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

[Daze]

Well in reality there's many TSTO, an example is the STS, Delta IV light and falcon 9 if i'm not wrong

[battlefieldaces]

The aero model they're going for NEAR, but not just plain NEAR. It's a really nerfed one which does not benefit aerodynamic designs much. Nose cones on rockets might still not be worth it.

[r4pt0r]

The aero model they're going for NEAR, but not just plain NEAR. It's a really nerfed one which does not benefit aerodynamic designs much. Nose cones on rockets might still not be worth it.

"This is unit 248, requesting immediate source for suspected false facts. Repeat, This is 248, requesting source for facts."

When did they say they were going to use a nerfed copy of NEAR?

[cantab]

What does everyone think of FAR's level of dV to orbit?

For me it feels a bit low, but it's not really the end of the world. I've become partial to nerfing engines to 85% of their normal Isp, which counters the lower delta-V requirements a bit and at least for the main liquid engines brings them into the range of real-world hypergolics. As the icing on the cake it makes single-stage Tylo landers seriously tough but still doable.

Unfortunately since we know that .91 is the game balance update, I think the chance for a system rescale is gone. I can't see it happening in .91, it would be a major undertaking and probably have to tie in with a good art pass on all the celestials. And in any future update it would undo all the good game balance work.

[Fleb]

"Should Squad drop backwards compatibility with the new aerodynamics?"

No.

[pxi]

"This is unit 248, requesting immediate source for suspected false facts. Repeat, This is 248, requesting source for facts."

When did they say they were going to use a nerfed copy of NEAR?

I'm curious about this too. There seems to be a lot of proclamations about what squad are or are not going to do in regards to aerodynamics. I'm getting the impression that they've hired a few more members of the community, but somehow I seem to have missed any announcement on that.

[pincushionman]

…I'm getting the impression that they've hired a few more members of the community, but somehow I seem to have missed any announcement on that.

we cannot confirm whether this is the case except for ferram4 in particular. And if there were an obvious choice, it woukd have been him. His FAR code at least cannot be used due to licensing restricions which are beyond his control (some of the code was licensed from elsewhere).

[[email protected]]

Yes, drop the soup.

The devs should feel free to develop the game to their hearts desire without feeling restricted by the community. The admission that they are concerned about this has me...concerned. I dislike the bias for 'keep things the same" that tends to develop amongst a small but vocal minority in almost every game community. I'd venture to say that most of the players in the community are fairly resilient. It takes a fair amount of trial and error to learn, broken saves can be counted on with some regularity, and the game isn't complete yet. Having a portion of the community constantly showing resistance to Squads attempts to add to and develop the game may in some small way contributes to the exceptionally long period of time it has been in development. Asking them to keep code in the game that allows switching between two modes of aerodynamics is just inviting bloating, bugs, and hours spent working on creating menus and fixing problems that aren't spent on other areas that need attention.

If progress means upsetting people, then so be it.

Edited January 15, 2015 by [email protected]
I can't spell.

[Robotengineer]

Like many people, I say drop backwards compatibility. It's like getting a new car, but wanting the old fuel efficiency, poor performance, etc. Because you got used to having to go to the gas station everyday or something. If you don't like the new aero, don't upgrade. I would also like a system size increase, not huge, but something close to 2-3x the current size to offset the new aero.

It looks like .91 will be the most divisive update so far.

[moogoob]

Yes, drop the soup.

The devs should feel free to develop the game to their hearts desire without feeling restricted by the community. The admission that they are concerned about this has me...concerned. I dislike the bias for 'keep things the same" that tends to develop amongst a small but vocal minority in almost every game community. I'd venture to say that most of the players in the community are fairly resilient. It takes a fair amount of trial and error to learn, broken saves can be counted on with some regularity, and the game isn't complete yet. Having a portion of the community constantly showing resistance to Squads attempts to add to and develop the game may in some small way contributes to the exceptionally long period of time it has been in development. Asking them to keep code in the game that allows switching between two modes of aerodynamics is just inviting bloating, bugs, and hours spent working on creating menus and fixing problems that aren't spent on other areas that need attention.

