Simulation Mode - For When You Are Planning You Launches Without Real Loss

[NeoMorph]

I know you can revert to a previous time but how about building the rocket or plane like normal and then instead of the normal launch you get a cut down graphics version of the launch... Maybe even make it wireframe.

1. It would differentiate between real launches and simulations.

2. It would increase frame rates if it doesn't have to show Hi Res extras.

3. It could show data like from Kerbal Engineer and highlight thermal and drag problems.

For rockets, maybe you could use a 2d video of the launch with the launch data.

Perhaps plan re-entry profiles too so that you know what would happen if you came in from Duna straight into a re-entry (ie turn into a molten powder puff).

Simulation planning before real launches would save money with your campaigns too.

Let us move test craft like Hyperedit... but not move the real craft. It would make the difference between running sims on computers at JPL/NASA against flying the real craft.

[pandaman]

Gets my vote.

In simulation mode it would be cool if it based the simulation on the info about bodies that you have gained by doing experiments. Start out with basic info/estimates you can get from ground observations then give more accurate simulation when you have done the right science.

[masiboss]

Gets my vote.

In simulation mode it would be cool if it based the simulation on the info about bodies that you have gained by doing experiments. Start out with basic info/estimates you can get from ground observations then give more accurate simulation when you have done the right science.

so upgradable? great!

[TMS]

Pretty sure Harv has passed judgement on this. I think the post may have been lost to the suggestions forum prune/archive.

Basically, the gist was that any simulation meant that players would have to repeat things they'd already done, thus it was not fun.

Not sure if this decision was made before or after the implementation of the science and biome system. (lulzsnark)

[John Nowak]

This is, however, a feature in the mod Kerbal Construction Time, so that might be worth looking into.

[Alshain]

This would be redundant and unnecessary. The entire game is a simulation and the revert button allows this.

[klgraham1013]

Pretty sure Harv has passed judgement on this. I think the post may have been lost to the suggestions forum prune/archive.

Basically, the gist was that any simulation meant that players would have to repeat things they'd already done, thus it was not fun.

Not sure if this decision was made before or after the implementation of the science and biome system. (lulzsnark)

I thought guessing and repetition were key to the Kerbal philosophy.

- - - Updated - - -

This would be redundant and unnecessary. The entire game is a simulation and the revert button allows this.

Saying the whole game is a simulation is a bit reductive. It's about immersion in my mind.

[mattinoz]

Pretty sure Harv has passed judgement on this. I think the post may have been lost to the suggestions forum prune/archive.

Basically, the gist was that any simulation meant that players would have to repeat things they'd already done, thus it was not fun.

Not sure if this decision was made before or after the implementation of the science and biome system. (lulzsnark)

Well that doesn't make a lot of sense now. I think we should take that as a Steve Jobs style rebuttal and hope it's a cover for something in the works.

After all KSP has shown itself to be a game with great replay value. So players are having fun repeating things.

Second we have revert which means we can do stuff that doesn't work revert then do all the things we know how to do again and again and again just to get back to the point where you want to try something new.

So the way it is now we repeat less fun things to get to the new fun things. (or use a mod to take out the repeating stuff)

Maybe a Simulator could be one of the fabled expansion packs.

After all it would need to change some core game systems like restricting revert, add some new core systems like a fog-of-explore and would change game play to planned flight instead of seat of the pants.

I know I'd drop money on it.

[Alshain]

Saying the whole game is a simulation is a bit reductive. It's about immersion in my mind.

Even still, the suggestion is already in the game, it's the revert button.

[John Nowak]

This would be redundant and unnecessary. The entire game is a simulation and the revert button allows this.

One of the features of one of the most popular mods out there, actually.

[Dodgey]

And that feature is there to compensate for another feature of the mod, construction time. Which is a feature that the game doesn't have so what's the point.

[magico13]

The one place that simulations have a place in the stock game is in hard saves where there are no reverts, but even then you can just play with reverts on and have self control.

With construction time simulations are a necessity.

