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

[nothingSpecial]

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).

Oh my god. That's more awesome than the already made game.

[JimmyAgent007]

id very much like this, i dont want to rely on mods like hyperedit, also i dont want to have to redo the trip to Duna just to tweak parts on my lander or rover. the crappy effects sim containing only data that your previous missions have gathered would be ideal. the whole point of the feature is to quickly go between the VAB and the sim to make sure that you really have enough fuel in your lander to soften your decent on Duna. rather than fire off your rocket, fly to Duna, try landing a bunch with quicksave, decide it cant be done with what you got, then reverting back to the VAB and doing it all over again. So even if you use revert, even if you use quicksave/load, it would still save a lot of time. Not saying its a priority feature but it would be nice to have eventually.

[mattinoz]

I don't believe it's been point out yet but the Revert system fails if you want to run multiple long running missions parallel to make best use of transfer windows.

Reverting your Duna lander to test a system could mean replaying not just that mission but could mean firing transfers and intercepts on any number of bodies.

Revert is only really valid if you play KSP in a purely linear fashion.

[Alshain]

@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

Computer simulations that aren't necessary in KSP because the parts will always work. You don't have to test that LVT-45 to make sure it performs to spec, it will always perform to spec. The only other "computer simulations" are effectively what you get from Kerbal Engineer. If you are arguing to make that stock, I fully agree. However, I was not the one who brought up the immersion argument.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Why do you have to hyperedit to Duna? Why not just go there? I've never had to use HyperEdit, never even installed it, and I have had very few failed missions. Sometimes things don't go quite as I thought they would but very few missions actually fail. This game is fairly predictable, it isn't hard to learn to predict what will happen, and if you need to simulate, do it on Kerbin. It took 10 Apollo "missions" before they were ready to go to the moon. They didn't get to simulate or revert those. Not even counting Gemini.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't believe it's been point out yet but the Revert system fails if you want to run multiple long running missions parallel to make best use of transfer windows.

Reverting your Duna lander to test a system could mean replaying not just that mission but could mean firing transfers and intercepts on any number of bodies.

Revert is only really valid if you play KSP in a purely linear fashion.

If you are 'simulating' you should know that in advance and just warp to where you want to go. In a simulation you can ignore any other craft transfers because you know in advance you will be reverting before them, so it doesn't matter if you miss a burn on another craft. Unless you are only simulating when something goes wrong but doing the real mission if it goes right.

Edited October 2, 2015 by Alshain

[Superfluous J]

@Alshain: We don't agree with you. We never will. You don't agree with us. You never will.

@everybody else: Alshain doesn't agree with us. He never will. We don't agree with Alshain. We never will.

I for one am done arguing back and forth about whether something almost everybody in this thread wants is or is not totally completely superseded by a button that kinda does something remotely similar, assuming said button doesn't vanish due to any number of things that may occur along the way.

[Lord Aurelius]

I get the point that the entire game is a simulation and there's always the revert button, but it would be really nice to still have a simulation mode where you can start your craft anywhere and specify the staging/fuel load/etc (and rewind time) so you don't have to tediously refly large parts of a mission just to be able to test one particular thing (in my case: stage separation of very large rockets), not to mention how tedious lander/rover testing is without hyperedit.

[NeoMorph]

@Alshain: We don't agree with you. We never will. You don't agree with us. You never will.

@everybody else: Alshain doesn't agree with us. He never will. We don't agree with Alshain. We never will.

I for one am done arguing back and forth about whether something almost everybody in this thread wants is or is not totally completely superseded by a button that kinda does something remotely similar, assuming said button doesn't vanish due to any number of things that may occur along the way.

Dude... The old "we should agree to disagree here". The thing is that we should not say because one person wants a thing then nobody else can have a view. That's just a selfish way of behaviour. "I don't need it so nobody else should have it" is one of the worst kind of views in my book.

I started this thread as a "suggestion". We repeat launch after launch using revert to get things right and it just doesn't feel right to me. We are simulating a space program after all and if we have to travel millions of miles just to try out a lander that may or may not work just wastes time in my book. If you have a program running with multiple ships in flight it gets messy... FAST.

Currently we have to hack the game to move items to another planet, break the revert to launch system if you use the F5/F9 system and then time has passed, you've missed a burn for one of your satellites, parts are lost (which cost in game money) and generally it feels wrong.

Run a simulation you could simulate the launch, bypass the fly to the planet, test the lander systems (see that you forgot to add electrics... oops), test the burn to orbit, check you have enough DV to get back to Kerbin... Sim complete. THEN you fix the problems (add a battery and solar panel to the lander in this case) and set off for real, using save but only using reloading in case of a game bug/glitch/crash. You could still miss the window... still crash the lander... but you KNOW it is possible with the build you have constructed in the sim.

