• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ArgenTum

  1. That's the problem - I already KNOW the correct delta-v's with or without mods. I can't just delete them from my memory. Think again - why would I want to replay the career if I knew every missing figure I am obliged to 'discover'?

    Well, no, for you I guess it wouldn't make much sense. On the other hand, why would you (re)play career mode anyway?

    But I feel like I'm not very successful in explaining what I want, my "vision" for the feature I suggest. I'm not really talking about delta-v (even though it would be a nice side-effect of what I propose.)

    Lets see if I can explain it in another way...

    Say I start a whole new career, and find a new, mysterious building. Upon entering that building, it says "Kerbal database". And its empty. Completely empty, a tabula rasa, except for a small miniature of Kerbin, with the text next to it: "Kerbin. Our home in space." Nothing else. I know nothing of the KSP universe. In the observatory I can only see Kerbin, no moons, no other planets. Then you start launching your first vessels, taking your first soil sample, and doing your first atmospheric reading on Kerbin (on the surface). Then, automatically, the database updates, saying "Kerbin. Soil samples suggests that Kerbin consists of... er... soil. First analysis of the atmosphere suggest it consists of oxygen, nitrogen and small traces of carbondioxide." And then you take another atmospheric reading, while flying perhaps, and in a couple of other biomes. And then it (automatically) updates to: "Kerbin. Soil samples suggests that Kerbin consists of... er... soil. Further analysis of the atmosphere confirms it consists of 21% oxygen, 78% nitrogen and 0,65% carbondioxide."

    Then I upgrade the observatory, suddenly finding Mun, Minmus, Eve and Duna. The database updates: "Mun. A small moon", "Eve. A far away planet" etc. Then, when landing on mun, doing a seismographic analysis and a surface sample, it says: "Mun. Surface samples suggests it consists of moon dust, some of it seems to be the result of tectonic movement. According to the first seismographic analysis Mun has no tectonic movement." And I think, that's strange. But after doing some more analysis of both surface samples and seismographic analysis in different biomes, it would update (for example after obtaining science from 70% of the biomes). "Mun. Further studies of surface samples confirms that Mun have had tectonic movement, forming the moon dust. The dust consists of 12% water, which would give 125 litres of O2/hour and 125 litres of H2/hour if resource harvested. Even though early seismographic experiment suggested that Mun does not have any tectonic movement, further studies have shown that the moon had some tectonic movement up to 1 million years ago."

    The point being, that you start with an empty database, which slowly fills while exploring/playing the game. (The delta-v or resource harvest numbers in the example(s) above wouldn't be the point of it, more like a nice side-effect.) I can understand if some wouldn't find this interesting, but for me (being a gamer more than a "simulator/emulator", and a completionist) I would really think this would add to the KSP experience. It would feel more real. After all, space exploration (for humans, IRL) is about learning things about our solar system. This suggested feature would bring that basic "exploration"-feeling into KSP, I believe. I start the game knowing nothing, and then I start learning. And one reading on Pol won't be enough to learn all there is about it (even though the science points is more than enough to buy all science tech), encouraging repeated exploration of the same celestial body and giving a (in-game) point to continuous exploration, making it fun to keep exploring and keep doing science even mid-late game, long after the entire tech-tree is bought. That is my "vision". I personally think such a database would be really fun!

    Does anyone understand what I mean at least? (Even though you may or may not agree.)

    Speaking of mods. If someone knows of a mod that does exactly this, please point me to it!!!! :-D

    edit: Changed request to suggest.

    edit2: added some text about mid-late game effects.

  2. If you're dead set about NOT using mods then it's probably better and simpler to use a notepad (a paper one) and a pencil. If you are open for some mods then all your current needs can be satisfied right now.

    As for the reference information after months of playing I found out that I simply remember the most part of the delta-V map, and atmosphere heights. Also I can probably assess the total amount of delta-V of the craft by simply looking at it and 'safe-guess' the periapsis height needed for aerobrake.

