Realism vs. Kerbalism?

[jros83]

37 minutes ago, tater said:

Actually, my analogy is spot-on. Manned spaceflight is a combination of rocketry, and life support. Both are necessary systems, and the latter drives pretty much all mission design. The reason the moon was challenging technologically was the requirement that it be really safe for astronauts.

Note that everything would be a toggle, anyway, as it already is. It's not noobs that would use this, it's a replay thing. If you've been playing a couple years and you are still on stock-sized kerbol system, and not using LS, etc... you must be harder to bore than I am.

Each their own.

[Claw]

Here's the deal with all of this, that drives me into complete insanity. This game is a sandbox at heart. We can argue up and down, but the basic premise the game started with was "build whatever and go where ever." It grew with a lot of additions, but the core mechanics have remained unchanged.

 

So while I'm not categorically opposed to the addition of Life Support, I would like to see it being done in a way that isn't simply another limiting factor added to the game. Is it a limiting factor in real life? Yep, it sure is. But if life support just becomes another "you must attach X number of part Y on your ship to fly for time Z", that also becomes "boring" to me. If it becomes a matter of development time, I would much rather see time spent adding more powerful tools in the game first. Tools that allow for complex mission planning and mission management. I'd rather be able to fly more simultaneous missions to more places in complex ways, than to have to add more parts to my already laggy ships just so I can go on the same flights that I already do.

 

If we want to get into the realism debate, those complex mission management tools are just as "grass roots." Do I have a team of hundreds of thousands of scientists and a huge array of supercomputers at my disposal? Nope. A real space program consists of a couple more people than just me and a flight crew. Yet that part is often overlooked in the "should KSP be a lol wacky simulator, or hardcore engineering design sim" debate. There is a nice middle ground in there too, though I'm sure there are plenty of people who disagree. If you want a complex game with comm network and life support requirements, then you need to give the player complex tools to be able to figure it all out.

 

In any case, I don't mean to sidetrack the overall theme of the thread onto a specific topic. I suppose that was one example (in my mind) that I'm probably more of a 75%, than a 0 or 100%. But that's probably a bit of a simplification as well. I'm onboard with fairly realistic physics (doesn't have to be n-body and atomic level CFD though), but I'm not a fan of adding things like fuel slosh, limited firings on engines, etc. into the core game. Those elements are also all realistic, but it's still a video game. Added elements can (and should) provide new challenges, but they should also done with the mindset of adding to the "build whatever and go where ever" core of the game.

[Jovus]

I just want my wet/dry ratios to both make sense and not be terrible. :/

It's not even the 9:1 that bothers me so much, actually, as that it's randomly different across parts and fuels.

[Pthigrivi]

24 minutes ago, Claw said:

If you want a complex game with comm network and life support requirements, then you need to give the player complex tools to be able to figure it all out.

I actually completely agree. I think many of us hoping for LS don't expect it to be included before major game mechanics are polished up, and some simple mission planning tools would be huge. In fact, in many ways LS doesn't work before you have that because its too difficult to estimate how long your missions will be and plan accordingly. 

I do think though that long term, if done right, LS could add a lot more than adding mandatory parts. If the basics were simple but efficient greenhouses required some forethought there would be legit gameplay and weight tradeoffs to consider depending on how long your mission was. It also could be a sincere basis for thinking about time as a cost. Transfers could be optimized by the player for shorter flight times or lower dV. Beyond adding just the sense that we were living off the land and surviving in harsh environments it adds tension and urgency. Even if the realism is simplified (and it should be), it opens up real considerations and could inject a cool new layer to the game. 

Edited December 5, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[Claw]

50 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

difficult to estimate how long your missions will be and plan accordingly

Yes, exactly. 100% yes.

If it's a game of trial and error, then the penalty for failure can't be extreme. That's the current design philosophy (mainly trial and error). That's why I'm always resistant about blanket "LS needs to be added."

 

50 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

if done right

That's the crux, isn't it. Determining what's "right" for thousands of opinions. And (to try to keep from derailing the topic further on LS), this comment is really applicable to the broad question of this thread.

