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

[JimmyAgent007]

Im in the 'only ever played in stock' camp so anything they do will be an improvement. Those who like FAR or NEAR or whatever mods are used to them so it wont be the same for them. Whatever they do wont be final I dont think, just the first step in fixing it. So why not wait and see what it does right, does wrong, and how they can fix it. Everyone's definition of fun will be different and subjective.

[Dudicus]

Like I said in a follow up post, I think the contentious issue may be our difference in definition of "realism". I totally agree with your statement that "Certain elements of realism at the very least are fundamental to a good gameplay experience". However, when too many of those elements are used to make a game more realistic, to me, it becomes less fun and that is what links the two concepts. Its the level of "realism" and the definition of what is "realistic" that differs between people and makes this an issue. Everyones definition will be different and in my case, it does affect the fun I have.

have you tried any playing with NEAR/FAR installed? i ask because i initially had reservations about changing the stock aerodynamics, however once i installed NEAR i found it to be quite helpful. it actually makes it easier getting rockets into orbit, imo. also, i didn't notice many drastic changes from stock. i had to apply a little more discretion with regard to speed in atmosphere, but with a little throttling you can actually get all kinds of insane designs into orbit.

i guess my point is that the changes to a more "realistic" design with regard to aerodynamics are barely noticeable, imo. just curious about what particular aspects of the realistic aero designs you find "unfun".

[PDCWolf]

It was a poorly phrased statement. I oversimplified things when I implied that "fun" and "realism" were diametrically opposed, when I do think that it's more complicated than that. But the opposite idea - that increased realism automatically equals increased fun - is equally fallacious. I'm okay with people enjoying more realism - but the assumption that only complete realism is enjoyable is ridiculous. Should we remove time warp and do all missions in real time? Some of the arguments I hear imply this sort of conclusion.

The thing is WHAT do you make more realistic: If you make heat or electricity management more realistic, then yeah, stuff ain't getting funnier at all, at least not for the majority that now has to control watts, amperes, volts, Celsius, Fahrenheit or whatever. But aero is something that definitely should be more realistic because everyone deals with it in real life (or knows how it is dealt with at least by looking at pictures or videos) and thus they have an idea of how it should work, otherwise (and as it is right now) you force them into a place where they have to throw all their knowledge away and relearn how planes and rockets work from scratch, which is definitely not fun.

Im in the 'only ever played in stock' camp so anything they do will be an improvement. Those who like FAR or NEAR or whatever mods are used to them so it wont be the same for them. Whatever they do wont be final I dont think, just the first step in fixing it. So why not wait and see what it does right, does wrong, and how they can fix it. Everyone's definition of fun will be different and subjective.

If I had to describe it, it is something more akin to "get it right the first time because we don't know how much are you going to leave us hanging before you fix it if you fix it at all"

[klgraham1013]

The quest for realism in video games is what is killing video games. I think of it like a slider with "Fun" on one end and "Realism" on the other end. As the slider continues to move towards the "Realism" end, the amount of "Fun" decreases.

Thank science not everyone thinks like you. There is no definitive version of fun. Some people like games where they kill thousands of people in around 10 hours. I do not. Yet, I will not argue whether or not they are having fun. To define fun is an exercise in futility, which is why Squads love affair with the term worries me.

[vixr]

If I wanted realistic I would have tried harder in college and would be wearing wings on my uniform...

[Kerbart]

(...)

I don't really see the need that Squad feels to fixate on maintaining a "balance" between realistic and unrealistic aerodynamics in the update(s) to come. The idea of throwing out at least FAR-level realistic aerodynamics in favor of a limited definition of "fun" seems silly to me. For one, you can make crazy-looking contraptions fly in FAR, too, albeit not as overtly brick-shaped; but there are other reasons.

(...)

Please discuss.

Software development and the weekly dev notes are about managing expectations. What I read into it is that the goal is to have improved aerodynamics up to a point where it works mostly the way you expect it to work in real life but a "perfect" aerodynamic model. I interpret "keeping the fun" mainly as "KSP operating at +10 FPS on most computers." Realistic aerodynamic modeling would take up an awful amount of computing.

