Pilots Suggestion

[Jarin]

9 minutes ago, razark said:

Again, if you give a penalty to lower levels, it's within the laws of physics, but a bonus to high levels is violating it.  In an RPG, or FPS, or any other genre, I'd say it's ok to give it a pass.  But when your entire game is based on actual realistic physics, you just don't get that leeway.

 

So if we say that the Mainsail's "real" engine ISP is 350, but without skilled adjustment and piloting, you can't get more than 310 out of it...

Edit: to clarify, my point is, penalty/bonus is entirely a semantics argument on where you balance the engines.

Edited March 11, 2017 by Jarin

[razark]

11 minutes ago, Jarin said:

...penalty/bonus is entirely a semantics argument on where you balance the engines.

I'm almost ready to concede that point.

However, if the Mainsail's ISP is 310 in Sandbox mode, the maximum you should ever see in Career mode in 310.*  If the maximum in Career with a 5-star pilot is 350, you should see it listed as 350 in the parts list and that is how it should act in Sandbox.  In other words, the maximum level is arbitrary and subject to balancing, but the maximum level should be the maximum level it can operate at, not less.

 

 

 

*This is, of course, disregarding the possibility of part upgrades.  (Which are tech-level dependent, not character-level dependent.  After all, the SSME was capable of running at 109% thrust, independent of who was flying the mission.)

[passinglurker]

51 minutes ago, razark said:

Again, if you give a penalty to lower levels, it's within the laws of physics, but a bonus to high levels is violating it. 

what laws of physics? kerbal isp is not based on any real world data about engine cycles and propellants its just a number in a text file. It literally makes no difference if a lvl1 pilot gives you -5% or a lvl5 pilot gives +5% its like getting upset about guns in shooters doing less damage if not a stealth kill as opposed to doing more damage if it is a stealth kill. Its the same damn effect just from different perspectives!

#pilotsShouldBoostISP #PineappleBelongsOnPizza #EitherWaySquadNeedsToBallanceCarreerModeBetter

[razark]

How about pilots reduce the mass of the craft, instead of affecting engine performance?  Or give the craft larger fuel tanks?

It gives them a boost, and it's not based on physics, right?  Makes perfect sense!

 

The problem is that the game is based on a (largely) accurate model of orbital mechanics and rocket physics.  Ignoring that is ignoring what the game is supposed to be about.

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

#PineappleBelongsOnPizza

Ahem.  Well, I didn't realize I was dealing with an actual heretical blasphemer.  Obviously, every single one of your opinions is as completely useless as your opinion of what is actually edible when placed atop pizza.

[passinglurker]

1 minute ago, razark said:

How about pilots reduce the mass of the craft, instead of affecting engine performance?  Or give the craft larger fuel tanks?

It gives them a boost, and it's not based on physics, right?  Makes perfect sense!

Actually changing the size of the fuel tank or the mass of the craft doesn't work as well because its harder to code and compensate of every eventuality where the crew is shuffled detached and ejected. Meanwhile giving more torque from SAS doesn't work because its possible to over torque a craft that's why there are strength sliders for gimbals and reaction wheels so at the very least pilots won't make a difference or would need to be dialed back half the time. Autopilot would be nice but again its not as easy as it sounds mechjeb has a large number of tweaking controls and customizations to handle over torque, under torque, wobble and even then its easy to make a ship that mechjeb derps out trying to fly. The only option that is simple enough for stock kerbal is abstractly boosting/retarding engine/rcs thruster efficiency.

 

9 minutes ago, razark said:

The problem is that the game is based on a (largely) accurate model of orbital mechanics and rocket physics.  Ignoring that is ignoring what the game is supposed to be about.

Ah-Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! XD Its funny because Kerbal's toy solar system undermines any realism the game may have to its very core! XD 

But seriously RO is called Realism Overhaul for a reason the model is never as accurate as you think, the balance is never as thought out as you thought it was, and the game is never about what you think it is. At the end of the day beyond a superficial lesson in orbital mechanics Kerbal is simply a game and nothing more than that.
 

15 minutes ago, razark said:

Ahem.  Well, I didn't realize I was dealing with an actual heretical blasphemer.

Let the galaxy burn!...

[Jarin]

1 hour ago, razark said:

 

However, if the Mainsail's ISP is 310 in Sandbox mode, the maximum you should ever see in Career mode in 310.*  If the maximum in Career with a 5-star pilot is 350, you should see it listed as 350 in the parts list and that is how it should act in Sandbox.  In other words, the maximum level is arbitrary and subject to balancing, but the maximum level should be the maximum level it can operate at, not less.

