game offered me the chance to fly "real" rockets. In order to advance in this game I've had to learn delta-v, orbits, transfers, prograde, retrograde, etc. Maybe its because I am an engineer but I LOVE THIS GAME. And sure enough I am now looking at mods that make the game more realistic, FAR, Deadly Re-entry, TAC, etc.

Realism is what brings the player base to the game. And of course planes are harder than rockets, but you don't need planes to play the game. I have been trying for 2 days now to land a plane on the small runway on the island and so far no go, but once I succeed I will be ecstatic. That is the fun of the game, trying challenging things, working through it, then finally succeeding. Trying to understand the calculations in FAR is quite the challenge for me, but the great thing is I don't need to in order to play the game. There is plenty to do in KSP without ever stepping into the SPH (in fact I would say that the SPH is a whole side-game).

So, please, get aerodynamics right! Break all the things!

Well, actually I bought the game because of the funny green guys.

That's the problem, they have such a varied player base to please. Still I'm looking forward to an improved flight model too, I just hope its not as mind boggling as FAR.

[SchildConstruct]

Do you think Squad should drop backwards compatibility with the new aerodynamics?

Yes. No. Maybe. Would breaking old stuff create better new stuff?

If you want to know whether I, personally, care about backwards compatibility: Nope, I don't care until KSP has gone gold.

[EdFred]

An ironic comment given both PC hardware and the major PC operating systems have always held backwards compatibility as important. Maybe not MFM, but with an inexpensive SATA-PATA adapter you can use a 20+ year old PATA hard drive in a modern PC if you need to.

That's why I went with the MFM qualifier. I've got 15+ year old IDE drives that I all I need to do is hook them up with a ribbon cable, and put the jumper settings to slave or auto.

[Russoft]

Game is just barely in beta. Things don't need to remain backward compatible. People should expect updates will probably break things.

[Commander Jebidiah]

Are they even planning on adding fairings?

I agree that it would b nice to have a new aero model but in my mind I t can t be as serious as even near. I can't play with either FAR or NEAR but then whenever I played with NEAR I seemed to be broken and FAR was just to hard.

In my mind if they are gonna implement a new aero model they must either go full on with new aero, fairings and re-entry heating.

Or they should just keep it as is. If they plan on going somewhere in between they may as well not do it as its easier to build new planes rather than tweak existing planes to work.

And if they do implement it they will need to add tutorials to tell people like me and new players how to build planes.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Commander Jebidiah