Can we have a better water model for 1.0?

[BagelRabbit]

Context:

...one of the biggest things I'm wondering about that hasn't been addressed (so far as I can tell) is whether the in-game water will act a bit more like 'real' water, i.e. being a bit more forgiving than land in the event of a hard landing.

Anyone heard anything about this?

Not a peep so far. Don't know if it'll even be looked at. Shame really.. water landings are pretty much suicidal in the stock game.

I'd love to see this addressed as well.

Current Problems with Water:

>It's much less forgiving than "real-life" water. In KSP, a hard landing on land results in the destruction of a few parts... On water, however, the entire ship is often lost. Of course, it's exactly the opposite in real life.

>Many parts are almost ridiculously buoyant. Have you ever seen an I-beam or a solid metal plate float? Neither have I... except in KSP. The only things that reliably sink are asteroids. On a related note, air intakes are far, far too buoyant. After an airplane crashes, its air intakes are often bouncing for a long, long time. Oh, and if you time-warp up to 4x, you can sometimes get intakes to bounce 800-900m in the air.

I would also love a retexture at some point. The water currently isn't that pretty, and it appears to move back and forth linearly, which is a bit disorienting.

I don't think that KSP should be considered ready for 1.0 until its water is fixed. These problems are pretty serious, and they need to be addressed before the game is out of beta, in my opinion.

I'm very, very happy with the changes that SQUAD is going to make, and I'm very excited for 1.0. I just want to see this issue addressed in the best way possible.

Please let me know what you think, and voice your support if you think this needs changing too.

Best,

Upsilon

[EDIT: I forgot to mention that rocket engines shouldn't work underwater, anymore. The rest is still true ]

Edited February 17, 2015 by UpsilonAerospace

[Deadpangod3]

agreed 100%

[r4pt0r]

Also agreed. many a time I've lost science equipment that would have survived if I landed on land. I've since taken to removing data prior to landing, but the recovery monies are nice.

[Thomas988]

I join the petition. Plus, back in the day water used to induce the worst lag in the game, so bad in fact I even went into the configs to reduce the quality of water just so the lag would stop. Sure, this may not be the case anymore, but I definitely think there should be some changes, both aesthetically- and gameplay-wise.

[jman508]

if this is turning into a petition for a higher quality water effects in ksp without a mod I'm in it as well.

[PlonioFludrasco]

Yes, water shoud be overhauled.

[MartGonzo]

Agreed, both visually and the way craft behave landing in water really needs improvement.

[GusTurbo]

I agree 100%. The current water is far too deadly, and behaves very much unlike real water. Most parts are far too buoyant.

[HafCoJoe]

I agree too that the water should be less forgiving than hard landings.

As to buoyancy, if SQUAD where to change the buoyancy of parts in game, they would probably add pontoons or specifically buoyant parts at the same time. I'm all for it being realistic, but I don't think changing part buoyancy will come in 1.0. Maybe 1.01 though.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Avera9eJoe

[comham]

100% agree, the current water is horrible.

http://gaudinogames.com/sunday-experiment-buoyancy-and-seaplanes

other Physics Builder games have better water too.

[basic.syntax]

Water begs for more than a few tweaks, I bet the designers didn't have much thought for water, or they'd have given us wings (for water, lol.) It could be a good subject for KSP's second or third expansion pack: Ocean Exploration. Physics improvements (which should be rolled into the base game, not just for paid DLC) and Parts for surface and submarine craft.

[jake9039]

Agreed

I think they have a few more physics changes before 1.0 or to me it is only 0.27(or 0.91)

[John FX]

All has been said, All left for me to say is that I also agree.

[chaos_forge]

Agreed. I don't much care about graphics, but water landings are WAY too deadly currently.

[HafCoJoe]

Someone start a poll!

[Starwhip]

Bad water should go, indeed.

At least not destroy everything the moment it hits the water at anything above 5 m/s...

[klgraham1013]

Wholeheartedly agree with this thread.

[Whirligig Girl]

What kind of memory and/or performance drain could we expect from some kind of 3D water?

[Woopert]

I also support a water overhaul for KSP. I hope there's still way to make boats and ships, though.

Water begs for more than a few tweaks, I bet the designers didn't have much thought for water, or they'd have given us wings (for water, lol.) It could be a good subject for KSP's second or third expansion pack: Ocean Exploration. Physics improvements (which should be rolled into the base game, not just for paid DLC) and Parts for surface and submarine craft.

I, too, think an ocean exploration pack would be cool to. However, I am strongly against paid DLC's (if that is what you meant) and feel that anything that makes the game better should be free with the game. You pay for the game and its content, not expansions that should be there anyway. Like how the Asteroid Redirect Mission pack was made. That was perfect and how all DLC should be

Cheers

Edited February 16, 2015 by Woopert

[KrazyKrl]

Improved water Dynamics, an improvement pack in 4 parts:

First: Improved buoyancy and object/water impact mechanics.

The current "water" is a simple placeholder, I still don't get why a 1.0 release with placeholder water is still going through. Kerbin is, what, 60% water?

Second: Inclusion of hybrid Air/Water parts. Tweakables for current engines to work in an aquatic or semi-amphibious environment.

Imagine replacing IntakeAir with IntakeWater, and using a water adapted simple jet engine that uses IntakeWater and ElectricCharge to provide thrust.

"Wet" "Wet" Wings that carry fuel and are designed for water usage i.e. hydrofoils.

Also, the density of the fluids on the surface of the planet could support HEAVY loads.

Third: Undersea biomes(hydromes?), and possibly seeded RNG ground clutter related to biome; with separate experiments for each.

Not necessarily sea creatures, but possibly suspended trace elements. Along with sea currents, and assorted icebergs or object "junk".

Fourth: Undersea anomalies, and other reasons to make an interplanetary submersible a viable project for your space program.

Moving undersea Kraken. Using mapsat components in a cargo bay to keep them dry, and mapping the seafloor. Trace element extraction from the seawater itself. All could be yours, if the price is right.

Edited February 17, 2015 by KrazyKrl

[LABHOUSE]

I always have extra parachutes attached only on one side of a long payload/lander in case of water landing, then I can make it hand horizontal instead of vertical.

[NoMrBond]

Local shader based water would be cool

This one is being given away free (yes it's Unity) for example.

Using higher precision with water calculations improves the 'feel' (and practicality) when dealing with water (as evidenced with BB)

[Laie]

By all means, fix the deadly water. If everything just silently had it's impact rating doubled when coming in contact with water that would already help a big deal, but of course I'm hoping for a proper solution.

[DuoDex]

Want.

As with a lot of suggestions, implement sarbian's and/or Claw's fix for this.

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah I mean some really awesome things could be possible for under-sea exploration but Id be happy with non-instadeath landings that paved the way for future 1.1-1.3 submersible implementation.