If progress means upsetting people, then so be it.

A million times, THIS. When a change happens? You'll get over it! Either that or someone (you yourself, possibly) will mod changes back the way they came. FAR is still very much a perfectly valid choice for players that want it, and I can see why they didn't go with it. As I don't use FAR, I'll have to re-learn stuff when it changes, too, even if it's just little bits like having to use full payload shrouds when I launch.

My own tastes are that I'm happy with Squad's emphasis on fun with developing the atmospheric stuff. I feel it fits the game, where Kerbals are fun-sized astronauts with fun-sized rockets. IMO the Grand Theft Auto series got a great deal more fun with the car physics changes that 5 made versus driving the realistically weighted but cumbersome boats 4 called automobiles.

[Yellowburn10]

If progress means upsetting people, then so be it.

Upset people are an inevitability for games that have such a diverse community like KSP's. Take .25, for example. After the release dropped, countless people wanted squad to bring back the old wing parts because all the craft they made were broken, they looked ugly, and among other things, the control surfaces specifically were not the right sizes for some. I even heard a group of people threatened to boycott the game because of this (good luck with that ). Now, that's not to say that those people didn't have a cause to be mad, but it seems we've forgotten something important when we all got the game, and it's that while in alpha AND beta, any and all things in the game are subject to change and there is no guaranty that what is here now will work in the future. If squad does or doesn't want backwards compatibility, it's up to them.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Yellowburn10

[Nemrav]

The aero model they're going for NEAR, but not just plain NEAR. It's a really nerfed one which does not benefit aerodynamic designs much. Nose cones on rockets might still not be worth it.

No

"This is unit 248, requesting immediate source for suspected false facts. Repeat, This is 248, requesting source for facts."

When did they say they were going to use a nerfed copy of NEAR?

Harvester specifically said that nosecones should have benefits in the new model (entire ~2 paragraphs dedicated to this fact), pointy will be >pancake.

Harvestr never mentioned that he wanted a nerfed NEAR. So, yes his facts were false...

Also to everyone else, he never stated how he would carry out his "being intuitive to relatively new people" , for all we know, he could mean "intuitive to relatively new aerospace engineers".... unlikedly but possibly

[pxi]

I even heard a group of people threatened to boycott the game because of this (good luck with that ).

So to paraphrase:

"I'm no longer going to use a product I already paid for, thereby reducing the dev's support overhead, and basically making their life easier."

Yup, going to be super-successful with that approach.

[Yellowburn10]

So to paraphrase:

"I'm no longer going to use a product I already paid for, thereby reducing the dev's support overhead, and basically making their life easier."

Yup, going to be super-successful with that approach.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

More on topic, I'll be surprised if when they release .91 that anyone will actually be mad with the new aero. IMO, anything is better than the current system.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Yellowburn10

[Crimson Sunrise]

So to paraphrase:

"I'm no longer going to use a product I already paid for, thereby reducing the dev's support overhead, and basically making their life easier."

Yup, going to be super-successful with that approach.

Prove that the suggestions section of the forums actually changed the developers mind or it's not some sort of symbolical area so users think their input actually have some importance.

I'm waiting.

[CaptainKipard]

I feel I have to get used to FAR.

Truth is, I got used to the buggy stock aerodynamics and now my instincts are set to create planes for that physics model

Think of it as trying a new game. Don't keep any preconceived ideas.

[pxi]

Prove that the suggestions section of the forums actually changed the developers mind or it's not some sort of symbolical area so users think their input actually have some importance.

I'm waiting.

Well there was the kerfuffle over the barn, kerbal experience affecting engines, a u-turn on resources and probably a few other things that I can't think of.

Whether you will consider that proof is another matter, but it certainly seems to me that Squad listens to suggestions.

Edited January 15, 2015 by pxi

[Madrias]

I've played using Stock, I've played using FAR. The only real difference is that in FAR, you can actually stall your plane, rip wings off, and that design takes a little more time to go through.