How far does realism need to go? What is realistic for one is BS for the other. To me, what Squad is saying is "don't expect us to mirror reality, or even atmospheric behavior as modelled by MS Flightsim". I expect airplanes to continue to suck as even x-plane had a hard time matching a geometric model of your plane to atmospheric behaviour (MS Flightsim didn't even try to do that) and that is a full-blown flightsim. I don't expect hypersonic compression issues, shockwaves destroying your craft, etc, either. What I expect and hope for is:

• Metric size determines drag, not mass
  
• Higher speed = more drag
  
• Slim & Pointy = less drag than Flat & Wide
  
• Parts sticking out will be ripped off when going fast enough
  

If we get that I'm already happy;.

[klgraham1013]

That is an incorrect statement. More accurately, there are many people on the forum that are convinced that realism in the aerodynamics engine is just more fun.

"...there are many people on the forum that like realism in the aerodynamics engine and find it more fun."

Corrected that for you. The original wording made it sound like we really don't like realism, but were coerced into thinking we do. I'm sure that's not what you really meant. That would be silly.

[cantab]

Maybe the contentious point here is our definitions of "realism".

Therein I suspect lies the nub.

To expand, I would say the thing to keep in mind is that realism and complication are not quite the same thing. A game can be realistic but uncomplicated, by handling the aspects of interest to a high degree of realism and ignoring the aspects not of interest. By way of rough example

[table=width: 500, class: grid]

[tr]

[td][/td]

[td]Unrealistic[/td]

[td]Realistic[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Simple[/td]

[td]Super Mario Bros[/td]

[td]KSP, to an extent[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Complicated[/td]

[td]Pokemon[/td]

[td]DCS World[/td]

[/tr]

[/table]

I'd say that realistic-but-simple box is a good place for KSP to aim for. That means implementing the things that are in to a high level of realism, for example we have pretty good orbital and flight mechanics and we should have pretty good aerodynamics. It also means leaving out many complications. Some of them might be "realistic" features, for example the game ignores failure rates on components. Others might be unrealistic things, and I feel that a lot of career mode in KSP is going down the complicated-and-unrealistic box.

[klgraham1013]

I get enough realism in my life; I play games to escape that. Games that thrust "realism" back on me are less fun to play. To me, realism and fun are very much opposed. I'm not saying that is true for everyone, but I certainly don't think that is an absurd notion.

Maybe the contentious point here is our definitions of "realism".

If I wanted realistic I would have tried harder in college and would be wearing wings on my uniform...

I play FIFA because I will never be a footballer in real life. I expect a decent amount of realism in that simulation, because I will never have that realism in my real, everyday life. Games can provide a means to experience a realism that our everyday circumstance can not provide. I will never lead a nation. I play Civilization V. I will never be a rocket engineer. I will never be an astronaut. I will never explorer the solar system. I play KSP.

Edited January 15, 2015 by klgraham1013

[skrit manfrat]

[h=2]Why is there a conflict of interest at all between realistic and unrealistic aerodynamics?[/h]

because the devs are of the opinion realism and fun cannot be synonymous.

or even worse, realisim = unfun

but grinding for science = difficulty and fun.

[Yellowburn10]

This is what I love about this community. When we are shown things like this, we don't immediately explode and yell at each other side saying things like "WE NEED REALISM!!" "NO, WE NEED FUN!!1!" "REALISM MAKES EVERYTHING BETTER!!1" "NOT TO EVERYONe!1!one!" Granted, given the chance things could escalate like this, but for the most part people seem to be respective of others and their opinions, even when their opinion greatly differs from theirs.

Speaking of opinions, I'm not too concerned on whether the new aero model will be more or less realistic. All I see is that it will be better than the current model, and that's all I'm concerned about. Less soup, more air.

[klgraham1013]

I have tried using FAR and found it to be too much of "spreadsheet" simulator for my liking...

With a general knowledge of how planes fly, you can use FAR and never touch the "spreadsheet" component of it. I just made a C-7 without looking at FAR's internal numbers, and it flew straight away. I've already noticed some flaws in the design and will tweak it, possibly with the help of FAR's instrumentation, but that instrumentation is not exactly necessary.

- - - Updated - - -

I even used NEAR and found that launches were excessively boring; launch up, start to tip over, turn off SAS, and watch tv until the rocket is where I want it to be.