 

Of all games that I've played...KSP, more then virtually any other, is the closest to being "all things to all people." This game is so incredibly flexible even as pure stock. It's a space game, but since things are sort of built together in an open ended way, people build rockets, scifi space ships, planes, space planes, boats, trains, cars, rovers, submarines, airships, helicopters, and even Ferris wheels (yes, Ferris wheels). It's that aspect of KSP that I'm always most protective of. If it comes down to perfect realism and being able to do virtually anything you can imagine, I'm personally always going to error in favor of giving people creative freedom.

And no, I don't mean to say realism is diametrically opposed to fun. It doesn't have to be one or the other. For some people, perfect realism is the fun. But as I just said, "for some people, perfect realism is the fun." The glorious thing about KSP is that it's capable of both (if people aren't hung up on "must be stock"). It frustrates me greatly to watch threads where people get upset about "how" others are having fun, rather than embracing the game they enjoy and being excited that others "are" having fun.

[Hyomoto]

Gosh, I can vote.  There are times I love building largely accurate rockets, but it's also fun to build something insanely stupid it shouldn't fly ... and then getting it to fly.

[tater]

Comm networks as added to KSP in mods are not even slightly realistic, they are needlessly tedious, particularly given that the distance from Kerbol to Eeloo is about 1/2 the distance from Sol to Venus, right?

Here's why I chimed in on LS, and why I would actually welcome a chance of part failures in career (perhaps via a mechanic where parts were gained on an "experimental" basis until tested a certain number of hours/days/whatever). I'd like to see reliability a factor vs other benefits of parts. So you pick upper stage engines based upon reliability (as Apollo did) and restart. Heck, I'd also be in favor of changing the throttling ability of engines to be far more realistic, as well as restart not being a thing for many. Note that these forms of realism would only come into play at all in the context of career alone (and career needs a gut-job improvement, frankly).

Currently there is no mechanic whereby crewed missions are any different than uncrewed missions. 

[Pthigrivi]

On 12/5/2015, 3:01:52, Claw said:

If it's a game of trial and error, then the penalty for failure can't be extreme. That's the current design philosophy (mainly trial and error). That's why I'm always resistant about blanket "LS needs to be added."

Oh I would never be so presumptuous. Its worth considering though, right? Sandbox is a ton of fun but I know they care a lot about making career work too, creating a really thoughtful, immersive game. I think we would also probably agree that with better tools the error rate could be reduced and the game would benefit across the board.

On 12/5/2015, 3:01:52, Claw said:

Of all games that I've played...KSP, more then virtually any other, is the closest to being "all things to all people." This game is so incredibly flexible even as pure stock. It's a space game, but since things are sort of built together in an open ended way, people build rockets, scifi space ships, planes, space planes, boats, trains, cars, rovers, submarines, airships, helicopters, and even Ferris wheels (yes, Ferris wheels). It's that aspect of KSP that I'm always most protective of. If it comes down to perfect realism and being able to do virtually anything you can imagine, I'm personally always going to error in favor of giving people creative freedom.

Absolutely. There's been a lot of weird judginess about playstyles which seems crazy to me. That flexibility is so important, and if LS were to be considered would have to respect that. Its completely possible to do it so that all those things are still possible, and could even open a whole new branch of creativity, building orbital farms, colony bases, lots of fun new things. I think in most of the chats we've had about it there's been a basic consensus that LS should:

- Be a single, simple, LS resource that could be understood at a glance.

- Be toggleble, and offer a less serious consequence for failure like going on strike or hibernating as well permadeath.

- Offer a 3 to 20 day grace period, either in the form of 'hunger' as in USI-LS, or as a small standard stock for each pod to cover most Kerbin SOI missions.

- Include a prerequisite mission pre-planner, including dV and mission time estimator and alarm clock functions so players could plan ahead.

