Why is there a conflict of interest at all between realistic and unrealistic aerodynamics?

[cantab]

I can't see the new aero having disassembly effects. That may remain exclusive to FAR. But we'll see. But for heat it's hard to say.

I expect that with the new aerodynamics being integral to the game, structural failure will be structural failure. They'll be no separate "aerodynamic failure" system like FAR has, but unless you turn on the unbreakable joints cheat excessive violence can still rip your craft apart. In fact that can happen in the current stock aero in extreme conditions.

Aside from re-entry heat, which I'd say isn't a core aspect of aero really, I don't really see anything about an aerodynamic model that can obviously be changed for an easy/normal/hard mode. Ferram tried some simplifications in NEAR, and the result is a model that many players argue is actually harder than FAR.

[Levelord]

Levelord, I *utterly* fail to see why this argument does not apply to Isp. Please, please elucidate.

Oh, also, completely-impossible-in-Unity mod does completely-impossible-in-Unity on-rails thrust... >.>

Well that mod does highlight some problems where simulating nbody physics even by a moderate amount causes significant lag.

Then with warpable ion engines causing the rounding off of numbers causing the engine to be overpowered during a physics warp. Which in the end of the day makes it functionally the same with the current ion engines. It's like how physics warping when flying space planes causes a rounding off of numbers causing the intakes to register more air that it would otherwise not have.

[NathanKell]

So you still won't explain why engines having varying Isp and TWR isn't *exactly* like wings having varying regimes they're good in?

[Levelord]

So you still won't explain why engines having varying Isp and TWR isn't *exactly* like wings having varying regimes they're good in?

I thought you were specifically asking about the ion engine changes. Don't wings already have their own weight to lift ratios? Don't wider wings already have a bigger lift rating than smaller ones? I'm not really understanding where you're going here.

[NathanKell]

That would equate to "TWR" and thus make the wings with greater lift-to-weight strictly better, yes? But engines don't have just one efficiency stat, they have two, and it's the combination of the two that (IMO) leads to good gameplay: one wants high TWR engines for lifting off, and high Isp engines for use once in space.

Wings can be similar: one might want high lift-to-weight wings at low speed, and high "supersonic efficiency" wings at high speed. If all wings behave the same at any given velocity, that kind of beautiful gameplay choice is lacking.

Does that clear it up better?

[Levelord]

That would equate to "TWR" and thus make the wings with greater lift-to-weight strictly better, yes? But engines don't have just one efficiency stat, they have two, and it's the combination of the two that (IMO) leads to good gameplay: one wants high TWR engines for lifting off, and high Isp engines for use once in space.

Wings can be similar: one might want high lift-to-weight wings at low speed, and high "supersonic efficiency" wings at high speed. If all wings behave the same at any given velocity, that kind of beautiful gameplay choice is lacking.

Does that clear it up better?

That's saying that we should apply a lower supersonic efficiency to square wings as compared to triangular wings. Problem here is that players may use the square wings as part of a bigger delta wing, so it will technically work in supersonic flight. Like how the Concorde had a massively large wing, made of many different shaped parts individually, but made into a delta shape overall, allowing supersonic flight anyway. I don't think we can apply a flat value of high/low speed efficiency to individual wings when it's the total wing shape that should dictate the overall lift and drag. The wings in stock KSP already respond to 2 factors which is their individual lift rating and the atmospheric thickness they are flying through.

I'd hate to repeat myself but I don't see how this is a' lack of gameplay choice' when the game doesn't physically hinder you from making streamlined craft with delta shaped wings if you wanted. Gameplay choice isn't the issue here, it's the soupy aero and infiniglide problems that are hindering our crafts from performing properly.

But back to my original point, in the end of the day it's the triangular wings that have low lift and the broad square ones that have high lift in the crude fashion we have in stock KSP now, and I don't think that is fixed by assigning them individual stats for high efficiency and low efficiency numbers. For all we know someone could have made a highly efficient shape made out of square wing parts, but because the numbers said so, it won't fly. This is something for the aerodynamics to decide how air will flow around the final shape of the craft and how I think it's probably best left to SQUAD to see how it all fits together because dramatic changes like this can make some craft un-flyable even though they represent their real life counterparts.

[NathanKell]

Oh, I agree entirely that the aero needs to look at the entire shape of the wing, not individual game parts. And I further agree with you that we have choice now. But I hope you'll agree (as my prior, and perhaps over-snarky, reductio hopefully showed) that we don't have meaningful choice.

1. All engines have the same TWR and Isp but are different sizes <<< choice.

2. Engines have varying TWR and Isp <<< meaningful choice.

Same with wings

1. You can use whatever wing shape you want <<< choice.

2. Various wing shapes have varying advantages and disadvantages <<< meaningful choice.

[Levelord]

If you put it that way then I'm in complete agreement on where the aero is likely to go. As long as #2 is referring to the final total wing shape and not just the individual wings themselves.

[KerikBalm]

You yourself said that you needed a 'reason' to have delta shaped wings.

... man.... are you incapable of making an arguement without misstating what I've said... your really need to stop this.

