Should KSP have a Delta-V readout?

[NERVAfan]

Once maneuver nodes were added showing delta-V costs for a burn, all justifications for not giving us dV numbers evaporated for me. How is a player supposed to know if the burn can be completed or not? Why must we resort to mods or tedious external tools to get basic rocket specs?

Trial and error is fine at first when you're trying to learn how to get to orbit or one of Kerbin's moons, but an interplanetary mission is another story.

Exactly! It's silly to have the delta-v for the maneuver node but not for the rocket...

[DisarmingBaton5]

I do not think it should. The rocket equation is always there for you, and if you don't want to deal with that, use a mod (Mechjeb, KER, RPM, etc.)

[Superfluous J]

I do not think it should. The rocket equation is always there for you, and if you don't want to deal with that, use a mod (Mechjeb, KER, RPM, etc.)

As has been said many times throughout many of these discussions, the existence of a mod to do something that people think should be in the game is not a reason to not put that thing in the game. It's merely an example of how and why Squad should do it.

[Red Iron Crown]

As has been said many times throughout many of these discussions, the existence of a mod to do something that people think should be in the game is not a reason to not put that thing in the game. It's merely an example of how and why Squad should do it.

I dunno, I think it's valid to think that something is better left to mods. I feel that way about the historical spacecraft mods.

[RocketPilot573]

I don't really want a Delta-V re-out, as it would kinda ruin the "I don't really know if this will work or not" mechanic of KSP. What I'm saying is that that uncertainty seems to be fun for many players. But for more advanced players (who like planning out things), what we do need is a mass and dry mass indicator in the VAB, then we could use that equation to find delta-V ourselves (rather than tediously counting the mass of EVERY part)..

[HeadHunter67]

I dunno, I think it's valid to think that something is better left to mods. I feel that way about the historical spacecraft mods.

There are several features that have been added because they were initially mods. A popular mod is a sign that players want that sort of gameplay, and a smart developer knows that incorporating features that many want, is a way to make a more successful product.

You always have the option not to use the feature if you feel strongly about it.

I'm just gonna say this: if I wanted to break out calculators and start writing down numbers and equations, I would go back to school.

Precisely. And if I wanted a game that was going to be like math homework, I'd play EVE Online. I play for fun - I'm not the FIDO with the slide rule, I'm the Flight Director. Anyone who thinks I should just bust out Tsiolkovsky's Equation every time I want my craft's total or current Delta-V is hereby invited to stop using maneuver nodes, too.

Edited April 25, 2014 by HeadHunter67

[Sophistry]

I don't really want a Delta-V re-out, as it would kinda ruin the "I don't really know if this will work or not" mechanic of KSP. What I'm saying is that that uncertainty seems to be fun for many players. But for more advanced players (who like planning out things), what we do need is a mass and dry mass indicator in the VAB, then we could use that equation to find delta-V ourselves (rather than tediously counting the mass of EVERY part)..

+1 to this really. Although I found out a few hours ago, rocketpilot, that if you "launch" the craft (place it on the launch pad) and then go to the map screen and click the 'i' screen for your craft, it'll tell you the full weight., and so calculating the dry mass is a lot easier. Although yes, dry and full mass DEFINITELY needs to be displayed in the VAB.

Although I voted "yes" to the poll, I'd prefer it if the game just included the tools to make calculating Dv ourselves a lot simpler, like for instance giving dry/full mass. I also think that giving the masses would be a neater UI choice, and would be less terrifying to new players by much less explanation ("WHAT'S THAT TRIANGLE? WHY IS IT NEXT TO A V? *sobbing noises*)

[boxman]

I would not mind it as long as it can be switched off or even better is off by default.

I think if they want to make the game more approachable to new players though it would be more important to add a real altimeter, so that you can see the actual distance from surface without using IVA or a mod. I have seen loads of new players being confused by this. But again all such features should be customizable so that each player can decide if they want to use it or not.

I think such small changes would make more of a difference new player than the current dumbing down they have done with ion engines and those massless parts that ruins the immersion for us who actually care about realism.