The exact mechanics of extending and/or regenerating LS are more flexible, but its certainly possible to create something that's just involved enough so as not to become a series of perfunctory checklist parts, and not so fussy as to cause endless headaches. At any rate Im sure Bob is up to it  

 

Edited December 6, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[panzer1b]

8 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

- Be a single, simple, LS resource that could be understood at a glance.

- Be toggleble, and offer a less serious consequence for failure like going on strike or hibernating as well permadeath.

- Offer a 3 to 20 day grace period, either in the form of 'hunger' as in USI-LS, or as a small standard stock for each pod to cover most Kerbin SOI missions.

- Include a prerequisite mission pre-planner, including dV and mission time estimator and alarm clock functions so players could plan ahead.

I would be content with this, though i doubt id actually turn it on minus the trial run i give every new feature (even if i feel its not my thing to begin with).

 

That said, i agree with claw that LS in general is a waste of time spent doing when there are FAR more critical things to be done.  One, i consider bugs way more critical, and there are still too many to be put in one post.  If there is nothing major left to fix or do, then by all means go ahead and spend time on LS, but until that point (which from the current state of affairs is very far away). 

[Frozen_Heart]

14 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

- Be a single, simple, LS resource that could be understood at a glance.

- Be toggleble, and offer a less serious consequence for failure like going on strike or hibernating as well permadeath.

- Offer a 3 to 20 day grace period, either in the form of 'hunger' as in USI-LS, or as a small standard stock for each pod to cover most Kerbin SOI missions.

- Include a prerequisite mission pre-planner, including dV and mission time estimator and alarm clock functions so players could plan ahead.

I could completely agree with this as well. Having it represented but forgiving is important. A single resource would be best to keep things easy to understand.

I think treating it almost like electricity is the best way to go about it, with the kerbals going into hibernation when running out of life support. Certain parts would store LS (command pods, hitchhikers), while other parts could generate it (Atmo scrubber, and even a larger greenhouse module for stations and bases)

[KSK]

On 5 December 2015 20:01:52, Claw said:

Yes, exactly. 100% yes.

If it's a game of trial and error, then the penalty for failure can't be extreme. That's the current design philosophy (mainly trial and error). That's why I'm always resistant about blanket "LS needs to be added."

 

That's the crux, isn't it. Determining what's "right" for thousands of opinions. And (to try to keep from derailing the topic further on LS), this comment is really applicable to the broad question of this thread.

 

Of all games that I've played...KSP, more then virtually any other, is the closest to being "all things to all people." This game is so incredibly flexible even as pure stock. It's a space game, but since things are sort of built together in an open ended way, people build rockets, scifi space ships, planes, space planes, boats, trains, cars, rovers, submarines, airships, helicopters, and even Ferris wheels (yes, Ferris wheels). It's that aspect of KSP that I'm always most protective of. If it comes down to perfect realism and being able to do virtually anything you can imagine, I'm personally always going to error in favor of giving people creative freedom.

And no, I don't mean to say realism is diametrically opposed to fun. It doesn't have to be one or the other. For some people, perfect realism is the fun. But as I just said, "for some people, perfect realism is the fun." The glorious thing about KSP is that it's capable of both (if people aren't hung up on "must be stock"). It frustrates me greatly to watch threads where people get upset about "how" others are having fun, rather than embracing the game they enjoy and being excited that others "are" having fun.

Personally, I think that design philosophy is holding KSP back. Back in the days where getting to orbit was most of the game (and maybe the Mün if you were really good), trial and error worked fine. All your flights were relatively short and you could iterate quickly. If you stranded the odd kerbal on the Mün, then help (or likely another crash  ) was just a day away in game time.

These days, trial and error just gets in the way. Game mechanics can't be too challenging because the penalty for failure can't be too extreme. Game mechanics are hobbled in some cases because they're just too hard to balance assuming the player is using trial-and-error. The parts test contracts spring to mind - given some decent planning tools they could be a lot more fun. As it is, I'm either not going to bother trying them for the paltry reward, or I'm going to 'revert flight' a whole lot in the process - which takes away a lot of the point of Career mode since it allows the penalties for failure to be eliminated at a stroke.

