Jump to content

Realism vs. Kerbalism?


Realism vs. Kerbalism  

262 members have voted

  1. 1. Kerbal rockets should be:

    • copies of real life human rockets (100% real)
      31
    • totally wacky cartoony explody kerbaly rockets (0% real)
      15
    • a bit cartoony, but with real life performance (75% real)
      216


Recommended Posts

C'mon guys this is a rocket simulator... we can't only have a few aspects of engineering rockets and not have the rest of it.

We need life support, different fuels, radiation, part failures, simulated aero and heating forces, line of sight communication and transmission delays etc. The whole point of this game is to teach common gamers about designing a mission in space. 

Rocket science is supposed to be hard and this game should reflect how much thought goes into each and every mission. 

I recommend that Squad has different levels of difficulty that reflect realism. Easy should be stock KSP as is. Normal should be a larger Kerbin system with life support etc. and Hard should be real life sized Kerbin system with EVERY realistic feature you can have in the game. Hard should basically be an engineering sim set in the Kerbal universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to like the idea of life support until I played it. All it is is 10% more fuel and supplies for twice the mission duration.  At this point it is just extra parts I have to add and given ksps part limit I think it hurts the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Nich said:

I used to like the idea of life support until I played it. All it is is 10% more fuel and supplies for twice the mission duration.  At this point it is just extra parts I have to add and given ksps part limit I think it hurts the game.

I agree, it feels like micro-management. Except for [1.0.5] Snacks! Kerbal simplified life support v0.3.5. One resource called "snacks" is added to every crew-able part(pods, cockpits, hitchhiker,...). every day, every kerbal will eat 1 snacks. If there are no snacks for him to eat, you will lsoe some reputation...everyday that he goes hungry.
A Hichhiker-habitat can last one kerbal 800days, thats about a to-Duna-and-return mission. This forces you to build ships with enough living space for those interplanetary missions.
In stock it feels wrong to waste extra mass for luxury to get a kerbal to duna...instead of a single MK1 capsule(which feels even more wrong)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, TeeGee said:

C'mon guys this is a rocket simulator... we can't only have a few aspects of engineering rockets and not have the rest of it.

We need life support, different fuels, radiation, part failures, simulated aero and heating forces, line of sight communication and transmission delays etc. The whole point of this game is to teach common gamers about designing a mission in space. 

Rocket science is supposed to be hard and this game should reflect how much thought goes into each and every mission. 

The game is what you make it.

As is, KSP is a rocket simulator, yes, but having it be a full-blown game for engineers only would restrict the game to very high levels. As it is now, the game is difficult to learn and master, but it already gives you the opportunity for so much more. Want to just piece together a rocket and go for it? You can do that. Want to carefully design stages with charts and math and stuff? You can do that too, quite easily. And for basically every point you mention, there is a mod for that, and SQUAD intentionally encourages mods to take care of that for people akin to you, who want a more in-depth experience. It's there for you if you want it. The sentence I bolded in the quote was for emphasis. KSP already does that. Mods exist to cater to the player's want for more, should they want it. Forcing it upon the new player would be a very disastrous move. Not everybody is an engineer (certainly not me).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like and use a fair amount of realism mods and parts in the game.  I use TAC and Remote Tech just to name 2.  I do draw a line though at RSS or any mod that makes the planets/moons and solar system larger.  I understand and respect the idea, but I have fun exploring planets, not struggling to fly by the moon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Maximus97 said:

The game is what you make it.

As is, KSP is a rocket simulator, yes, but having it be a full-blown game for engineers only would restrict the game to very high levels. As it is now, the game is difficult to learn and master, but it already gives you the opportunity for so much more. Want to just piece together a rocket and go for it? You can do that. Want to carefully design stages with charts and math and stuff? You can do that too, quite easily. And for basically every point you mention, there is a mod for that, and SQUAD intentionally encourages mods to take care of that for people akin to you, who want a more in-depth experience. It's there for you if you want it. The sentence I bolded in the quote was for emphasis. KSP already does that. Mods exist to cater to the player's want for more, should they want it. Forcing it upon the new player would be a very disastrous move. Not everybody is an engineer (certainly not me).