[r4pt0r]

i play all stock and have never done any caluclations. theres no need to. 3nukes, 3 of the thin 360 tanks, and an orange tank can get a medium lander anywhere and back.

[Superfluous J]

I would not mind it as long as it can be switched off or even better is off by default.

I think if they want to make the game more approachable to new players though it would be more important to add a real altimeter, so that you can see the actual distance from surface without using IVA or a mod.

It's getting off the topic of the thread, but I agree. Be like the navball velocity box. Click it and you're in "sea level" mode, click it again and you're in "radar altitude" mode. Done in one.

[-Velocity-]

Not just delta-V, I absolutely require a TWR and vessel mass calculations while building a rocket. It's ridiculous not to have these vital numbers available to me. IMO- stock + mechjeb = still stock. I find the VAB and SPH nearly "unplayable" without the vital vessel statistics. If I don't have the delta-V available to me, or Mechjeb malfunctions, I have to break out a calculator and/or Excel and run the rocket equation anyway. Calculators and excel spreadsheets = not fun.

[Liowen]

Not just delta-V, I absolutely require a TWR and vessel mass calculations while building a rocket. It's ridiculous not to have these vital numbers available to me. IMO- stock + mechjeb = still stock. I find the VAB and SPH nearly "unplayable" without the vital vessel statistics. If I don't have the delta-V available to me, or Mechjeb malfunctions, I have to break out a calculator and/or Excel and run the rocket equation anyway. Calculators and excel spreadsheets = not fun.

Hmm I do not use spread sheets or mechjeb to tell me if a craft is going to work, and oddly I have fun doing this.....I must be doing something wrong LOL. Honestly I do not care either way to be completely honest, just put it in and off by default. This way you choose to use it or not.

[robopilot99]

This is one thing that doesn't make a lot of sense. An overwhelming majority is obviously in favor of delta-v readouts. Maybe squad will compromise and add them as an unlockable in the tech tree. By the time you go interplanetary you really need them.

[Beowolf]

Y E S !

I went looking for a mod to give me dV and TWR literally after my very first flight in KSP. I was actually angry and feeling I'd wasted my $18 on false advertising. This was no space simulator!

If you're playing KSP without knowing those figures, you're playing an arcade game rather than a space sim. NTTAWWT, obviously. Lotsa people like arcade games, including me. But what I want from KSP is a sim.

Thank you so very much, modders! Remember to contribute, people. I've given "matching funds" of $18 to several different modders without whom I'd no longer be playing.

[cantab]

I don't think KSP's meant to be a sim. The basic physics is realistic (with the current exception of the aerodynamics), but it's got loads of aspects where realism has been compromised for gameplay, from the overpowered reaction wheels to the unlimited engine ignitions to the small-scale solar system.

[m4v]

Why polls always have absolute choices? where's the "I don't care" option?.

[Beowolf]

Sure, cantab, it's meant to be a sandbox with many different ways to play. The physics isn't that realistic either, being only two-body calculations. I wanted to put stations at some Lagrange points, but those don't exist without at least three-body physics.

Perhaps oddly, those things you mention really didn't bother me like the lack of info did. I figure Kerbin's really in a different universe with slightly different rules. Although I do avoid engine restarts except in certain engines designed for deep space use, and sometimes play without being able to throttle below 70%.

I like the overpowered reaction wheels, though. I think KSP actually does those right, and it's our universe that's broken.

[Aragosnat]

Kind of mixed feelings. While I can eye ball it. I can still end up with a craft that runs out of fuel where I have to get out and push for return from Mün or Minmus. Having Delta-V avaliable/left still does not mean that a person would not waste fuel getting into orbit or for that matter getting to one of Kerbin's moons with enough fuel to return from landing if they don't create craters.

But, do agree it should be made avaliable from the tech tree. How far in for a decent balance I cannot say. From a personal perspective. If you can make it into orbit repeatidly. Then you should have a chance to know about Delta-V. Just as long as it optional part to add as well as require electricity to aquire the information. Kind of like the other science bitz where you have to toggle to see the raw data that does not stay up all the time unless power is being supplied constently.

[HeadHunter67]

Why polls always have absolute choices? where's the "I don't care" option?.

It's called "Don't vote".