If you were to run it how it is now you would fly to the planet, go to land... find out you had forgot the electrics and now you have to ditch the entire flight and go back to the VAB in a groundhog day event. In essence, using a sim you SAVE time by only flying possible flights and crashing a lot of crap in the sim. Remember, we aren't all as good as Alshain... we are human after all and mistakes are made. I've lost count of the times I have reached a planet and found that I'm missing something crucial or have clipped a part that causes weird phantom forces or have enough delta-v but my landing arc is too long and I burn out and crash.

The best design I can see is...

1. Plan your flight to see what delta-V is needed for the individual parts

2. Build your ship

3. Simulate the critical parts of the flight

4. Launch the real mission.

Is running sims fun... If you didn't think that you wouldn't be playing the game. Hell, make it optional. Instead of just bolting parts together and throwing them at another planet like god's dartboard a good planned build and then launching without reverts is like the seven minutes of terror all over again...

Just look at the wireframe sims in this video... and tell me again that simulating wouldn't be cool.

Edited October 2, 2015 by NeoMorph

[Superfluous J]

Dude... The old "we should agree to disagree here". The thing is that we should not say because one person wants a thing then nobody else can have a view. That's just a selfish way of behaviour. "I don't need it so nobody else should have it" is one of the worst kind of views in my book.

Not to disagree () but agreeing to disagree is the only way to keep this thread from becoming 1000 pages of "You don't need it" "Yes we do" over and over. After 3 iterations of everybody saying the same thing, there is 0 benefit in continuing the discussion.

I (of course) agree with everything else in your post.

[BudgetHedgehog]

I don't want simulations (and nothing else, like construction time etc).

Testing a launch vehicle? Simulate, oh look, it launches fine, exit sim, do the exact same thing again which isn't boring at all in the slightest OR launch, oh look it launches fine, and carry on. If it doesn't launch fine, revert (or exit sim).

Testing a lander? Hyperedit to destination, land. It either works or it doesn't, either way, I revert. Using Hyperedit by itself does not break reverts - if you're saying 'this is a simulation', there's no need to leave the current vessel or reload or whatever - revert to launch and Hyperedit back. Alternatively, don't use Hyperedit, just go there. As I said, you don't have a reason to lose the revert. If you crash, or something overheats and explodes, it doesn't matter - it's a simulation. Revert and try again.

Simulations only make sense in KCT because the other half of it requires you wait a month or two before you can actually launch for real.

[NeoMorph]

Not to disagree () but agreeing to disagree is the only way to keep this thread from becoming 1000 pages of "You don't need it" "Yes we do" over and over. After 3 iterations of everybody saying the same thing, there is 0 benefit in continuing the discussion.

I (of course) agree with everything else in your post.

Actually dude I was trying to say I agreed with you. But in my morphine addled brain I tend to waffle at times lol. I was trying to say "If you don't need it then don't say anything because it won't affect you". Hence my "Make it optional" comment.

God my brain sucks in the morning.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't want simulations (and nothing else, like construction time etc).

Hmmmm... this from a guy(or gal) with a sig that says... Ironic?

[BudgetHedgehog]

I meant that in a 'simulations, and nothing else added to stock game'. I wouldn't mind simulations if they came with something like construction time, but if it was simulations and JUST simulations, that I would have a problem with.

[nothingSpecial]

Hmmmm... this from a guy(or gal) with a sig that says... http://i.imgur.com/UGmnP4w.jpgIronic?

Nope. Vast majority of mods has nothing to do with simulations. Sig doesn't say anything about modding the game the way user doesn't like, just modding it til it crashes. And not everyone likes repetitions. That's not irony, that's context.

Oh, you probably read "and nothing else" like "I don't want nothing else", not like "I don't want simulation with nothing else"?

Well, that's context too. But it would be ironic, sure.

Edited October 2, 2015 by nothingSpecial

[Superfluous J]

I meant that in a 'simulations, and nothing else added to stock game'. I wouldn't mind simulations if they came with something like construction time, but if it was simulations and JUST simulations, that I would have a problem with.

Like, you'd dislike the game more if they were added, even though others want them and you can opt to not use them?

[BudgetHedgehog]

Like, you'd dislike the game more if they were added, even though others want them and you can opt to not use them?