Naw I didn't say Squad should be forcing anything, I just recommended that for each difficulty setting the game becomes more and more realistic. Maybe even have a realistic mode. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TeeGee said:

Naw I didn't say Squad should be forcing anything, I just recommended that for each difficulty setting the game becomes more and more realistic. Maybe even have a realistic mode. 

I read a bit more clearly, but I think the issue then becomes having a solar system that changes size depending on the difficulty. That's doesn't make sense to me, if I'm honest. There wouldn't be much point. Maps on other singleplayer games don't increase or decrease based on the difficulty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This game is very customizable, and the base version isn't a huge obstacle to enjoying it. If you feel the need for more (or less) realism, there are mods for that. I would not attempt to make the base game so suitable to my style of play that it turns others away. If you want complexity, there are many ways to add it. If you are a beginner, the more complex the basic version of the game, the less appealing it will be. For some folks, what you describe would be heavenly, but for others, it would make the game a big pain in the ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Maximus97 said:

I read a bit more clearly, but I think the issue then becomes having a solar system that changes size depending on the difficulty. That's doesn't make sense to me, if I'm honest. There wouldn't be much point. Maps on other singleplayer games don't increase or decrease based on the difficulty.

Not in size, necessarily, but there are plenty of games that use different maps for different difficulties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the moment I am having the most fun I have ever had in KSP playing RO RSS RP-0 KCT with all the realism on even to the point where engines fail if they have not been tested enough and don`t ignite if you don`t have ullage.

That said, it`s not for everyone and IMHO should remain in the realm of mods even if those mods are supported by Squad in the future (which would be my preference)

I would really like RSS to be just an option in the settings along with all the features of RO and for RP-0 to be just another tech tree you could play.

Then it`s the best of both worlds, the stock/easy system could have whacky engines and be capable of whackjobian monstrosities etc and the real sized proper physics system could have a series of contracts designed to take you through the human development of spaceflight (which is the reason a lot of us are here if we are honest) alongside life support and all the real world `fun` that goes along with designing a rocket.

 

win-win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care how cartoonish it looks, I care how it BEHAVES. Life support is a must, launching/landing/orientqatiopn automatics is a must, ISRU must rely on realistic resourses, and not some oxygen-and-oil-containing "ore"... Realism is not about mirroring reality, it's about being realistic and believeable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can add the mods for this to happen.  I think it's good that players can start with a (fairly) easy game, then discover the mods on their own, rather than get overwhelmed quickly and stop playing. :)

 

My opinion, over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2016 at 3:51 PM, Nich said:

I used to like the idea of life support until I played it. All it is is 10% more fuel and supplies for twice the mission duration.  At this point it is just extra parts I have to add and given ksps part limit I think it hurts the game.

I keep trying to tell NASA that, but they just won't listen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

I keep trying to tell NASA that, but they just won't listen.

nasa is not limited to 200 parts. I wonder if you could complete a 1 million part Apollo mission inyour lifetime. 

Edited by Nich
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's realism for one is adding mind numbing repetition (think station-keeping with n-body physics) for another and making it so hard it's not fun anymore for yet another.

KSP has evolved from building and launching rockets to something completely different. Launching rockets. Putting them into orbit. Flying to other moons. Flying to other planets. A good part of the user base has evolved with it, but let's not forget that the money that enables continuous development comes from new players and Squad has to think about those as well. Dialing realism to "11" and making the game so hard that getting off the launch pad alone is an accomplishment is great for the old-timers, but it will stop new players right in their tracks.

I wouldn't mind if the game came with difficulty settings. Not the current how hard will a mistake be punished settings, but real difficulty settings. The user can set an overall level (everything either easy or advanced or hard for instance) or go with a custom level and pick and choose among the following:

Fuel: unlimited/existing setup/differentiate between RP-1 and LH
Life support: unlimited/snacks/food, O2, heat
RCS/Control: auto balanced/existing setup/torque wheels underpowered
Engines: existing setup/min throttle 10%/limited gimballing

I'm sure it's easy to come up with an additional 4 or 6 categories (heat, power generation, etc) that could make the game fun for everyone to enjoy at their own level and in the way they like it while those that cannot be bothered with setting individual settings simply pick "easy" or "hard" or "normal"