Doing anything interplanetary is discouraged because who wants to spend months of game time flying a ship to Duna, only to have it fail at the last minute because you didn't trial and error your fuel load correctly? Finally, as you mentioned in an earlier post, simultaneous missions are discouraged because if you do pancake that Duna probe you have two unappetising choices, either reiterate, start again and wait another umpteen months of game time, or redo the mission and lose whatever progress you made on your other missions.

I also think that flexibility is KSP's weakness as well as its strength, particularly in career mode. It makes for a superlative sandbox and a career game that tries to be all things to all people but also falls short of the mark for all people. I appreciate what you're saying but I also think that Sandbox mode provides ample scope for all the Ferris Wheels, trains, helicopters, or whatever you want to build. For Career mode, I say dial back the flexibility and give us more of what was intended - a space program management game. If that means that some creative freedom is lost along the way, then so be it.

That doesn't necessarily mean layering on oodles and oodles of detail (such as fuel sloshing and limited restart engines for example  ) - the very best games combine simplicity and depth. The problem with KSP Career mode is that it doesn't have either - the basics of playing the game are not simple and the game as a whole lacks depth. And it lacks depth because, in most cases, adding depth would be unfair on players - if they're assumed to be playing through trial and error.

Just my thoughts anyhow. Feel free to disagree.

 

 

Edited December 7, 2015 by KSK

[juanml82]

On 5/12/2015 17:01:52, Claw said:

 

 

4 minutes ago, KSK said:

(snip)

 

 

I agree. Trial and error doesn't work for interplanetary and more complex missions and fleet/space program managment

Edited December 7, 2015 by juanml82

[Claw]

1 hour ago, KSK said:

These days, trial and error just gets in the way. Game mechanics can't be too challenging because the penalty for failure can't be too extreme. Game mechanics are hobbled in some cases because they're just too hard to balance assuming the player is using trial-and-error. The parts test contracts spring to mind - given some decent planning tools they could be a lot more fun. As it is, I'm either not going to bother trying them for the paltry reward, or I'm going to 'revert flight' a whole lot in the process - which takes away a lot of the point of Career mode since it allows the penalties for failure to be eliminated at a stroke.

Doing anything interplanetary is discouraged because who wants to spend months of game time flying a ship to Duna, only to have it fail at the last minute because you didn't trial and error your fuel load correctly? 

That's sort of my point. If a player is unwilling to even do part test contracts, because failure means they can just revert, why would they want to spend most of their play time to fly all the way out to somewhere just to find out that they not only fell short on fuel, but that they are also short on LS. Or even if they were just short on fuel, the crew is dead now because they can't wait two years for rescue. Is that realistic? Yep. But now it's just another revert away. So difficulty is just sidestepped anyway. There isn't even a reason to bother building a rescue mission.

Like I said, if you want complex gameplay, you have to give the player some complex tools.

I don't think we disagree. I just know that the current KSP design philosophy doesn't support the idea of complex tools. Therefore I'm not a fan of something like LS, because it hobbles core gameplay without adding in something unique. ("You now need part X to do the same thing you did last week.") Same for a comm network. ("You now need a satellite network so you can land a probe on the planet and do nothing.") Same for nearly anything that relies on time.

Those things need to be looked at from a holistic view. Adding them on one part at a time is what gives a disjointed, "something is missing" feeling. KSP is what it is, and to expect radical change this late might be optimistic. If it's not going to get radical change, then anything new needs to enhance the core mechanics, or else it just adds to the disjointed feeling.

So it's never a question of "realism" vs. "lol kerbal" in my mind.

Take the comm network for example. Instead of the only new mechanic being "you need a comm network to control your probe, just like you could last week." Add some new features with it, but features that contribute to core gameplay. It can still be required for probe control, but take the opportunity to add something that pushes core gameplay. Then people are more willing to accept it.