[Alshain]

One of the features of one of the most popular mods out there, actually.

But without the other features of that mod, it is pointless, actually.

[Superfluous J]

But without the other features of that mod, it is pointless, actually.

Totally completely untrue.

I use the Holodeck mod, which is simulation mode without the other features of Kerbal Construction Time, and for me the mindset I get put in while having to choose each time I click "launch" if this launch is "real" or "simulated" TOTALLY changes the game for me. Simulations are tests. When I launch, it's for real and any screwup I live with.

Also, I'm not going to simulate an entire Jool-5 mission. I could, but no way. I may simulate the Tylo landing and my Laythe ship to make sure they can do what they need to, and I'm sure to simulate launching each part to verify they can get into orbit, but after that I'm going to do "real" launches, and live with the consequences of any mistakes.

Simply having the simulation option changes the entire thing for me. It may not for you. But the fact that it does for me makes it not pointless.

[NeoMorph]

Even still, the suggestion is already in the game, it's the revert button.

OK... I give you an example... You design a heavy lander for Duna where you want to use air braking but you don't want to fly all the way to Duna to test the lander with real Kerbals (especially if you are running a "dead is dead" game). You COULD use hyperedit but it would end up with lots of rubbish littering the landscape which you would have to manually dig through from the Tracking station and delete them bit by bit. I have debris from "simulations" on pretty much every planet because of this. Also when using hyperedit it breaks the reversions so parts are pretty much lost. Hence it's not simulating... it's just taking real parts and teleporting them to the planet.

If you ran a simulation that had no effect on cost, parts, time so you can test your ship because you are limiting yourself to no reversions means the planning has to be done right or else you end up with a case of The Martian (or in this case, the Dunan) when your lack of testing means your craft fails due to an overheated landing gear and the lander hits on the engine itself which explodes...

For those of us who like to run immersion gameplays with no reversions allowed is what makes the game more nerve wrecking. Having to use Hyperedit stops reversions from being an option. But how else are you supposed to try new fangled landers without running a simulation.

So nope... the answer here ISN'T the revert button.

[nothingSpecial]

Can I just have low-poli graphics in game? Don't really have problems with using revert button.

[Dodgey]

Ok this is going to sound mean and blunt (because it is) but do you honestly think that it is worth the devs time and effort to implement this feature simply because you don't like to hit the revert button, which in the vast majority of cases would serve the same purpose. Does it really break your immersion that much that you can't say before a flight "ok this is just a sim flight" and allowing yourself to revert? Really, is it that bad.

But what about other planets? I hear you say. I say what about them. If you want to know the conditions at a planet then send a probe. Use the upper atmosphere of Kerbin for aerobreaking practice if you have to. There are ways to get around it without even getting to mods.

There are ways to get information about what a planets like and ways to test vehicles in the stock game. If you are open to mods then there are some as mentioned in this thread that you can use. Don't get me wrong if the devs implemented this into the game I wouldn't be opposed to it I simply don't see the point prioritising this when it seems to me at least, to be catered to the more hardcore player and not to the majority.

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

On hard modes, witouth reverting flight, you have to test them in-game, wich adds to the excitement. Do some test launches before the main one.

[Superfluous J]

Ok this is going to sound mean and blunt (because it is) but do you honestly think that it is worth the devs time and effort to implement this feature simply because you don't like to hit the revert button, which in the vast majority of cases would serve the same purpose.

...

Don't get me wrong if the devs implemented this into the game I wouldn't be opposed to it I simply don't see the point prioritising this when it seems to me at least, to be catered to the more hardcore player and not to the majority.

Allow me to be blunt back to you: Yes.

If this is not implemented until 1.56, after Kerbal Mustache Trimming is added to the game, it won't bother me one bit as I will use the mod in the meantime. But that doesn't change the fact that I think it should be part of the game.

[TMS]

I had always hoped that they'd basically make a wireframe simulator, whose planetary fidelity and topography got better as you had satellites that mapped the surface.