If just simulations were added with no other mechanic (as mentioned), then yes. Because I see and use a reasonable and possible alternative. Ok, well, it's not that I'd like the game less, more I don't see the point in a dev putting time into implementing it. If they added it with something like construction time, then I'd have no problem with it.

[magico13]

So I've mostly read over all of these posts and am trying to figure out what I'd need to do to KCT's simulations to make them meet what everyone is looking for here, so if someone can give me a quick list of desired features I can see if I can get them implemented.

What KCT's simulations already do:

- Once a simulation is started, exiting the simulation in any way reverts time to before the simulation started.

- Simulations have a strict time limit, but additional time can be purchased at the end if needed. Restarts are free.

- Can be started on Kerbin or in orbit around any planet/moon you've entered the SOI of (can turn off the "visit" requirement). Planning on adding the ability to start landed on another planet as well.

- Can be made to start at any UT, to make it easy to try out transfer windows and such.

- Have a cost based on vessel mass, planet mass, amount of time, etc. (extremely configurable and can be easily disabled)

- Can disable part failures when used with the Test Flight mod.

- WIP: Can disable RemoteTech on the simulated vessel (doesn't work properly if there are antenna at the moment, but works if there are none)

- Con: Have to be started from the editor.

- Con: Quicksaves/quickloads are disabled during simulations.

- It only takes 4 clicks to disable all of KCT's other features and only use simulations (1: Choose a Preset, 2: Select SimOnly Preset, 3: Save Preset choice, 4: Close Window)

I plan on adding the ability to change the orbital parameters for orbital simulations without returning to the editor, but currently you can only select altitude and inclination and have to revert to the editor to change them (thus being charged funds again)

What it looks like people want added:

- Visually change the game to represent the simulation (wireframe/reduced graphics)

- Physically change the game based on science data (not sure how easy it would be to do, but I have considered making it so you can't land on a planet you haven't landed on, or can't enter the atmosphere, or can't change SOIs)

So if anyone can provide a quick list of the thread's desired features, I can see what I can do to make them happen.

Edit: As other people have hinted at, KCT's simulations arose from the fact that taking several weeks to build a rocket and then finding out you forgot a battery really sucks, so they were designed around that need, but I'd love to make them meet the desires of this thread as well. When/if enneract ever finds the time to work on HoloDeck again, KCT will be switching to that and strongly pushing for the current (and future) KCT simulation features to be included in it, but he's been mostly MIA for awhile and I'm not sure if he really wants me to try to work on it as well.

Edited October 2, 2015 by magico13

[Columbia]

@Alshain: We don't agree with you. We never will. You don't agree with us. You never will.

@everybody else: Alshain doesn't agree with us. He never will. We don't agree with Alshain. We never will.

..I'm honestly on Alshain's side here.

Maybe it would have been alright if the game was already finished and stuff, and the devs weren't focused on much, but currently, this feature seems to be useless, IMHO, and would probably take up more memory, dev time and sacrifice a lot to implement. And even if those were unfounded assumptions, why waste the dev time? Why do you think people revert flights during rocket testing? The revert button is most likely there for the very reason of testing creations.

Not everyone agrees with you, man.. At least I don't really.

[NeoMorph]

That sounds freaking awesome magico13... Re the costs, did you know that back when they were running simulations originally they charged time on mainframes by CRU (computer resource units). Basically it was time X how complex it was (if it needed lots of info to be dragged off mag tape because the operators had to manually get them from the vault) and always at the end you got a dump of data back. In this context we don't have to worry about mag tape but the cost could be linked to time by how far away from Kerbin the simulation is and how complex the SOI is. So a Mun sim would be cheaper than a Jool Sim as the Mun is a single source while Jool has 6 (planet plus 5 moons).

Limiting the information available until you send a satellite to the planet with a radar sat at least should force you to have a low poly landing site (ie maybe just a flat surface). If you use Scansat maybe you could get a landing map to show what to expect for your proposed landing area. This is just icing on the cake though so just what you put would be great...

Only reason I know about the computer side of things was that I worked in the computer industry before PC's were even designed. Hell, I even beta tested some of the early IBM-PC's as we were a big IBM user (worked on IBM 370-158, -3033, -3031 and the 3800 series - I even beta tested the first multi thread OS in VM-CMS on a 3033... but then killed the entire mainframe so OOOPS!). I could tell you some stories about Mainframe Madness, lol.

I've played KSP since 0.16 so I want something a little more... one thing is to try and force limitations on myself with making more efficient spacecraft. It's easy to throw loads of delta-v at a ship and know you can make it. But NASA craft have to be cut down to the very bones. Just look up the weight reduction they did for the Apollo moonshot.

