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

[Vindaloo]

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.

I understand, but if you have already figured out everything about rockets (delta-v, thrust, mass, TWR, orbits, inclination planes, etc.) then I am fairly confident that you could pick up realistic aerodynamics. It is true that FAR offers an insane amount of tools to help design planes, and they are indeed fairly complex, but you don't need them at all to build and fly a plane. Even with complicated designs you only need to understand the very basics of FAR to get your design to work properly.

Anyways, my point is that any player that has figured out rockets can figure out planes, even though they are more challenging.

[Motokid600]

FAR is FAR from mind boggling. ...Zing!

[pincushionman]

I voted breaking saves should not stop them. And though we keep saying "break saves," it's not going to! The saves will still be valid! The vessels will behave differently, which is NOT the same thing as an incompatible save file. All craft, regardless of the changes being implemented, will require modification to some extent.

And horrible stock monstrosities can already be made to work in FAR, albeit wih severely impacted performance. As one of my aerodynamics professors put it, "You can make a barn door fly if you put a big enough engine on it!" Or maybe it was my propulsion prof. Whatever.

Either way, I wxpect it to be an improvement, and I'm looking forward to KSP 0.91 - What a DRAG!

[Liowen]

It would be nice to see some backwards compatibility, but if it not able to be done for whatever reason that is fine as well. My question to those who have said "I will still use FAR so it does not apply to me" did you vote no or do not care? If you voted no then that is kind of misleading, since you will not be using the stock system anyways. As for the comment of "ALL players want the game realistic" this is not true either, there are players who enjoy the game just to be silly and they are having fun with it like this. I know, personally, if I wanted a realistic space game I would play Orbiter, but that does not appeal to me all that much so I do not play it.

[tater]

I have not used FAR tools, much, myself. I hardly notice it is there, but I don't build aircraft, I have il-2, etc, for flight.

[Wjolcz]

I think they should drop it. Learning new things instead of reusing the old ones is good for your brain.

[stanbeard]

I realise this may not be practical, but a way to switch in the debug window between the new and old aerodynamic models could help appease people with big spaceplane fleets while still maintaining a clean break to a better system.

I wouldn't expect the option to survive all the way to release, just long enough for people to transition.

[Louella]

I admit, I am not a particularly skilled player, despite playing for years (since before the Mun was there)

I have a couple of basic aircraft. And the only reason I have them, is because doing atmospheric survey contracts is profitable, and is a useful earning thing to do, while waiting for moon or planetary missions to reach their destinations.

The atmosphere of Kerbin, is almost irrelevant to the vast majority of my game. It is just an obstacle to be overcome.

All the atmosphere effectively does for most of my spacecraft, is mean I have the Kerbin terminal velocity in atmosphere table open in a browser on my second monitor, so I adjust the throttle of my rocket to minimise losses due to atmospheric drag.

On the spacecraft that return to Kerbin, the atmosphere means I have to remember to have enough parachutes, to make a safe landing.

That's all the atmosphere and aerodynamics means to the majority of my spacecraft = a limitation on launch acceleration, a restriction on minimum orbital height, and a requirement for X number of parachutes for return missions.

Changing how aerodynamics works would mean altering the limitations on launch, and the requirements for parachutes and/or heat shield for return missions. But how aeroplanes or spaceplanes work would make little difference to my game, except in career modes, where the survey contracts are big earners.

[Clockwork_werewolf]

I know other people have gone over it but it REALLY matter what "backwards compatibility" means. Does it mean

A: Bricks can fly plus all else

B: Unsightly but still possible craft fly such as craft with engines and tanks in an x configuration all 1 meter apart attached by girders but still with nose cones and such.

C: Craft with blunt noses can fly but only if given enough force and control

D: Without this all save files are lost no matter what

E: Only well designed craft can fly but most planes will still crash without updates.

Which option we are talking about greatly affects peoples answer to this question. I don't want to see A or D but I am OK with all other options. I would prefer B but I'm OK with C and E. Remember is is important that things like this are still build-able even if not sensible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNECMA_Col%C3%A9opt%C3%A8re

[LethalDose]

Oops, voted wrong. Thought it was "should they maintain backwards compatibility".

Anyway, backwards compatibility receiving any kind of consideration is freaking moronic, especially seeing as how backward compatibility wasn't a concern when they updated the spaceplanes in 0.24 and removed wing parts...

The whole post by Harvester is the same vague information that doesn't really say anything that we've been getting for, now literally, years. They're going to try to make everyone happy, which means they're probably going to fail to make anyone happy.

[Stormweaver]

I got the impression that it's less about 'backwards compatability' as you'd normally think of it, and more that Squad don't want to force players to have to scrap everything they know about spaceplanes in KSP in order to be able to build ones after the update - that is, someone who can design spaceplanes in 0.9 stock should be able to build them in 0.91 stock without having to completely change thier habits.

So...habit compatability as opposed to software I guess.

[Motokid600]

The "I don't care" option should not be there. It's completely counterproductive.