For example: How about certain (maybe larger sized) probe cores can add waypoints and transmit them over the network. Then smaller and larger probe cores can receive them for navigation. Maybe I can even queue narrow band maps to that waypoint. Now I've just given the player a new tool for planning and exploring, and a reason to build a comm network. Probe cores get something unique, and I didn't force the need for life support as a balance factor. You get a bonus for building something without it simply being a purely new barrier to old gameplay. Is that all perfectly realistic, probably not. But it's also not "lol so kerbal." It's something in the middle, but more importantly it aids the player's ability to explore and go fly somewhere.

[KSK]

3 hours ago, Claw said:

*snip*

Like I said, if you want complex gameplay, you have to give the player some complex tools.

I don't think we disagree. I just know that the current KSP design philosophy doesn't support the idea of complex tools. Therefore I'm not a fan of something like LS, because it hobbles core gameplay without adding in something unique. ("You now need part X to do the same thing you did last week.") Same for a comm network. ("You now need a satellite network so you can land a probe on the planet and do nothing.") Same for nearly anything that relies on time.

Those things need to be looked at from a holistic view. Adding them on one part at a time is what gives a disjointed, "something is missing" feeling. KSP is what it is, and to expect radical change this late might be optimistic. If it's not going to get radical change, then anything new needs to enhance the core mechanics, or else it just adds to the disjointed feeling.

*snip*

No - I don't think we do disagree and that's a very good point about taking the wider view. Like it or not, I doubt the core gameplay of KSP is going to change much now so, yeah, additions need to factor that in. For what its worth, I thought your ideas for satellite networks were great!

[Pthigrivi]

20 hours ago, Claw said:

Like I said, if you want complex gameplay, you have to give the player some complex tools.

 

See I don't think we do need complex tools, I just think we need simple ones. I mean we have COM, COL and COT indicators to get a plane off the runway. It guides trial and error, and helps a player improve even as they experiment. But then we're expected to get to Eeloo by eyeball. It's not surprising that so few players make it to other planets, as we really don't have the tools to do so. It wouldn't take a total game overhaul to get there. There could be a really simple Mission Planner in Mission Control or the Tracking Station, where you could select "Starting Body" and "Target Body" and be supplied with:

Time until next Transfer window: x [Set Alarm]

Delta V to Orbit (100km): x

Delta V to Transfer: x

Time until Intercept: x [Set Alarm]

Delta V to Capture (100km): x

Delta V to Surface: x

Then you could repeat the process for the return journey. I know there's concern about overwhelming new players with too much data, and I actually agree that initial phase of throwing things together and seeing what happens is a really fun, important part of learning. You can very easily get to Minmus or the Mun without it. It's going beyond that to building complex interplanetary missions that really requires this kind of information. The easy solution to this is to make it part of a building upgrade, so that its locked until players really need it. The same could be done in the VAB supplying dV and TWR on tier 2 or 3 out of 4. If later life support were added, Available Life Support could be displayed in days in the engineer's report, and then players could easily compare with the Mission Planner to see if they were appropriately supplied. 

I get what you're saying about the spirit of the game, its just a progression question, really. None of this seems fundamentally different from supplying players with engine thrust or solar panel output information, nor does it impede players from making whatever wacky cool thing they choose. If anything it helps them push the limits of what is possible. Its just a question of when to make new information available to a player to help them grow and do bigger and cooler things. Nor does the limitation LS might put on players seem fundamentally different from the limits the new aerodynamics or heat models impose. If it were staged generously you wouldn't have to worry too much about it early on. Kerbals in hibernation or on strike could still be rescued, and I'm sure people who didn't want to think about it could turn it off. I totally agree there are a ton of more pressing things the dev's might address, and even I would want to see building tiers and the experience system fleshed out and a pass at science before spending time on LS. Still, it has the potential to add an amazing layer to long-term gameplay.

Edited December 8, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[cantab]

On 05/12/2015 22:23:05, tater said:

Comm networks as added to KSP in mods are not even slightly realistic, they are needlessly tedious, particularly given that the distance from Kerbol to Eeloo is about 1/2 the distance from Sol to Venus, right?