It worked for MS Flight Simulator. It could be set up in such a way that my 6yr old son enjoyed flying a biplane, but equally you could go all the way or pick something in between (don't like turbulence or wind shear? Turn it off. But do keep the clouds though...). I can't imagine it wouldn't work for KSP.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Fuel: unlimited/existing setup/differentiate between RP-1 and LH
Life support: unlimited/snacks/food, O2, heat
RCS/Control: auto balanced/existing setup/torque wheels underpowered
Engines: existing setup/min throttle 10%/limited gimballing

That's a great idea, I can expand on those four categories with Easy, Normal, and Hard:

Fuel: Easy: LF+O only | Normal: Kerosene/Oxidizer, LH2/Oxidizer | Hard: RealFuels. Ullage and throttle is an independent setting.
LS: Easy: None | Normal: Snacks | Hard: Food, water, oxygen, scrubbers. Like TAC-LS.
Control: Easy: Same as now | Normal: RW penalized to 50% of now | Hard: RWs are 1% of the current
Engines: Easy: As it is now | Normal: Limited ignitions | Hard: RealFuels, ullage, boiloff, etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is very controversial, and I am aware that this is undoable because of the sheer chaos that will ensue, but I would prefer for ksp to be like Orbiter, but with its own parts, building, etc.

Edited by Matuchkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cartoon representations are fine, but not the physics - it would be fine to take advantage of entertaining loonytoons-type graphics but please DO NOT use Loonytoons-like physics.

And regarding the poll - 75% of what? Which of newton's laws gets skipped? Come on... Rethink the poll or lock the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kerbart said:

What's realism for one is adding mind numbing repetition (think station-keeping with n-body physics) for another and making it so hard it's not fun anymore for yet another

Some realistic settings (ie, fuel lines so expensive, bulky and heavy that asparagus isn't worth it) make the game harder, some make it easier (like a dV readout or a landing predictor).

And regarding micromanagment, it depends on the full interface for that system. For instance, manually performing burns for station keeping is boring micromanagment. However, the game could include a "station keeping" interface which tells you, before you launch, how much dV will be required for station keeping at a given orbit. Once the player establishes a specific orbit, the player toggles station keeping, and an autopilot takes care of all required burns from there on until the ship runs out of fuel, at which point it kicks it into a graveyard orbit.

I agree, however, that throwing every single bit of realism in the face of new players is overwhelming. And, ultimately, there is no gameplay difference in, for instance, atmospheres that don't cut off at once so satellites have to face drag. The game would be just adding one problem and, to avoid micromanagement, it also handles the solution.

Finally, as in all discussions regarding realism, I wonder how many people discusses "realism" and how many are actually discussing "my favorite mods". I haven't given a shot to RO, but do people use asparagus staging when playing RO? Or circularize a satellite in GEO by a single burn at the Ap instead of the many periapsis kicks satellites do in real life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, realism in KSP should continue along the same basic lines it is doing...  Essentially realistic physics, all be it 'toned down' a bit for gameplay reasons, but close enough to teach the basics of how stuff works IRL.  With other stuff that is important and/or relevant to space exploration covered in such a way as to introduce the concepts to players without swamping them with complex stuff.

Eg.. The stock ISRU system.  It's simple in that it only has one resource, but in order to use it effectively you have to survey your destinations, and design your ships and plan your missions appropriately.  Even with just the one resource it can still be quite an involved process.

I would like to see this philosophy extended to cover other aspects, such as (the soon to be included) 'comms network' stuff from Roverdude and a simple Life support system etc. etc.  These are very real issues that need to be considered in actual space exploration, so its right that they be represented in the game in some form, but IMO it has to be 'simple' enough to be casually playable.

Extra levels of complexity can easily be provided by mods for those that want it (and possibly better than would be viable for stock too).  This would avoid overloading the 'stock' code with lots of extra stuff that may well not get used by the majority of players, or those who just want to target specific areas of 'detail' because of their preferences and play style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Realism" is usually poorly defined in these threads, and the counter arguments tend to be straw men, and their proponents don't bother to find out what the "realism" people are actually suggesting/asking for before commenting.

"Realism" doesn't require the player to have to move a spoon to the mouth of the kerbal to feed him, for example. Every minutiae of space travel need not be modeled. 

The pluses of making things are realistic as possible/appropriate are numerous. A few are:

That things behave as one would expect from real-life experience. For example, rockets that look like real rockets behave pretty much like real rockets.