[Wjolcz]

They're going to try to make everyone happy, which means they're probably going to fail to make anyone happy.

That's what I thought, too. An option to change aero type in difficulty settings should there. I don't know how the new one will work and maybe I'll even like it more than NEAR/FAR, but I am not the only one playing the game. Everyone should be happy about the changes.

[aleis]

Is a beta, early release, prelaunch. I expect things to change.

Now that's within limits as long as its the same game, I expect changes.

Make it right. Food you consider backwards compatability when you took torque away from probes, or shrank the reaction wheels? I had to relaunch a crap load of stiff when that happened. But I think it was worth it

[undercoveryankee]

There's never going to be a change that doesn't break something. The basic reaction wheel changing size and the Stayputnik and OKTO2 probe cores losing features rendered some ships ugly or non-functional. I expect that if they produce a system that's intuitive to design planes in, old-aero designs that look intuitively plausible will still fly even without a lot of deliberate compatibility effort.

The more "exotic" abuses of stock aero (infinigliders, planes with wings that spell out words, flying sports cars) are fun, but they're mostly built by people who know they're abusing stock aero and don't expect them to work in any saner world. They can be allowed to become unstable if it makes life better for sane designs.

[Motokid600]

I am against the notion of making the aerodynamics an optional difficulty. How many options can a game have before it becomes an identity crisis?

[Greenfire32]

Here's the skinny:

Every time KSP has updated, our crafts or saves have been compromised in some way. Be it a part changes, or universe changes (like when asteroids were added), most of us have had to sacrifice what were were working on and start anew.

Regarding aerodynamics, I really think the game would benefit more from getting it done right, rather than making it "better" but backwards compatible.

Look. I'm one of the Veteran players. I've been here since .14 (I think... it was a long time ago) so I'm part of the group who has "gotten used to it" when it comes to stock aero. I know for a fact that I'm going to have issues switching over. But you know what? Rockets that look like rockets and planes that fly like planes are worth getting it done right.

Just get it done right. We're a community of people who play KSP–a game about solving problems–we'll solve the problem of "my planes dont work now that air flows the way it should."

[Hodo]

Other than craft that are pretty obviously not aerodynamic, most craft made to work in stock aerodynamics will run just fine under a better aerodynamic model... as long as some form of fairing is involved for the interstage components.

This kind of made me chuckle. Time to sound mean but vast majority of the bricks that people launch into orbit in stock aero would not work in a realistic environment like FAR. Trust me I have downloaded some of these contraptions and launched them just to watch the fireworks that happen a few seconds after launch. And I am not even going to mention some of these airhog nightmare SSTO designs.

[Red Iron Crown]

I am against the notion of making the aerodynamics an optional difficulty. How many options can a game have before it becomes an identity crisis?

I agree with this. We don't have an "easy mode" orbital mechanics model, nor should we IMO. One of the great things about KSP is it challenges you to figure out some complicated things, I don't see a good reason why aero should be any different and I'd imagine the new implementation will be easy enough to understand.

[Wjolcz]

Here's the skinny:

Every time KSP has updated, our crafts or saves have been compromised in some way. Be it a part changes, or universe changes (like when asteroids were added), most of us have had to sacrifice what were were working on and start anew.

Regarding aerodynamics, I really think the game would benefit more from getting it done right, rather than making it "better" but backwards compatible.

Look. I'm one of the Veteran players. I've been here since .14 (I think... it was a long time ago) so I'm part of the group who has "gotten used to it" when it comes to stock aero. I know for a fact that I'm going to have issues switching over. But you know what? Rockets that look like rockets and planes that fly like planes are worth getting it done right.

Just get it done right. We're a community of people who play KSP–a game about solving problems–we'll solve the problem of "my planes dont work now that air flows the way it should."

Well said.

[JimmyAgent007]

Maybe an old aero toggle in the debug menu next to gravity hack and unlimited fuel? Some place where only experienced players can find it.

[Motokid600]

Maybe an old aero toggle in the debug menu next to gravity hack and unlimited fuel? Some place where only experienced players can find it.

No. Lol... Sorry, but again just no. Out with the old, in with the new please. That sounds like a big pain for Squad to have the old model remain and be switchable. Just accept change... And move on.

[asmi]

Maybe an old aero toggle in the debug menu next to gravity hack and unlimited fuel? Some place where only experienced players can find it.

Experienced players don't need it by definition.

Besides keeping the code there will just make Squad's job at supporting it harder.

[JimmyAgent007]

Experienced players don't need it by definition.

Besides keeping the code there will just make Squad's job at supporting it harder.

I agree. but assuming they wanted to have at least some way of keeping it around that would prolly be best. Personally I think they should scrap any attempt at keeping it and just push forward with the new system.

[Keras]

They could keep it around as a difficulty option but I think there is no use in holding onto a broken system. There are things breaking older craft in almost every update so people who desperately want to hold on to them just keep an old version of KSP on their disk.