Ever tried AntennaRange? You can perfectly well use the big dish to connect directly to Kerbin from anywhere in the system, just like how real spacecraft talk to the Deep Space Network - right up until the planet you're orbiting gets in the way. That IMHO is how it should be.

[Claw]

4 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

See I don't think we do need complex tools, I just think we need simple ones.

Well, maybe we should chock this one up to differences in my meaning of "complex" the the context of the Kerbal universe. As under the current philosophy, a dV readout is considered complex. So without diving into specific examples, the types of things you threw out are along the lines of what I mean. (Like "Time until next optimum transfer window.")

[Hannu2]

On 5.12.2015 klo, Pthigrivi said:

I do think though that long term, if done right, LS could add a lot more than adding mandatory parts.

 

This is true. Typically LS is just that you put few parts on ship and little larger fuel tanks and launcher. But errors and failures is what makes things interesting. For example it is possible to cut 10-20 % from travel time with relatively low increase of DV. But I if plan to use that and then use too much fuel at target, for example for landings, or error in KSP's trajectory prediction guides me to wrong return orbit I send resource ship. Some of my most interesting missions have been light emergency supply ships to ships on interplanetary trajectories. They must have more than 10 km/s dv and ability to make rendezvous on solar orbits. Also forgetting life supplies of Minmus crafts have lead to interesting abort and rescue operations.

[tater]

12 hours ago, cantab said:

Ever tried AntennaRange? You can perfectly well use the big dish to connect directly to Kerbin from anywhere in the system, just like how real spacecraft talk to the Deep Space Network - right up until the planet you're orbiting gets in the way. That IMHO is how it should be.

Yeah, I was talking about RT (implicit in my talking about comm "networks."

[bn880]

On 12/5/2015 at 5:23 PM, tater said:

Comm networks as added to KSP in mods are not even slightly realistic, they are needlessly tedious, particularly given that the distance from Kerbol to Eeloo is about 1/2 the distance from Sol to Venus, right?

Here's why I chimed in on LS, and why I would actually welcome a chance of part failures in career (perhaps via a mechanic where parts were gained on an "experimental" basis until tested a certain number of hours/days/whatever). I'd like to see reliability a factor vs other benefits of parts. So you pick upper stage engines based upon reliability (as Apollo did) and restart. Heck, I'd also be in favor of changing the throttling ability of engines to be far more realistic, as well as restart not being a thing for many. Note that these forms of realism would only come into play at all in the context of career alone (and career needs a gut-job improvement, frankly).

Currently there is no mechanic whereby crewed missions are any different than uncrewed missions. 

Agreed on reliability, it's a part of Engineering and space travel.  Gameplay suffers a lot in career mode due to the lack of it.

[Wjolcz]

On 05/12/2015 at 7:29 PM, Claw said:

Here's the deal with all of this, that drives me into complete insanity. This game is a sandbox at heart. We can argue up and down, but the basic premise the game started with was "build whatever and go where ever." It grew with a lot of additions, but the core mechanics have remained unchanged.

 

So while I'm not categorically opposed to the addition of Life Support, I would like to see it being done in a way that isn't simply another limiting factor added to the game. Is it a limiting factor in real life? Yep, it sure is. But if life support just becomes another "you must attach X number of part Y on your ship to fly for time Z", that also becomes "boring" to me. If it becomes a matter of development time, I would much rather see time spent adding more powerful tools in the game first. Tools that allow for complex mission planning and mission management. I'd rather be able to fly more simultaneous missions to more places in complex ways, than to have to add more parts to my already laggy ships just so I can go on the same flights that I already do.

 

If we want to get into the realism debate, those complex mission management tools are just as "grass roots." Do I have a team of hundreds of thousands of scientists and a huge array of supercomputers at my disposal? Nope. A real space program consists of a couple more people than just me and a flight crew. Yet that part is often overlooked in the "should KSP be a lol wacky simulator, or hardcore engineering design sim" debate. There is a nice middle ground in there too, though I'm sure there are plenty of people who disagree. If you want a complex game with comm network and life support requirements, then you need to give the player complex tools to be able to figure it all out.