I'm confused. Isn't this how you launch a rocket? I mean, I keep SAS on. Otherwise, it's spot on. Launch straight up. Lean over. Keep a general eye on things tell you get where you're going.

[OhioBob]

Implying that the people who choose to play stock are too stupid to know better.

I've had fun playing stock. One of the reasons being that I already know how things work in real life. Playing stock was a challenge because I had to forget some of what I already knew, discover how stock worked, and adapt to it. That being said, I'm looking forward to the upcoming changes. While stock was fun, the game needs more realism (streamlining should actually mean something). I'm in the camp that wants realism up to the point that the game does not become over complicated and difficult. Hopefully SQUAD will find the right balance.

[SAI Peregrinus]

I'm confused. Isn't this how you launch a rocket? I mean, I keep SAS on. Otherwise, it's spot on. Launch straight up. Lean over. Keep a general eye on things tell you get where you're going.

In general the proper way to launch a rocket is to launch straight up, turn about 5 degrees, and turn off SAS. Then let gravity turn you the rest of the way as you go. That's why it's called a gravity turn. A perfectly designed rocket will do the gravity turn without you needing to touch the controls.

[Liowen]

I'm confused. Isn't this how you launch a rocket? I mean, I keep SAS on. Otherwise, it's spot on. Launch straight up. Lean over. Keep a general eye on things tell you get where you're going.

Yes and no. Yes to a point but in the stock you have to do some inputs as you ascend higher, but in NEAR I touched the D key 3-4 times and let the aerodynamics do the rest. I kid you not I launched a rocket in NEAR did the couple of taps to start the gravity turn hit the T key to turn off SAS and then made a sandwich when I came back it was in orbit and out of fuel in the lift stage. I like the element of human error as I fly, doing that was almost as fun as having MechJeb fly the rocket for me.

[ferram4]

That's actually impressive. You got a SSTO rocket that could auto-fly itself to orbit (and I assume a circular one, or you would have mentioned the elliptical orbit downside). That's actually really damn impressive, especially considering that high accelerations at burnout (like you get with SSTOs) generally makes getting nice circular orbits impossible in a single burn.

I actually wanna see this rocket; I've never been able to get something like that to happen in NEAR or FAR.

[Daze]

That's actually impressive. You got a SSTO rocket that could auto-fly itself to orbit (and I assume a circular one, or you would have mentioned the elliptical orbit downside). That's actually really damn impressive, especially considering that high accelerations at burnout (like you get with SSTOs) generally makes getting nice circular orbits impossible in a single burn.

I actually wanna see this rocket; I've never been able to get something like that to happen in NEAR or FAR.

You have win the entire internet with this comment

Anyway, talking about "human error" in the stock aerodynamic is something crazy without offense..

[klgraham1013]

In general the proper way to launch a rocket is to launch straight up, turn about 5 degrees, and turn off SAS. Then let gravity turn you the rest of the way as you go. That's why it's called a gravity turn. A perfectly designed rocket will do the gravity turn without you needing to touch the controls.

Nice. Did not know that.

Yes and no. Yes to a point but in the stock you have to do some inputs as you ascend higher, but in NEAR I touched the D key 3-4 times and let the aerodynamics do the rest. I kid you not I launched a rocket in NEAR did the couple of taps to start the gravity turn hit the T key to turn off SAS and then made a sandwich when I came back it was in orbit and out of fuel in the lift stage. I like the element of human error as I fly, doing that was almost as fun as having MechJeb fly the rocket for me.

Well, if the above is correct in real life. I don't see why it's a problem for NEAR to mimic it.

That's actually impressive. You got a SSTO rocket that could auto-fly itself to orbit (and I assume a circular one, or you would have mentioned the elliptical orbit downside). That's actually really damn impressive, especially considering that high accelerations at burnout (like you get with SSTOs) generally makes getting nice circular orbits impossible in a single burn.

I actually wanna see this rocket; I've never been able to get something like that to happen in NEAR or FAR.

...and now Ferram (the almighty) has me questioning the validity of your statement. The world has gone all topsy turvy.

Edited January 15, 2015 by klgraham1013

[Motokid600]

People gotta stop comparing KSP to Orbiter. If Orbiter was marketed and managed in the same manor of KSP ( and if you could build your own rockets like in ksp ) then I'd bet the Orbiter devs would be giving Squad a run for their money.

