Can we have a better water model for 1.0?

[SaturnV]

>Many parts are almost ridiculously buoyant. Have you ever seen an I-beam ... 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.

The rock density of Kerbin is ten times than that on Earth, so do the waters (maybe). Then it's ~10000kg/m^3

The I-beam is made of steel, judging from its size and weight. That is ~7850kg/m^3

Sure it can float.

[mattinoz]

I always thought the hardness of Kerbin's oceans was due to the lack of wind to make it choppy and lower the surface tension.

Edited February 17, 2015 by mattinoz

[zekes]

+1 this is important to me.

[andrew123]

Must have. My submarine shipyards are itching to make a proper submersible.

[Wallygator]

If this kind of water improvement allows me to construct the Flying Sub and texture it yellow, then I am totally in (Need.. Kerbal... Named... Nelson...)

Seriously - IF this water physics is fixed, it adds several new and interesting biome contexts to exploit by the Devs. You add a completely new dimension on Lathe and Eve for sure. Kerbin also for those players who choose to stay in the home SoI. I am assuming this fix to water is not just "softness" but a more functional buoyancy trait.

Its it ends up being only softness, then I'll like it.

If its softness and buoyancy, then I'll love it.

WARNING: neither of these have featured in any predictive dev discussions which i have seen so far regarding 1.0 - my best guess is that it might someday end up in 1.1+. If it were me, I would immediately address the softness issue in 1.0 and then follow-up at some point with a free "Aqua-pack Exploration DLC (named "KSP Floating Point Correction" - lol) which includes revised fluid dynamics (including thermal transfer), buoyancy control parts, water propulsion and new science gear/dynamics. Think of the EVA/IVA potential, just think about it! Recovering a big rock from the depths of Lathe might be just as difficult as an E class asteroid...

Edited February 17, 2015 by Wallygator

[Renegrade]

Totally agree.

Oh wait, I'm already in the OP as a quotation.

Totally agree TWICE then. Well, three times now

If this kind of water improvement allows me to construct the Flying Sub and texture it yellow, then I am totally in (Need.. Kerbal... Named... Nelson...)

Someone recently pointed out in the general forum that you can rename kerbals when they're on EVA.

Seriously - IF this water physics is fixed, it adds several new and interesting biome contexts to exploit by the Devs. You add a completely new dimension on Lathe and Eve for sure. Kerbin also for those players who choose to stay in the home SoI. I am assuming this fix to water is not just "softness" but a more functional buoyancy trait.

Sailing on Eve would be 'boss'.

[klgraham1013]

I very much disagree with waiting tell after 1.0 to fix the water. Think about it. What does a new player think when he imagines a pod splash down? ... I even wrote splash down with out thinking. A new player thinks a pod should land in water. It's a "safer" choice. Yet, in Kerbal, you're told it's safer to land on dirt. This isn't acceptable for the release version.

[Wallygator]

I very much disagree with waiting tell after 1.0 to fix the water. Think about it. What does a new player think when he imagines a pod splash down? ... I even wrote splash down with out thinking. A new player thinks a pod should land in water. It's a "safer" choice. Yet, in Kerbal, you're told it's safer to land on dirt. This isn't acceptable for the release version.

Yes - fix the softness (make it more splashy - Like that word better!) for 1.0 for sure - no debate. If they need from time for added fluid dynamic fixes then it would be in 1.0+ probably.

[PikachuNL]

Yes please, the current water behaves like Silly Putty, it's rock hard on high impact, and soft'ish at low speeds. Also, from a high altitude it looks a bit, well, blocky...

[BagelRabbit]

I don't know about having a submarine expansion pack (this is, after all, Kerbal Space Program), but I agree with a lot of the statements that have been made here.