Essentially, this would allow you to execute an ideal landing on a flat, unchallenging simulacrum planet... or, with some real-world satellite placement skill, allow you to pick out a more detailed landing site and simulate the landing conditions more accurately. Y'know, giving things a bit more depth and meaning. Squad's definition of fun and insta-scan ended any hopes of that one coming to fruition. Although I must admit, it's probably a bit of a niche interest.

Meh, one for the modders now, I'm afraid. C'mon 64-bit!

[Alshain]

OK... I give you an example... You design a heavy lander for Duna where you want to use air braking but you don't want to fly all the way to Duna to test the lander with real Kerbals (especially if you are running a "dead is dead" game). You COULD use hyperedit but it would end up with lots of rubbish littering the landscape which you would have to manually dig through from the Tracking station and delete them bit by bit. I have debris from "simulations" on pretty much every planet because of this. Also when using hyperedit it breaks the reversions so parts are pretty much lost. Hence it's not simulating... it's just taking real parts and teleporting them to the planet.

If you ran a simulation that had no effect on cost, parts, time so you can test your ship because you are limiting yourself to no reversions means the planning has to be done right or else you end up with a case of The Martian (or in this case, the Dunan) when your lack of testing means your craft fails due to an overheated landing gear and the lander hits on the engine itself which explodes...

For those of us who like to run immersion gameplays with no reversions allowed is what makes the game more nerve wrecking. Having to use Hyperedit stops reversions from being an option. But how else are you supposed to try new fangled landers without running a simulation.

So nope... the answer here ISN'T the revert button.

Well if you are limiting yourself to no reverts then you would be limiting yourself to no simulations. There is no difference there. Again, revert is the answer. If you choose not to use it, that is your decision but it is no different than a simulation.

You talk about immersion which suggests realism but we don't get to fly to Mars and then say, "Oh that was a simulation" in real life. When we send a probe out there, it's done based on math and tests of various components but the entire probe is never tested until they launch it, and if it crashes, it is gone. If you want immersion then you don't want a full craft simulation because that actually breaks immersion.

I have a suspicion that what people want is for Squad to develop away their lack of willpower, which is just a silly waste of development time when we have so much that this game needs.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Alshain

[Whirligig Girl]

Simulation mode should also look different and not quite as interesting as the "real" world. Dull lighting, totally flat planets, 8-bit type sound effects (if any).

[Superfluous J]

Simulation mode should also look different and not quite as interesting as the "real" world. Dull lighting, totally flat planets, 8-bit type sound effects (if any).

Totally agreed.

So should map mode. Well, maybe not the 8-bit sound effects

[pandaman]

@Alshain. I do get your point, but disagree.

IRL when rockets or aircraft are designed a lot is done with computer simulations before the first test flights and further on in development. Agreed it's not as good or 'realistic' as an actual flight, but it's quick and cheap and good enough to check that the thing flys and how it may behave in certain environments and to try out various settings without risk to crew or expensive kit. This becomes even more crucial when dealing with missions to the moon or Mars when flight times and lives are a very real issue A facility in stock to replicate that part of the process would be a good stock feature IMHO.

I think of it working like a sort of customisable 'hack gravity' where you can set the gravity and atmosphere to match what is known about the body in question with lower quality and/or monochrome graphics, and a facility to set orbit altitude.

There are certainly high priorities for the development team, especially atm, but that doesn't stop it being a nice thing to have or want in the stock game

[klgraham1013]

You talk about immersion which suggests realism but we don't get to fly to Mars and then say, "Oh that was a simulation" in real life. When we send a probe out there, it's done based on math and tests of various components but the entire probe is never tested until they launch it, and if it crashes, it is gone. If you want immersion then you don't want a full craft simulation because that actually breaks immersion.

Indeed, but I don't have thousands of employees working under me. It's much easier to simply hyperedit a lander to Duna, than spend the man-hours the sort of realism you're talking about would entail. Sometimes you need to make concessions for the player (one person) in order to allow them to accomplish what would normally take thousands.