Not the case. I'm one of the few that aspires to see KSP become just as realistic as Orbiter when it comes to design and flight. That'll never happen in the vanilla game. I understand that. But basic rocket and plane fundemetals are currently missing or are downright backwards.

I don't why... Or at what point people became so scarred of the word "realism", but a game thats fun and realistic to the point of it being used as a teaching tool is not so farfetched. It's hard to add to what's already been beatin' out of this dead horse. What I'm trying to get at ( and what I've been trying to get at in all the other threads ). Is that realism and fun can be on the same side of one coin. If realism is approached in the silly, modular mannor ksp entails then it can thrive. Realism approached in Orbiters manner is like reading a txt book. Very black and white. Very boring. ( Orbiter vets please don't hit me lol )

As the OP said... If KSP was modeled closer to real life then your designs will become even more grand and varied. And the added complexity makes for more eye candy and more joy when you complete your missions.

Engine Ignitor. Love that mod. Could do without limited ignitions for the sake of the argument, but ulage is a beautiful thing. Seeing retro motors pull a depleted stage away and ulage motors firing just before the engines ( and actually have it become practical ) is an awesome sight. Having to fire RCS before resarting your engines in orbit is also a very neat thing to perform and have to design for not to mention giving rcs a greater role ( seeing is how rcs is completely useless with the op reaction wheels less your docking ).

It's little things like that. Not just aero... Little realistic elements that inspire MORE gameplay and design variety cannot possibly be a bad thing. And it IS fun.

And imo seeing my rocket break up into pieces after it rolls over at 2kms IS fun, lol.

[Alshain]

...and now Ferram (the almighty) has me questioning the validity of your statement. The world has gone all topsy turvy.

Ferram is balking at the claim he got into full stable orbit without controls (which I do not believe either). It's highly possible to get suborbital without touching the controls or minimal controls anyway. EDIT: By suborbital I mean a decent enough suborbital path to circularize with acceptable fuel, if you get technical you can go suborbital by going straight up.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Alshain

[Liowen]

I would prove it but then I would be adding to the metric that everyone uses to say people want FAR in the game, the almighty download number. But also by not doing it I cannot prove either way, although I only said orbit not circular or otherwise (that was implied by Ferram). Oh well off to enjoy the game as I find it enjoy, and hopefully others will enjoy it there way as well.

[Parkaboy]

It's not fallacious. It's opinion, and everyone has one. My point is, those wanting realism in the aerodynamics aren't interested in KSP success over other simulators like Orbiter. They (we) are interesting in what we perceive as fun. Your premise was not mis-phrased, it was incorrect.

Let me see if I understand correctly. Whatever you say can't be considered a fallacy, because it's opinion. Whatever I say, on the other hand, is incorrect.

On these terms, I guess you won the debate. Congratulations!

[Alshain]

I would prove it but then I would be adding to the metric that everyone uses to say people want FAR in the game, the almighty download number. But also by not doing it I cannot prove either way, although I only said orbit not circular or otherwise (that was implied by Ferram). Oh well off to enjoy the game as I find it enjoy, and hopefully others will enjoy it there way as well.

I believe FAR can be downloaded from a Github link which does not keep count.

Let me see if I understand correctly. Whatever you say can't be considered a fallacy, because it's opinion. Whatever I say, on the other hand, is incorrect.

On these terms, I guess you won the debate. Congratulations!

Well, if what I say is an opinion and what you say is not, then yes.

Examples:

This is fun - Opinion

This is what people think - Statement of fact

Edited January 15, 2015 by Alshain

[Voyager55]

There's basically a graph that directly correlates between fun and realism (A bit similar to the uncanny valley graph) But I personally believe there's a lot more realism that can be crammed in before the drop-off point.

[Itsdavyjones]

There's basically a graph that directly correlates between fun and realism (A bit similar to the uncanny valley graph) But I personally believe there's a lot more realism that can be crammed in before the drop-off point.

Yup, having having fairings/cargo bays/nose cones work properly in vanilla would help, and arguably add some more challenge, for now you would have to build within certain parameters to get that satellite to fit in the cargo bay, which is also a reason why i prefer not using procedural fairings.