I would love to have a gameplay element that if a reusable rocket lacks buoyancy, it could sink and become un-recoverable. You could still EVA the Kerbal and get him out safely, but the remainder of the ship (and all of the Science and funds that went into it) would sink to the bottom of the ocean and become a ghostly wreck, a la Gus Grissom and the Liberty Bell 7. I would also love to have a single 'airbag' part that provides strong positive buoyancy when inflated, thus allowing dense rocket bits to still float, if you wanted them to. This could allow for "submarine-like" undersea rovers that could be recovered by inflating the airbags; perhaps these craft could even lift sunken spacecraft back to the surface, if they had an Advanced Grabbing unit on there.

Oh, and I added to the OP that rocket and jet engines shouldn't work underwater. I hadn't added that yet, and it's pretty obvious that they shouldn't.

[Wallygator]

If there is planet out in the Kerbal system that has a liquid ocean (hmmm... let me think...) then it would be likely that (our) Kerbin scientists would devise a contraption that would float and/or sink into this ocean to get science points - Let them call it what they want, but it would require proper fluid dynamics to work once deployed in the game.

And it would be nice if it didn't break up when splashing down softly.

Plus, "space" is really just the thing that connects a bunch of rocks which have water and stuff on them.

[dryer_lint]

The appearance is fine, but physics needs a ton of improvement. Yes.

[LABHOUSE]

Totally agree.

Oh wait, I'm already in the OP as a quotation.

Totally agree TWICE then. Well, three times now

Someone recently pointed out in the general forum that you can rename kerbals when they're on EVA.

Sailing on Eve would be 'boss'.

Eve submarine that takes out of the water, and becomes a plane (was plane shape already) then when wings become useless they get dropped (rocket), and some time after loosing wings, you stage and soon stage again so you can get into orbit and return to kerbin.

[Pthigrivi]

Nasa has some really cool plans at the moment for under-sea exploration of both Europa and Titan. There are plenty of things Id like to see first, (life support, more interesting experiments and planet surfaces) but eventually being able to recreate these kinds of missions would be killer.

[LABHOUSE]

Maybe kerbal universe water all has cornstarch in it (a LOT of cornstarch).

[SorryDave]

Better water model? I never really thought about it. I always land at Kerbin in water because it is at sea level and just a little NASA.

I guess I would support a better water model, but after better rover physics.

[Frozen_Heart]

I'd love overhauled water. I don't consider it a priority though.

If a water overhaul and boat / sub parts came later on though I definitely would not be complaining.

[Bill Phil]

I'd love overhauled water. I don't consider it a priority though.

If a water overhaul and boat / sub parts came later on though I definitely would not be complaining.

Maybe SpaceX's Barge could inspire Squad to do something...

[Azimech]

Agreed! This isn't water.

And I'd like something like a virtual, invisible coating which can be added in the SPH, for boat builders. If damage occurs, then water will start coming in and buoyancy decreases. Also, pressure at depth. Would create a new challenge and a whole new dimension to KSP: succesful submarines.

[BagelRabbit]

It sounds as if the vast majority of people here want to see water overhauled. I'm wondering if there's any way that I could let SQUAD know about this...?

I'm worried, because while there are loads of great suggestions over here, few of them are actually implemented. This is personally something that I really want to see happen, though.

[Azimech]

Uhm ... start a topic, assemble a list of users and start a poll, then send a private message to a moderator or someone else with the topic link, with the request to get a response from the devs themselves?

Or ... the aggressive way: Every user who wants this start a new topic, all with the identical topic title. It will get the attention of moderators, a lock on the topic and maybe even a ban. For the loose cannons out there :-P

[Red Iron Crown]

Uhm ... start a topic, assemble a list of users and start a poll, then send a private message to a moderator or someone else with the topic link, with the request to get a response from the devs themselves?

Or ... the aggressive way: Every user who wants this start a new topic, all with the identical topic title. It will get the attention of moderators, a lock on the topic and maybe even a ban. For the loose cannons out there :-P

Let's not do either of those, thank you.

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah don't worry guys, the devs do read these forums and take note. Im sure they're aware of the water issue and its somewhere in the middle of a very longg list of things they have planned. All in good time.