Pilots still exist in sandbox, they just automatically have 5 stars. They don't go away. That 350 would be the maximum regardless of career or sandbox. The part list could display the ISP range. But yeah, I think there's not much space between our positions here.

[Wjolcz]

If your Mainsail has a range of Isp it can operate on then you should see your doctor about that.

This is not an RPG game. I can accept having a weapon with damage from X to Y in Skyrim, Legend of Zelda and such. But this is KSP, dammit, and the engines' efficiency should stay consistent no matter what (unless upgraded in VAB or with some proper gameplay mechanic given to the engineers)! It would be so ridiculous to see the same vessel/rocket perform differently because of who is sitting in it. I don't even see it being useful in any way if it's just 5%.

If I see the "oh, but it's kerbal so doesn't have to be real" argument again I will go mad and start posting threads about antigravity and FTL devices all over the place because, if I understand correctly, every person supporting these kerbal amulets idea will also support "my" ideas. Not much difference for someone who believes kerbal pilot magicians should be a thing, right?

Edited March 11, 2017 by Veeltch

[passinglurker]

8 hours ago, Veeltch said:

If your Mainsail has a range of Isp it can operate on then you should see your doctor about that.

You heard it here first folks atmospheric isp range is not realistic.

8 hours ago, Veeltch said:

This is not an RPG game.

It's not a twitchy reflex game either so some of us wouldn't mind some "RPG elements".

8 hours ago, Veeltch said:

I can accept having a weapon with damage from X to Y in Skyrim, Legend of Zelda and such.

Apples and Oranges.

8 hours ago, Veeltch said:

But this is KSP, dammit, and the engines' efficiency should stay consistent no matter what (unless upgraded in VAB or with some proper gameplay mechanic given to the engineers)!

But this is KSP, dammit, and manned piloting should be useful if not superior no matter what (and the isp boost is not magic it's an abstraction of the pilot's skill to precisely maneuver and throttle the spacecraft so as to not waste fuel regardless of the player's own skill because again this isn't a twitchy reflex game some players don't want it to be a test of personal skill)!

8 hours ago, Veeltch said:

It would be so ridiculous to see the same vessel/rocket perform differently because of who is sitting in it.

So engineers don't get a fuel refining boost anymore got it.

8 hours ago, Veeltch said:

I don't even see it being useful in any way if it's just 5%.

The exact amount of the boost would be subject to balancing and playtesting people are just low balling the numbers to try to stave off anti-fun fanatics.

8 hours ago, Veeltch said:

If I see the "oh, but it's kerbal so doesn't have to be real" argument again I will go mad and start posting threads about antigravity and FTL devices all over the place because, if I understand correctly, every person supporting these kerbal amulets idea will also support "my" ideas.

Meh... I wouldn't mind we need some more endgame content anyway, and this is just a game.

8 hours ago, Veeltch said:

Not much difference for someone who believes kerbal pilot magicians should be a thing, right?

Its not magic, and saying it is over and over doesn't make it true. The isp boost is an abstraction of the pilot's skill to precisely maneuver and throttle the spacecraft so as to not waste fuel regardless of the player's own skill because again this isn't a twitchy reflex game so some players don't want it to be a test of personal skill.

Edited March 11, 2017 by passinglurker

[cfds]

3 hours ago, passinglurker said:

So engineers don't get a fuel refining boost anymore got it.

I am not sure if you are trolling but I bite anyway: I fuel refining where anything where actual player skill came into play then (and only then) a level based efficiency boost would be indeed exactly as silly as the ISP boost (or malus) for pilots.

Conversely, if there was a function to tell a pilot to switch from one orbit to another it would make sense if Billy-Bobfry Kerman would use 50m/s more deltaV than Jeb.

[passinglurker]

27 minutes ago, cfds said:

I am not sure if you are trolling but I bite anyway: I fuel refining where anything where actual player skill came into play then (and only then) a level based efficiency boost would be indeed exactly as silly as the ISP boost (or malus) for pilots.

Conversely, if there was a function to tell a pilot to switch from one orbit to another it would make sense if Billy-Bobfry Kerman would use 50m/s more deltaV than Jeb.

one could argue picking a high concentration landing site in the first place is an act of player skill (especially if sticking the landing on a slope) and that avoiding the need for smart or tricky landings by using an efficient engineer to compensate is an act of rpg skill.

but anyway I just see it as hypocritical how the rabid "realism" users can accept how engineers abstractly refine more efficiently, but can't accept the pilots abstractly flying more efficiently. 