That real problems that needed to be solved need to be solved in the game (this is FUN, and pretty much the whole point of the game, to solve rocket problems). For example, mini-Kerbin and Mun means that staged munar landers are not only not a good solution, they are not even worth considering. From a  gameplay standpoint, the best solution would be to have designed the Mun specifically such that the player has a meaningful choice of Kerbin orbit rendezvous (assemble the craft in LKO from multiple launches), direct ascent (the typical KSP munar landing, albeit in a tiny rocket), or munar orbit rendezvous (Apollo style). Right now, there is no choice except just to be different (and wasteful).

That the atmosphere works without needing to be fudged (we see this now with interplanetary trajectories and aerobraking).

Life support would add reasonable time constraints, and would make rescues more exciting.

Meaningful time progression does the same, and makes setbacks feel more troublesome.

There are more, obviously. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, tater said:

"Realism" is usually poorly defined in these threads, and the counter arguments tend to be straw men, and their proponents don't bother to find out what the "realism" people are actually suggesting/asking for before commenting.

"Realism" doesn't require the player to have to move a spoon to the mouth of the kerbal to feed him, for example. Every minutiae of space travel need not be modeled.

You are correct in defining realism. However, there seems to be a large variation in opinions which things people want to make by a realistic way and which things should be simplified. For example I do not want to make detailed EVAs, piloting etc. mundane stuff. I think that I am mostly a mission command. I plan things, send instructions to crew and make much technical micromanagement stuff to keep things going. But many people have perfectly opposite opinions. They want to make EVAs, pilot by hand, have interior models and they keep planning as a boring thing which should be simplified out of the game.

In my opinion SQUAD should make the KSP as a platform which anyone could mod whatever they want. It is already, but it should be maybe more. SQUAD should make a bugless and effective physics engine, UI, career mode basics etc. basic stuff. It is not a bad idea to keep stock KSP cartoonish, numberless and oversimplified. However, engine on the behind of the screen should be made so that the game could be easily modded to even extreme nerdy micromanagement hell for professional engineers and scientists. Or whatever else. Most things are already OK and there are loads of well thought high quality technical realism mods but there are some several problems left. For example map view should have a complete overhaul. Not a graphical eye candy, which is probably already coming, but detailed simulator-like planning tool with built in porkchop plotters, complex slingshot orbit planner etc. As far as I know it is not easy or even possible to mod now.

And of course, first of all, axial tilts. They could put kerbin's tilt as 0, Mun on equatorial orbit and KSC at equator, if they think that average user is retard, but angles should be able to change to more realistic and much more interesting values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life support can only be added to the stock game if they add some windows on the map screen so we can easily see how close certain missions are to starving to death, along with probably some alarm clock feature.
It will also need to auto stop timewarp when missions are approaching the food event horizon so-to-speak.


But here is my problem with this sort of stuff. With time warp I can usually do a jool mission in an hour or so just landing a probe on a moon or something. I personally only do one mission at a time(not counting my perma-bases or stations), so I warp for years at a time depending on my destination. So if I say hey I'd like to get a nice screenshot of Vall, I would have to also do a few missions to replenish my moon base and spacestation(for example, really any live kerbals will need upkeep while I would rather be landing on Vall), during the multi year warp. That becomes more of a pain than I would like for my game, personally.

The way around this of course would be eternal greenhouse things that produce food over time, but that still essentially locks out any convenient long distance missions until the tree is (presumably)complete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I tend to want realism in the form of "fog of war" (not knowing things about planets that I couldn't know without a spacecraft until I get a spacecraft there), and of course the basic physics. I tend to think that simplifications justified solely for "gameplay" tend to end up being bad in the long run. The size of the Kerbol system, for example (I realize the initial rationale was somewhat different, but RSS demonstrates that full size is entirely possible within the engine). The mini system I would argue makes gameplay less interesting, and in some cases things are actually harder.

Take rendezvous and docking, for example. Many new players report this as the hardest thing to do., oddly enough even the docking part. In LKO, you have little time to manage docking before it gets dark, particularly if you are a new player, and are lucky to get any rendezvous, and cannot plan it well to coincide with sunrise. That's a function of a tiny world.

Life supporting warping to serially complete missions are not terribly compatible. Other than new patches with mods not caught up, I never play the stock sized kernel system, so the situation there would be worse, I launch to Jool, then do other stuff for years while the craft is en route.

Edited by tater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...