I said that I wanted aspect ratio to matter. But somehow "wanting" aspect ratio to matter becomes needing a "reason" for delta shaped wings...

I was even talking about the long skinny wings you see on gliders and slow speed aircraft... but somehow that translates to delta wings to you....

You really seem to have a problem - either you compulsively twist the words of others, or you're incapable of understanding basic distinctions.

And stock wings lift depending on shape... LOL... yea... sure buddy, whatever you need to tell yourself.

[Levelord]

... man.... are you incapable of making an arguement without misstating what I've said... your really need to stop this.

I said that I wanted aspect ratio to matter. But somehow "wanting" aspect ratio to matter becomes needing a "reason" for delta shaped wings...

I was even talking about the long skinny wings you see on gliders and slow speed aircraft... but somehow that translates to delta wings to you....

You really seem to have a problem - either you compulsively twist the words of others, or you're incapable of understanding basic distinctions.

And stock wings lift depending on shape... LOL... yea... sure buddy, whatever you need to tell yourself.

Calm down there. Let me refresh your memory on what you said and what quote I'm referring to:

However, I do want a reason to build long skinny wings, other than aesthetics.

I was saying that you don't need a reason for it. More specifically, your need for mach effects. I was saying that it makes no sense to knowingly force the game to give you a reason to make your planes look one way or another to the same effect that you don't need a reason to go visit another planet, or you don't need a reason to build boats or tanks, or monorails in KSP. I'd understand if you said that the aero made your planes fly funny or if you said that the aero caused unplanned disassembly, but you went the unusual route of justifying the need for aero change by saying that you wanted your planes to feel like they had a reason to be built to look the way they do with mach effects.

We're not considering the aero changes for your personal need to validate your craft aesthetics. We're considering the aero changes because the soupy atmosphere makes rockets waste fuel at low elevations when they didn't need to, we're discussing the need for aero changes because the nosecones currently do nothing, we're discussing the need for aero changes because small craft are un-flyable as the effects of infiniglide are greater at those scales. Because those are the problems that affect all players, from the stock crowd to the realism crowd and SQUAD needs to figure out how to balance them appropriately, to make it intuitive and to not make it tedious. Your suggestions for mach effects are a peripheral issue and does more harm than good if the original broader issues are not addressed first.

Unfortunately, I fear that without mach effects, this means nobody would want to use delta wings, and most people would design long and skinny wings....

:/

You wanted to talk about delta wings. You brought it up because you were afraid that nobody would use delta wings, which is easily proven false by having a single visit to the space craft exchange. Almost everyone and their grandmother uses delta wings on their planes and shuttles, even in stock KSP, which is why I dismissed it as simple fear mongering based on no evidence at all. Delta wings are being used all the time and that should have been the end of that discussion.

[rynak]

The whole debate about mach effects is funny, because earlier in the thread, i did supporta "toned down" version of them. Such a toned down version would give wide wings a MINOR disadvantage at high speeds, and narrow ones a MINOR advantage. Seemed like a good idea at the time.

But now? Uh, why would you need to simulate something this complex, and pay the cpu-costs, if this can be achieved much simpler? You don't need mach effects to make highly aerodynamic planes fly faster. Instead, you can...... duh, just make them fly faster That velocity-curve which some engines have? Just do something similiar for overall wing shape of a craft. This way, you get perhaps the most intuitive representation, of the effect that wings have on speed: Wingshape slope == drag at higher speeds. Everyone can easily understand that.

[Levelord]

The whole debate about mach effects is funny, because earlier in the thread, i did supporta "toned down" version of them. Such a toned down version would give wide wings a MINOR disadvantage at high speeds, and narrow ones a MINOR advantage. Seemed like a good idea at the time.

But now? Uh, why would you need to simulate something this complex, and pay the cpu-costs, if this can be achieved much simpler? You don't need mach effects to make highly aerodynamic planes fly faster. Instead, you can...... duh, just make them fly faster That velocity-curve which some engines have? Just do something similiar for overall wing shape of a craft. This way, you get perhaps the most intuitive representation, of the effect that wings have on speed: Wingshape slope == drag at higher speeds. Everyone can easily understand that.

That's an interesting thought. I like your idea!

[KerikBalm]

Levelord... you are absolutely unbeleivable...

Wants become needs

Different functions become forcing...

You mix and mash parts of conversations at will, you take quotes out of context...

... and pretend you are not distorting meaning

Its clear that its impossible to have a debate with you when you've got more strawmen than Nebraska.

[Vanamonde]

Okay, calm down, guys. Please talk about the subject rather than each other.

[Blaf]

And suddenly there comes silence.

[klgraham1013]

Everyone's exhausted. I was about 5 pages ago.

[JimmyAgent007]

Lets just state that everyone has different definitions of fun, what constitutes realism, and what should be done by SQUAD vs the modders.

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

It really pisses me off when people play the "ITS A GAME, I DUNT WUNT UR REALISM" card, because, actually, the game was originally meant to be a somewhat realistic space simulator, with realistic orbital mechanics and physics, but when Max and the minecraft community arrived, that all changed and it became a nice little arcade game.