Ditch the backwards compatibility.

I rarely keep plane designs from one save to another. I've got a couple "stock" craft I build to see if something's changed, and for the most part, they're so stupidly simple that calling them 'airplanes' is an insult to planes. The KSP community survives breaking mods, trashed saves, editor overhauls, and part changes. We can survive a sudden change in aerodynamics.

[Crimson Sunrise]

Well there was the kerfuffle over the barn, kerbal experience affecting engines, a u-turn on resources and probably a few other things that I can't think of.

Whether you will consider that proof is another matter, but it certainly seems to me that Squad listens to suggestions.

Listening is different than taking into consideration.

People got the barn? They got an excuse.

They got resources? As far as I looked into that, it seems that SQUAD failed to deliver what they sorta promised to users and had to 'postpone the feature indefinitely' to keep themselves from receiving FLAK from the users. Another excuse.

As far as I've seen, user input has affected nothing on KSP. HarvesteR is pretty much making the game he wanted to make since he started.

[Nemrav]

Listening is different than taking into consideration.

People got the barn? They got an excuse.

They got resources? As far as I looked into that, it seems that SQUAD failed to deliver what they sorta promised to users and had to 'postpone the feature indefinitely' to keep themselves from receiving FLAK from the users. Another excuse.

As far as I've seen, user input has affected nothing on KSP. HarvesteR is pretty much making the game he wanted to make since he started.

Umm, they didn't cancel the barn, they said that it was to go through further processing, they wanted to keep it, but took heed not to relese it yet.

Also further example is that they implemented the press z to go to full throttle, which was a suggestion from the forum..

But yes, they do do things suttle, which is still a ton more than other games...

Okay, yes there probably is *that* game that does always go with suggestions, but they are super rare..

[bdito]

Umm, they didn't cancel the barn, they said that it was to go through further processing, they wanted to keep it, but took heed not to relese it yet.

Also further example is that they implemented the press z to go to full throttle, which was a suggestion from the forum..

But yes, they do do things suttle, which is still a ton more than other games...

Okay, yes there probably is *that* game that does always go with suggestions, but they are super rare..

We don't know what they're doing with the barn at this point. They haven't clarified anything beyond this:

from the Beta Than Ever FAQ:

What happened to the barn?

The barn tier of buildings were initially introduced to the community as the first tier of buildings that would be encountered in Beta Than Ever. However, both the community and the KSP team both agreed that more work needed to be done on them, so a decision was made to leave that tier out of this update. The status of the barn is currently unknown, but will be touched on internally once development on the next update has begun.

[pxi]

Listening is different than taking into consideration.

People got the barn? They got an excuse.

They got resources? As far as I looked into that, it seems that SQUAD failed to deliver what they sorta promised to users and had to 'postpone the feature indefinitely' to keep themselves from receiving FLAK from the users. Another excuse.

As far as I've seen, user input has affected nothing on KSP.

This is clearly where our opinions differ. But this bit:

HarvesteR is pretty much making the game he wanted to make since he started.

Funny thing about that. As users, we all want different things, but there is one common thing that unites all of us. This is what we paid Harvester & the other devs to do.

[NathanKell]

hoojiwana: I agree with your edit 100%. The entire point of dropping backwards compatibility is that craft built under the old system need not fly right under the new. If one's metric is "craft built under the old system should fly better under the new one" that is the definition of backwards compatibility.

[GoSlash27]

Ya know what?

I put a lot of effort and hours into figuring out the stock aerodynamic model and the engineering guidelines that work within it. My entire fleet is based on those principles and works great as-is. My opinion?

I say trash it. It's a broken system.

We figured out the stock aerodynamics, so I have no doubt we'll sort out a better model with little fuss.

Besides, we invariably end up redesigning our fleets with each new release anyway regardless of backwards compatibility.

Best,

-Slashy

[qromodynmc]

Ksp is under development,I dont really care what happens to all the mods or other things while game is getting better.