Thrust scaling with atmosphereic pressure, instead of Fuel Flow rate. Yay!

[Rakaydos]

I'm afraid you don't fully-understand optimal ascents Regex. The most fuel-efficient ascent is generally at Terminal Velocity, and with the new aerodynamics model (and the possibility to streamlined your designs and take advantage of the Square-Cube Law if they do it right...) your ideal launchpad TWR will go *UP*, not down.

Think of it this way- your rocket weighs just as much as ever, so you still have an incentive to get to orbit FASTER (so you experience fewer gravity-losses), but a proper streamlined design will experience less drag than before for a given velocity- meaning it is to your advantage to ascend to orbit faster than before.

In a theoretical, infinitely-tall atmosphere that had no Scale Height, a rocket with TWR = 2 (where the TWR never changed) would still eventually even out at its Terminal Velocity (which will now finally vary across designs and headings rather than being the same for a flat, low-density disk and a long, dense, streamlined cylinder!) but this is NOT the case on a real planet. The larger/taller and more streamlined your rocket, the higher its Terminal Velocity (and Ballistic Coefficient) and (in the case of larger, but not taller, rockets) the more safely it can quickly pitch over after launch without this leading to the atmosphere hugely destabilizing its flight path... (leading to a crash)

The gap between you initial velocity of 0 and Terminal Velocity will be larger the bigger/more streamlined your rocket, and your ideal TWR on the launchpad will go up further so as to close that gap more quickly... Higher TWR will also mean you can get out of the thicker atmosphere (which reduces your engine's thrust) and get into the thinner atmosphere where your Thrust is higher (and your Fuel Flow unchanged) more quickly...

Anyways, long story short- your ideal TWR (from a Delta-V perspective) on the pad will go UP, not DOWN, with the improved aerodynamics (although the ISP/Thrust fix will mean it's desirable to start with a lower TWR to maintain a controllable TWR later in the flight...)

Regards,

Northstar

Thats the theory, but as FAR demonstrates, terminal velocity goes up faster than losing mass can raise your TWR. Most FAR designs back off to the next level of efficency, where adding more tanks increases payload to orbit more than adding more engines. this approach, as regex mentioned, generally aims for a 1.3 TWR t get as much payload to orbit for your expesive engines.

[Red Iron Crown]

Optimal dV ascent is not the same as optimal payload fraction ascent. People usually chase dV-optimal, but payload fraction is better when cost matters, generally speaking.

[Superfluous J]

I personally go for the most cost-effective approach, at least when money is important in early career. I don't see how an effective argument could be made that paying more money to save a few m/s of dV is better.

Then later when I've got millions, it's mainsails all the way

[tater]

KSP strikes a wonderful balance between fun and reality, pushing the boundary too far in either direction narrows their potential audience.

This has been beaten very much past dead before, but there is no relationship between "realism" and fun at all in terms of game physics. None. The math underneath is a black box to some players, changes to wards better (more realistic) math has negative connotations only to those already used to the previous system. Any new player would dimly learn the way the game works, and build slightly different rockets form the start. Bottom line is that realism can be more fun or less fun depending on how it is done, and unrealistic additions can be more fun or less fun as well. Generally, I think matching real world expectations/outcomes is less frustrating, because we are used to the real world.

Most people coming to another game we know were likely looking around for "health," didn't stop us from subscribing for XX years. I'd still be subbed there if the changes were towards more, rather than always less realistic.