You're not the sort who spends time and money to call a number to vote "No opinion"... are you?

[xrayfishx]

If it will be included, it should be possible to turn it off. It's not that I don't want it. It's that it will never give as much information as KER so that's what I'll continue using, but I don't want two separate dV indicators. However, if dV is implemented, along with better aerodynamics and re-entry heat, then maybe I could one day play stock again. As it is, I just see no other way than 70 mods to make it interesting for me (yes, 70 mods, not even exaggerating).

[Brotoro]

I would like the option to turn on all sorts of data readouts.

Have them off by default so as not to scare the newbies or annoy those who don't want them. But have an option to turn them on for those who want them. Giving the user the choice is a great thing.

I'd like the user to be able to determine which data readouts are included:

Vehicle Delta-V

TWR

Radar altitude

Apoapsis

Periapsis

Time to apoapsis

Time to periapsis

Latitude

Longitude

Biome

...all sorts of stuff. I love data.

[UmbralRaptor]

Yes, if only to solve that annoyance of having to reach for a calculator. Though there is the possibility that what I've done in Excel is far more in depth than what Squad would implement...

[Zylark]

I'd say yes. I like knowing how much more juice I got left before I embark on some maneuver. Not that, I do tend to over-engineer my crafts, and I do use Mech-Jeb for all the data it gives (and a fair bit of the automation as well) - so it's not a big deal for me. But I do feel such essential information should be available as default in a complex game like this.

[Tarmenius]

I was torn about this issue at first, but after some thought, I have to say that including critical data readouts as an option which players can enable or disable at will is not only a good idea, but one that probably shouldn't even be debated. It's almost always good game design to give players as many options as possible so that each individual can tailor the game to their own preferences. But keeping something from players who want it will have one of three possible effects: Either the player has to download and install the desired functionality from a third party (which, granted, is both relatively safe and easy with KSP), they calculate it by hand, or they do without. None of those are qualities of good game design.

As has been mentioned already, "doing without" is usually no major issue for Kerbin SOI missions, but becomes a serious one when mission complexity increases. I don't do many Jool missions myself for exactly that reason. Just getting there takes a couple hours of real-life time to fly (three-and-a-half hours was my last one-way time, including trial-and-error aerobraking attempts) and I'd rather not have to wait until after I've spent those hours to discover that I hadn't packed enough fuel. I feel like I miss out on some of the game's content because of the real-life time costs involved with the trial-and-error method.

Calculating things by hand is not typically considered engaging gameplay, and those who do enjoy it for its own sake would probably do it regardless of whether the game offered them the information already.

Finally, mods are good for content that the developers either can't get to because of time constraints (or haven't gotten to yet), or that lies beyond the scope of the game itself. Critical data readouts don't really fall within either category, so there seems to be no good reason to delegate that functionality to the modding community. I don't have anything against mods (I actually installed MechJeb after that Jool mission to see if I could make it back), but every time I get MechJeb or Kerbal Engineer to allow mission planning, I wish I wouldn't have to. Plus, having one of their instruments on my craft slows the game down noticeably for me. If it were stock, I imagine the implementation would run more smoothly.

In the end, having it be an option in a menu seems like a no-loss decision.

As a side note, the argument that having the data would intimidate new players or confuse them is, I think, under-estimating their intelligence.

[Nao]

I would like the option to turn on all sorts of data readouts.

Have them off by default so as not to scare the newbies or annoy those who don't want them. But have an option to turn them on for those who want them. Giving the user the choice is a great thing.

I'd like the user to be able to determine which data readouts are included:

Vehicle Delta-V

TWR

Radar altitude

Apoapsis

Periapsis

Time to apoapsis

Time to periapsis

Latitude

Longitude

Biome

...all sorts of stuff. I love data.

Agreed! I love data too. And having that in the game would allow to finally drop the stupid MechJeb

As an implementation idea we could have these data readouts available only when there are certain parts present, or just as selectable upgrades to existing parts (pods).

That way we would have the vanilla no-data option, and it would make an interesting twist on progress though research tree. I would love to reaserch and add parts like "radar altimeters" "terminal velocity calculators" "auto stage-ers" and such.