 

In any case, I don't mean to sidetrack the overall theme of the thread onto a specific topic. I suppose that was one example (in my mind) that I'm probably more of a 75%, than a 0 or 100%. But that's probably a bit of a simplification as well. I'm onboard with fairly realistic physics (doesn't have to be n-body and atomic level CFD though), but I'm not a fan of adding things like fuel slosh, limited firings on engines, etc. into the core game. Those elements are also all realistic, but it's still a video game. Added elements can (and should) provide new challenges, but they should also done with the mindset of adding to the "build whatever and go where ever" core of the game.

I agree with this in 10000%

[tater]

One, "comm networks" as per RT are not realistic. If we had finite ground stations and bandwidth, then maybe we'd need to think about other solutions, but particularly given the tools in KSP it is just tedious (the lack of automated station keeping, for example).

Two, regarding LS "adding more parts" in effect is "adding more mass." In the long run, that's all LS is, requiring bigger and more massive craft for missions that require longer durations. It need not micromanage every aspect of LS, it literally only needs to consider the base mass of the mechanical LS systems (many would be folded into existing crewed parts anyway), and then the net consumed mass per day. Sure, water might be recycled at 94% or something like that, and food much less so, but in the end all that matters is the net extra mass you must take. That's it, it's just mass. If you wanted to be more complex, do what Roverdude is talking about and have some requirement for ha volume per kerbal per unit time (they need nicer digs for a 10 year mission than a 10 day mission).

If you are going to send in effect a mk1 capsule to Duna, and that's all you can manage, then it should be a probe.

Edited December 31, 2015 by tater

[r_rolo1]

To the OP:

The original idea for this game, as stated by Harv himself, was basically a 2,5D rocket launch into the atmo of a single planet that got on rails and 2D as soon as you left the atmo ... in other words ( the ones of ex-SQUAD MaxMaps ) a little more than a flash game , and more , made by someone that admitted that he only really learned about orbital mechanics while coding the game  So, the game has been since the beginning being steadily drifting towards more realism and that is a good thing  ( atleast IMHO ... I'm pretty sure I would not play "Angry Kerbals throw rockets to space" for a long time  )

That aside, and adressing the actual OP point , I think that eventually most parts on the game will end being very close of RL counterparts ... simply because the similar laws of physics ( hopefully  ) will force convergent  solutions. Not necessarily equal, but surely close in terms of actual performance.

P:S I do not understand the logic behind the test on the second option of the poll. Kerbal rockets are not whacky or even explodey, atleast not more than human ones: their parts are so overengineered for crash tolerance and heat resistance their rockets would not reach space in Earth and TBH I can't even do half of the crazy things that were done in RL within stock KSP ( say, like tethering two objects at diferent orbits to catapult the lower one higher at the expense of the other ... or, my favourite, how one of the biggest space agencies in the world used for decades as their staple ship a glider with custom engines with loads of gimbal bolted sideways to a rocket mostly pushed by some really big SRB   Infact, the game doesn't even have SRB with thurst vectoring, something that predates the Apollo program :/ ). The whacky ones are us, not the Kerbals

Edited December 31, 2015 by r_rolo1

[Requia]

On 12/5/2015 at 11:38 AM, Jovus said:

I just want my wet/dry ratios to both make sense and not be terrible. :/

It's not even the 9:1 that bothers me so much, actually, as that it's randomly different across parts and fuels.

The stock tanks all have exactly the same wet:dry ratio to the nearest kilogram. The variations in percentages are just rounding errors.

Edited December 31, 2015 by Requia

[wumpus]

I like the "kerbal" level of realism.  I am also very glad that the realism overhaul set of mods exist, and when I am "done" with KSP proper I expect to spend time in the "real" thing.

I want explosive staging back.  To me that was the "most kerbal" part of the game and I miss it.