[Nemrav]

stuff

Dont start the argument again....

Dont say "if you hold the view that opposes mine, you are a jerk" type arguments, it worsens things and makes you look like a jerk

If this thread gets going again, someone will pull the orbiter quote where Harvestr says he questions whether he will have orbital mechanics or not.

And then this "only my view is correct, ur a jerk" nightmare thread will get going all over again...

PLZ EVERYONE, LET THIS THREAD DIE !!!

[Basilo1146]

I really don't think they just be trying for realism at all. Instead, they should try for reasonability, as in, what one would reasonably expect aerodynamics to behave like. Things like improved lift (I do not care to recount how often a plane doesn't move in the direction it's pointing), improved drag models, and such. Honestly, I'd be hesitant to mess with the what determines aircraft stability in any way.

[PB666]

There are many people on the forums convinced that the key to KSP's success is that it is more realistic than other space games, which, they tend to conclude, means the game should strive to become as realistic as possible, and that would only increase its popularity. That's a fallacy, since other more realistic space sims (such as Orbiter) aren't as popular as KSP.

What the devs aim for is rather a sweetspot between realism and fun (closer to realism than to "arcade"), a stylized simulation. But people cringe at the idea of a stylized simulation, as if we could only have sims that are perfectly faithful to reality, and don't really understand the difference between a simulator and a simulation game, which is a gaming genre and not a learning/research tool. For these people, anything shorter than what NASA uses to train astronauts is "arcadey", which makes me wonder if they ever played an arcade game.

To solve the issue of reality one has to divide reality into two or more groups and try to solve the reality issue.

Lets take example of reality that should not be solved in game.

1. Trying to earn the 10 of billions of dollars it takes to run an earth space program.

2. Trying to build the civilization required to support a real space program

Other realities to be had.

1. Alter the stature of Kerbals.

2. Increase all the worlds to realistic scales, make the system 10 times bigger

3. Increase the length of the day to 24 hours, the year is then 10 times as long.

Realistic build times.

1. Spacecraft take months to be built instead of instantly

2. Transport times to pad take days.

3. Launch count downs that take days.

What remains

1. Shift in physics (away from mass based drag toward shape based drag)

2. Fuel density accord to real world.

3. Lift is not a stated value for part but comes as a result of simulated aerodynamics

The rockets created by KSP look reasonably decent, IMHO with the latest pack they are getting close to real looking.

The space physics is decent, but the SOI takes some of the possibilities Like L1-5 points out for science.

And that goes for one of the major issues, given such a lack of realism:

What is Nasa and ESA doing.

1. Space astronomy

a. Visible astronomy

b. microwave, infrared, XRAY and high energy gamma ray

....electromagnetic space astronomy is a large proportion of nasa's budget but almost none is conducted in Kerbal science.

This is one of the biggest frustration with the game, I can create huge space stations (capacity 120 kerbals) NASA would be jealous of (albeit not jealous of the lag that goes with them) but there is nothing to do except gravoli, goo, mat sci, and temp.

2. Magnetospheric studies

3. Particle collection and analysis.

Here are areas were major additions can be made.

If your are a decent rocketeer why do you need engineers, put the them work build a space observatory that would put NASA to shame.

They could have images where you hunt in those images to find novel things like GAMMA RAY BURSTS or nebula, black holes, etc gain extra points for each major anomoly characterized.

[tater]

Instead, they should try for reasonability, as in, what one would reasonably expect aerodynamics to behave like.

What one would reasonably expect aerodynamics to behave like is what aerodynamics actually behaves like. Anything else, would be what someone… I dunno, irrationally expects aerodynamics to behave like.

What order approximation they do is up for grabs.

- - - Updated - - -

PB666, adding science missions is just eye candy (some new parts). The science system is so screwy, and provides nothing but "points," that I don't think it's worth much improvement unless it is profoundly changed, as well as how it interacts with the reward system of the tech tree. I'd like to see the paradigm of science change such that there are experiments that actually provide the player with useful information to complete missions.

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

I really don't think they just be trying for realism at all. Instead, they should try for reasonability, as in, what one would reasonably expect aerodynamics to behave like.

You just contradicted yourself, what most people expect aerodynamics to be like, is what aerodynamics really are, unless of course you taught yourself aircraft design from KSP's current aerodynamics.

[Special Agent Sigvan]

Throwing in my story here:

I stopped playing KSP because it was way too realistic.

I only kept playing because I installed mods that let me screw around on Kerbin, hence my 200 hours. Only 10 or so were spent playing stock, and only 100 or so were spent actually playing for real and seriously. Instead of screwing around testing things.

The rest of the time was spent testing, planning and learning. Not actually enjoying the game (And the enjoyment came from the random things I came up with to do), learning, planning and testing. But not playing.

Meanwhile, I can pick up Invisible Inc and play for a while without learning or needing to learn anything. And have a lot more fun.

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

I stopped playing KSP because it was way too realistic.

You're joking right? Stock KSP can hardly be considered that realistic, about the only things it gets right is orbital mechanics, which don't even model N-body physics.