HoloDeck Simulation for rockets landers and buggies

[keahi]

Its often hard to know exactly how much fuel your lander needs to do certain things without trying it,, and if you try it on kerbin the results might not right due to gravity air ,etc..

if your like me and you love monitoring your deltaV required per stage and know the required deltaV to get into orbit,, return from mun etc,, you you may be ok,, but for a lot of less mathmatically inclined players(most of them)

its usually a more trial and error approach. so making a good and efficient lander can be tedious with an hour of gameplay before you can test it and you may need to test it many many times.

Enter the holodeck.

extra button next to launch puts you in a selectable environment, kerbin, mun, eve, zeroG, etc, any height you want.

No science points available here, not on the real map,, but in a virtual detail less "room" (like a holodeck), with blue lines so you know its the kerbals best approximation as far as they know

post processing video effects could make it look like blueprints or somthing.

Science points could be spent of enhancing the accuracy of your "simulator"

key point here is to allow non hardcore players a QUICK and EASY way to verify a design of part of there rocket,, eg a lander,, a rover, the return rocket.. etc..

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

You can simply calculate how much DV is there in your craft, you can count the requiements for a landing or a burn there, this is how it's done in real life. In ksp, you could count, but rather players just go there, and if their lander is not enough good, they crash and make a rescure mission using the experiences, as a more 'kerbal' solution. At interplanerary missions, it is a bit harder, but you can still experiment at Kerbin and Mün in that case. And finally, you just always try to have as much fuel as possible, if your lander has more fuel in it than needed, no problem.

The mentioned feature could be really good, blowing up things and killing kerbals witouth any serious result, but maybe the work what it would need would help the game become better at other parts. And yes, there is still lots of problems around the game that is more important than this. The planets are being explored by you first, so how we would know how they look like? But still, it sounds good, altough somehow it is not fitting the game. And it's a simulation in a simulation. That's just weird, right?

[Pthigrivi]

A simulation in a simulation in a simulation?

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

A simulation in a simulation in a simulation?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/comic-riffs/insheeption.jpg

XD Hahahahaha

[xrayfishx]

This has been suggested before, as a simulator. I would not agree with spending science points on it, I would prefer having it become more accurate as you do experiments near and on the planet. This would also include scanning the surface from orbit to make topographical maps and for more precise landscape and colored surface you'd have to take pictures. This would make all your science actually meaningful. Right now it's quite meaningless, you just get some points and get parts in return. I would prefer being able to do something useful with it, too. This would give us a good reason not to finish the tree from Mun science, it would give us a reason to explore beyond that. However I don't think it's going to happen. Maybe a mod will eventually do it, but I would not count on it.

[LethalDose]

IMO "the Holodeck" is already in the game: Its called "sandbox mode"

[keahi]

yes you "could" just calculate the delta V,, but as i mentioned not everyone does that, and before someone explains how to do it, yes i do calculate my delta V but im thinking about players who dont want to/cant.

yes its a simulation in a simulation get over it. ( or rather its just a simulation(ksp) with a smaller map)

I take your point about exploring the planets before you get there and that is why i suggested it be in a detail less environment. As xrayfishx mentioned your science that you gather improves your simulation,, Eg after going in orbit you may know the rough gravity and colour,

after taking a gravioli reading you know the gravity to more detail, after landing you know the terrain type. and it would never look like the real thing it could all me coloured blue with grid lines on it to make it look like a scematic..

yes there are more important things to do i did not suggest this is top priority,, but rather a nice idea for "some point".

[keahi]

this image shows how you could test your rover or lander before you get there,

[dryer_lint]

This would be going a bit too far, we want KSP to be realistic, but they can't simulate every part of a real space program... it would probably get overwhelming for new players to have a ton of buttons and/or buildings. IMO it's just not worth the development time, since this would be pretty hard to implement.

Also, wouldn't it kind of ruin the feeling of KSP? You know, sending your Kerbals to a faraway planet, and if it doesn't work, send a rescue mission, improvise with the jetpack, or leave them there?

[Duxwing]

@Nikola Why would it ruin the feeling of KSP? A tab in the R&D complex for testing craft at arbitrary gravity would be very helpful.

-Duxwing

[keahi]

Nikola this would really not be to hard to develop at all in relation to any other feature,

New button or tab.

Load very small map(box)

things like gravity surface etc are optional/controllable

only way out is to revert.

version 1 done.

[pololop]

I think it could be a useful thing. Dont see how a rocket sim could be justified as realistic but a rover or lander? Why not. The Payload Experiment hangar could be a big hangar where you could test the lander. The Gravity OBVIOUSLY could NOT be changed! but a series of cables and ropes could simulate it ;D simple to animate, easy to do. The size of the Hangar could be progresive in the science tree? What do You think?