Oh and the main reason for the sim should be so nothing gets added to the save game (ie no debris from hyperediting stuff everywhere ) and no parts cost added to the campaign. There should be a cost but not the equivalent of a full rocket. Maybe for the dump it should list things to a project notebook like Target planet orbit altitude you are aiming for, how much delta v is needed to land and get back to the specified altitude etc. One thing I would love to know is how much Oxygen and food etc I would need for my Kerbonauts because I usually pack WAYYYYYYY too much in my TAC-Life Support cans lol.

Launch/Landing/Capture etc Sims should be to just give you more info in the fight to make a more efficient spacecraft mission. And yeah, forgetting to add a battery or even turn on a nuclear pile and wondering why your rocket stopped working when it's millions of miles from home really, really SUCKS.

Oooh... How about a checklist maker too. I tend to write mine down but it would be great to link a specific checklist to a ship and doing the sims is the perfect time to add info to them. Launch Phase, Orbit Phase, Departure Phase, Mid Course Correction Phase, Orbital Insertion Phase, Landing Phase, etc, etc ... I'm probably OCD about it and I still miss things at times.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Not everyone agrees with you, man.. At least I don't really.

You do know that this is a "Suggestion" and not a commandment. I'm not saying "Simulations should be added right away and everyone should use them!". I'm just saying that it would be a cool way of testing your craft and not have penalties for blowing up craft and littering bits everywhere that have to be hoovered up. Revert doesn't always work. If you hyperedit your craft and then F5 Save and restore it breaks the revert button. If your game crashes you now have a crew in orbit of Jool... which has cost you campaign cash.

And at the end of the day it could be OPTIONAL.

If you don't know how software is developed then you don't know that you plan feature additions months ahead. They are added to the project timeline and can be bumped or even removed. But to be added to the game they have to be planned for ahead of time. So suggesting this now will not affect the current game development in the least.

Edited October 2, 2015 by NeoMorph
Just added some Mainframe info that I worked with.

[Columbia]

-snip-

That was directed to 5thHorseman mostly, who was implying to Alshain that no one was agreeing wih him.

- - - Updated - - -

And I specifically said that these may be crude assumptions, but still. To me, it's not necessary, but I think this is just me who doesn't know how exactly it wiĺl look like, how it will be implemented and such.

[cfds]

I doubt that anyone can agree with Alshain's "This feature is redundant, there is the revert button" unless they

- never have more mission than one

- never experience crashes or interruptions that require closing KSP

And even in that case I cannot believe that these (lucky?) few would fly their proposed Laythe lander to Laythe once for every design iteration, especially since the stock game does not provide a working function to warp to SoI changes / manoever nodes.

[klgraham1013]

Why do you have to hyperedit to Duna? Why not just go there? I've never had to use HyperEdit, never even installed it, and I have had very few failed missions. Sometimes things don't go quite as I thought they would but very few missions actually fail. This game is fairly predictable, it isn't hard to learn to predict what will happen, and if you need to simulate, do it on Kerbin. It took 10 Apollo "missions" before they were ready to go to the moon. They didn't get to simulate or revert those. Not even counting Gemini.

It takes less time to hyperedit and test. The reasoning should be quite obvious.

Edited October 3, 2015 by klgraham1013

[DancZer]

NeoMorph: I like the idea and I'm with you.

Of course there is a work around for this feature, but that doesn't mean that it's not a good idea.

You can mod and hack the game as you want. But does that mean that every suggestions is worthless?

I remember the time, when i suggested to remove Revert button. Everybody lost his mind. Now we have it....

This feature would help making better vessel design in less time and more elegant way and with simulation resources it would open new game play possibilities. So why not? Because you don't like it? Let me ask something. Do you like the vanilla career? Because i don't and i think it's waste of time. I have better gameplay experience with BTSM mod and that's my two cents.

[OmniscientQ]

I agree with both camps here, somehow. I acknowledge that having a Revert button and self-imposed challenge of declaring a launch to be "simulated" or "real" before I press the button achieves one part of the goal... But I would really, REALLY like to be able to just warp my lander straight to a simulation of Duna so I can test its performance before I even start worrying about how I'll get the lander off of Kerbin. I could sit back and do all the math involved in calculating the drag myself to try and guess what the performance will be like, and I've done it before. I'll even admit that it's how NASA had to do things once. But honestly... Sometimes I just wanna watch the pretty colors as my lander explodes with Jeb inside it without having to go through twenty minutes of launch and rendezvous corrections first. Being able to pick a body and drop a craft in as a simulation shouldn't be something I have to hack in with third-party programs or a text editor.