    Also, I don't think this game requires a winning condition.

    Well, I do use mods (mostly MechJeb), but the way I see it is that there are two sides of KSP. One is the sandbox one, the simulation/emulation of a space program. I think most users here, and I would guess you too, consider KSP to be the simulation/emulation one.

    The game one, which I think is the one Sqaud is aiming for, is the career mode. A game, to be played, with different ways to "victory". For the simulation/emulation part, I agree that mods can satisfy my every need. But in career mode, the game mod, MechJeb/mods is cheating in my opinion. (In the sense that Squad has constructed and balanced a game to be played, saying that autopilot will not be a part of it.) In that regard, I would very much lika a feature to help me build rockets later in game, when the number of stages and the "mission plan" can get complicated. But more important, I want the game to give me a bigger incentive to keep exploring after the first missions (ie after landing on the mun a couple of times and landed on Duna and Eve at least once.) For me, starting with a blank wiki of a universe and then slowly fill it with interesting facts about the different planets and moons (maybe you shouldn't even know about all of them until you upgrade your facility), would make for a much more fun game (but not necessarily a more fun simulation/emulation.)

    - - - Updated - - -

    I agree. My point is that at the beginning of the game you wouldn't be able to use those tools, since you wouldn't know the correct delta-v's. Only by exploring (and finding out about a planets gravity, its atmospheric composition, atmospheric thickness/pressure etc) would you eventually be able to (accurately) plan a mission.

  3. Hi all! After posting my first post a couple of days back, I've decided to share an idea I've been thinking about/wishing for a long time. Sorry if something similar been suggested before, I have no possibility to search through so many, many threads.

    My suggestion is to integrate a kind of wiki into KSP (I'm thinking only in career mode). I will start with some background:

    When playing 0.90 on hard, I have discovered that it is very difficult to land on, for example, Eve. First I have to design a rocket to land on Eve, then design a rocket to transfer to Eve and then a rocket to take the other rockets to orbit. All these stages without knowing the delta-v (Sure, I could calculate delta-v for each stage, but without "cheating" and looking at KSP wiki, I wouldn't no how much delta-v I needed.) Now, with multiple saves I could go back and change the construction when learning that I couldn't make the transfer to Eve. But without saves, I could lose a few hundred thousands (with expensive science modules) in the launch, possibly going bankrupt. (The aerobraking around Eve is even more difficult without the option to fix periapsis, save, aerobrake, load, change periapsis, aerobrake again with better results.)

    Now, my suggestion is like following: Integrate a wiki into KSP (building on the science summary thats already there perhaps?) If I send out a probe to EVE, it could show in the wiki when clicking on Kerbin: "Reached orbit using 4 800 delta-v." Then when transferring to Eve it would say when clicking on Eve: "Burning 800 delta-v was not enough for reaching Eve SOI". Or, when reaching Eve, it could say "Burning 1346 delta-v was enough to reach Eve SOI". And then, when trying to aerobrake, it could say: "Aiming for a periapsis of 30 km over Eve at a orbital speed of 4500 m/s was not enough to acheive orbit around Eve." Then, when you finally launch your manned craft, you know the delta-v needed for orbit around Kerbin, know whats needed for transfer and can at least guess what would be needed to successfully aerobrake around Eve. (The point beeing that if you keep sending out small, unmanned probes, you finally get a good estimate how much delta-v is needed, or which periapsis to aim for with which speed to aerobrake properly.)

    If you were trying to land on Mun, the wiki could say: "Burned 450 delta-v - crashed into the surface." , "Burned 650 delta-v - crashed into the surface.", "burned 950 delta-v, landed safely." Thus you know that you need >650 and <950 to land. Also, after you invent the accelerometer, you could accurately measure the needed delta-v, making the wiki say "after measuring at 5 different sites of the Mun, you can conclude that >825 (or whatever the true delta-v requirement may be) m/s delta-v is needed to reach sea-level safely."

    Now, why do I like this idea?

