How realistic do you want KSP to be?

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

Recently Squad made the decision to add realistic aerodynamics and re-entry heat to the game, which in my opinion, is a step in the right direction. There's been some backlash from the community, but nothing comparable to the time they said more advanced kerbals could actually effect your ships stats, and it's obvious Squad is moving ahead as planned. What is the rest of the communities opinion on this, and the topic of realism in the game as a whole? it's obvious that we're never getting anything game changing, like full scale planets, but how do you feel about smaller things like realistic fuels, or the new realistic aerodynamics? After all, this is a game that involves semi realistic (inb4 not n-body) orbital mechanics, and rocket design, it's already very realistic for what it is.

[Bill Phil]

It should be as realistic as it needs it to be.

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

It should be as realistic as it needs it to be.

What do you mean by that?

[r4pt0r]

for being a space sim, its important to have pretty accurate orbital physics, aerodynamics and such. Sub-systems such as electricity and fuel can remain simplified for the sake of gameplay.

I dont want to run wires through the craft to power lights. I dont want to have to pipe monoprop to each rcs port. I dont need dozens of fuel types when "fuel" and "oxidizer" work fine. things can be simple to keep gameplay fun.

Edited February 19, 2015 by r4pt0r

[Bill Phil]

What do you mean by that?

It means what it means...

[r4pt0r]

It means what it means...

bruh. what? this poll has varying levels of realism as options, so explaining your opinion would be cool.

[theend3r]

The more realistic, the better in my opinion, but note that using the fuels we use or having the solar system we have <> realistic. Kerbal fuel is as realistic as any other (except when nuclear propulsion uses oxidizer). The aero, water, joints and stress, exhaust damage, overheating... etc. should all be as realistic as possible. I'd also love to see some kind of weather system added (yes, I know there is a mod for it).

The problem is that it's quite diffucult to make things work in 100% realistic environment if you don't have procedural parts. E.g. procedural wings make FAR much easier/better.

[Masochist]

I prefer realism because to me realism is what makes a simulation worth playing...clearly KSP is a "soft" simulation and it will be in a good spot after adding better aerodynamics and reentry mechanics. That said I will still probably keep using more advanced/realistic models such as FAR and RealChutes

[Master Tao]

This development discussion has been moved to Suggestions & Development Discussion.

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

This development discussion has been moved to Suggestions & Development Discussion.

I don't think this is really relevant to the games development, it's more about the communities opinion on realism. I'd appreciate if it was moved back.

[regex]

So, /vg/kspg, are we living up to your expectations?

[keeper]

I wasn't expecting squad to do that, and i was avoiding those mods that affected that stuff in terms of aerodynamics or physics alerting but if that was the plan then why not!

It would be nice to see some procedural wings and more customisables on the right click menus, I wouldn;t mind some more creative engines, - tbh wouldn't mind more of everything, wheels, landing gears, structurals, adapters, engines, sciency gizmos, space stationy things right click customisables, length, height, etc etc

I know mods mods its all good.

ACTUALLY re-entry heat. In terms of realism, every land i have ever done will be rendered invalid, I rather enjoy believing the faster and more red glowy stuff comes off the ship and the harder the aerobreak and the higher the G force the more fun it will be. So long as they land right? Dont they make their stuff (everything except solar panels) out of really solid stuff? Least thats what I thought

[regex]

Before KSP becomes more realistic it needs to not have floating point errors.

[klgraham1013]

It should be as realistic as it needs it to be.

This is the perfect answer.

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

Before KSP becomes more realistic it needs to not have floating point errors.

Unity not us.

[klgraham1013]

for being a space sim, its important to have pretty accurate orbital physics, aerodynamics and such. Sub-systems such as electricity and fuel can remain simplified for the sake of gameplay.

I dont want to run wires through the craft to power lights. I dont want to have to pipe monoprop to each rcs port. I dont need dozens of fuel types when "fuel" and "oxidizer" work fine. things can be simple to keep gameplay fun.

Oh, man. Now I kind of want FTL2 to have Sim City like customization. I know. Some of us are weird and like that kind of minutia.

[regex]

Unity not us.

And? Still doesn't change the fact that it needs to not have floating point errors.

[r4pt0r]

Oh, man. Now I kind of want FTL2 to have Sim City like customization. I know. Some of us are weird and like that kind of minutia.

oh thats fine, this thread is all about opinions. Im not that way for KSP, but I micromanage the hell out of my country when i play total war.

[klgraham1013]

I suppose I should actually answer the question. I chose "Somewhat realistic, re-entry heat, actual aerodynamics", but am actually somewhere berween "Somewhat realistic, re-entry heat, actual aerodynamics" and "Very realistic, full scale planets, realistic fuels"

[Bill Phil]

bruh. what? this poll has varying levels of realism as options, so explaining your opinion would be cool.

The game has a definition. It's a type of game with a plan set out by the devs. The devs then make the game. It's as realistic as it needs to be. The level of realism is determined by what the plan is, that and the end product.

[Pthigrivi]

I like the silliness. I also like real aerodynamics. This is a game where little green frog-men learn orbital mechanics. The blend is fantastic.

[r4pt0r]

The game has a definition. It's a type of game with a plan set out by the devs. The devs then make the game. It's as realistic as it needs to be. The level of realism is determined by what the plan is, that and the end product.

you don't wish for the better aerodynamics?

[regex]

The game has a definition. It's a type of game with a plan set out by the devs. The devs then make the game. It's as realistic as it needs to be. The level of realism is determined by what the plan is, that and the end product.

implying the devs ever had a real plan to begin with

Good one, I laughed too.

[Bill Phil]

you don't wish for the better aerodynamics?

That's not what I'm saying...

Im saying it should be as realistic as the plan dictates. Obviously they're making aero now, and so the game is getting more realistic.

- - - Updated - - -

implying the devs ever had a real plan to begin with

Good one, I laughed too.

Well, if you don't plan a big project than you're not likely to succeed...

They have said they have a plan. It's why they're releasing 1.0 as 1.0...

[r4pt0r]

They have said they have a plan. It's why they're releasing 1.0 as 1.0...

actually, they are releasing .91 under the pseudonym 1.0