    1. It would add to the immersion, not to have to go to an external wiki to find stuff I shouldn't really know. If I have never done tests on Eve or the Mun, how could I possibly know the delta-v needed to land or aerobrake. (Thats why I consider looking in an external wiki "cheating".)

    2. It would make unmanned, small, cheap probes much, much more meaningfull.

    3. It would open up a possiblity to win the game. If you successesfully fill out all the blanks in the wiki (there are also atmospheric composition, how do you know Laythes atmosphere contains oxygen if you don't measure it? And then you could measure to what percentage are there oxygen on Laythe, ie how much effect would I get from my jets?) (and maybe easter eggs could list in the wiki, and weather, and possibly many other interesting facts about the planets). Well, got off track. If you could fill out all the blanks, knowing all there is about the KSP universe, it should register as "game completed" and you would win.

    4. There wouldn't be a point not to show TWR and delta-v when constructing a rocket (after a few upgrades of course), making the game more fun in later stages, since the trick would be to find the correct delta-v needed to reach, for example, Jool, not randomly construct expensiv rockets without nowing what you're doing (or having to constantly check the wiki for correct delta-v.)

    5. It would make scientific experiments even more important (why crash a probe 10 times into Mun to find the correct delta-v, when you can just measure it?)

    6. It would add a (much) bigger purpose to mid-late game. As the game stands now, I would say it is only really fun (as a game) the first perhaps 30-40 flights in career mode (after that it is more fun from a "sandbox" point of view). After 30-40 flights it kinda gets pointless, having most of the science you need and enough money as not to worry too much. My suggestion would give you a reason to continue exploring for a long, long time (I just want to find the correct atmospheric composition of Duna to be able to calculate the best aerobraking periapsis before I quit...)

    Ok, long (too long?) post. Reactions?

  4. I registered just to say this:

    In my opinion, what differs good games from really good games nowadays is well... flair I guess. A story. Immersion. And that's whats lacking before 1.0 in my opinion.

    For example, I love X-COM (the originals of course, not the "bland" re-imagining). Trying to find a modern variant I tried Xenonauts. The game-play in Xenonauts is really good. But it lacks "it". For example, when winning (saving the entire world from an alien invasion), you get a (still) screen saying: "You won." Even the original X-COM (from the 90s) had more of a beginning and an end.

    That's a lesson I would like KSP to learn. When sandbox was all there was I was fine playing for hours on end just to create one mega-ship to tour all the planets (I didn't complete it...) But now, I have start playing career mode on hard. And boy, is it hard. The slightest mistake and game over. (I love it, although I would like a couple of features to help out.) But now, playing career, I really miss greater immersion. KSP already has real flair, but I think KSP would truly lift off (pun intented) with a STORY. The team has already made several great videos. Now make some in-game ones. When starting, there should be a movie explaining how the Kerbals live and evolve (maybe they live under the ground, thats why there is no lights at night and you can't find any cities. They discovered rockets while trying to make a new kind of soda, but it kept exploding and flying away when they mixed the mentos in. Or whatever.) Then there should be a small movie explaining a bit about the space program and why YOU became its manager, welcoming you. And after that, small, short movies when reaching a milestone. Seeing the Kerbal walking out on the launchpad (in slow-mo) before the first manned flight. And exiting to a crowds cheers after the first successful landing. And then getting your supervisor congratulating you. Etc... Maybe a small film about the first moon-landing... or hearing a small speech the first time the Kerbals EVA on a new planet/moon. ("We came in peace for all Kerbals... well, maybe not the really coward ones..." or something.)

    And, in this, a really good tutorial, which you "must" play (you should of course be able to skip it, but still...) where most basic things are explained. How to really get to orbit. Planning a maneuver node. Land on the moon.

    As I said, there are features I would like: Re-entry heat. New attachable heat-shields. TWR and delta-v numbers (as an upgrade option) when constructing a spacecraft (á la MechJeb). But they are not as essential for a great KSP as a story, IMHO.