[razark]

You've convinced me.  I'm now in support of penalties on lower level engineers, rather than bonuses for high level ones.

Edited March 11, 2017 by razark

[passinglurker]

44 minutes ago, razark said:

You've convinced me.  I'm now in support of penalties on lower level engineers, rather than bonuses for high level ones.

you are either trolling me or you don't grasp how it makes absolutely no difference whether kerbals buff stats or negate penalties with levels. The point is if an engineer can abstractly change the performance of something so can pilots so the arguments against pilot based engine efficiency alterations are bunk

[Matuchkin]

On 06/03/2017 at 5:26 PM, Tyko said:

I think it's an interesting idea, although I wouldn't choose efficiency - that would be more what an engineer would do.

As to why engine efficiency could be improved, I think it would have to do with little things that a season expert would do that a novice wouldn't think of. Specialists in RL often extract more performance from a vehicle than a novice. Look at Formula Racing as a great example. The driver doesn't actually make the engine more efficient, but he does know how to take the best advantage of it in each circumstance to improve his overall performance.

Formula racing is absolutely, unquestionably, globally, totally unrelated to space travel. It's more than comparing apples to oranges, it's like comparing that beer you drank today to the temperature of the horseshoe nebula, as a yes or no answer on a scale of 1-3i.

While an F1 racer takes advantage of his performance by using techniques on turns, fidgeting with oil concentration, being precise, etc, a spaceship spends 30 minutes vomiting out a fuel truck worth of energy per minute, then just floats for the next months/ years.

[Tyko]

Just now, Matuchkin said:

Formula racing is absolutely, unquestionably, globally, totally unrelated to space travel. It's more than comparing apples to oranges, it's like comparing that beer you drank today to the temperature of the horseshoe nebula, as a yes or no answer on a scale of 1-3i.

While an F1 racer takes advantage of his performance by using techniques on turns, fidgeting with oil concentration, being precise, etc, a spaceship spends 30 minutes vomiting out a fuel truck worth of energy per minute, then just floats for the next months/ years.

and why can't an expert pilot/engineer get a 5% advantage by using slight techniques on maneuvers, fidgeting with the engine settings, being precise, etc? we're not talking about the floating part...it's specifically about craft performance

[passinglurker]

10 minutes ago, Matuchkin said:

Formula racing is absolutely, unquestionably, globally, totally unrelated to space travel. It's more than comparing apples to oranges, it's like comparing that beer you drank today to the temperature of the horseshoe nebula, as a yes or no answer on a scale of 1-3i.

While an F1 racer takes advantage of his performance by using techniques on turns, fidgeting with oil concentration, being precise, etc, a spaceship spends 30 minutes vomiting out a fuel truck worth of energy per minute, then just floats for the next months/ years.

bad analogies aside it makes sense for one to derive a fuel efficiency bonus from a skilled kerbal vs. an unskilled kerbal or player. It gives an incentive to use and level up pilots otherwise they essentially become waste of space.

EDIT: oh and we have rovers which the analogy totally works for so add more power efficient rover wheels to the list of pilot boons while we are at it.

Edited March 11, 2017 by passinglurker

[Tyko]

4 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

bad analogies aside it makes sense for one to derive a fuel efficiency bonus from a skilled kerbal vs. an unskilled kerbal or player. It gives an incentive to use and level up pilots otherwise they essentially become waste of space.

I dunno...I think it's a pretty good analogy...two types of vehicles with highly technical, highly tuned drive systems driven by expert drivers who have many tasks to perform at any given moment...both are backed by teams of experts who spend thousands of hours fine-tuning their respective vehicles for optimum performance, yet the skills of the driver/engineer on the scene can still improve performance.

that's actually a textbook analogy...here's the definition  

Definition of analogy

plural

analogies

1. 1 :  inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others

2. 2a :  resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike :  similarityb :  comparison based on such resemblance

[razark]

6 hours ago, passinglurker said:

you are either trolling me or you don't grasp how it makes absolutely no difference whether kerbals buff stats or negate penalties with levels. The point is if an engineer can abstractly change the performance of something so can pilots so the arguments against pilot based engine efficiency alterations are bunk

Then you fail to understand my repeated distinction between the penalty and bonus.  From a "this is a game" perspective, you are quite correct.  From the "even though it's a game, it should still make sense" perspective, not so much.

If I have a car that can, under the best ideal circumstances, go <X> miles on one gallon of gas, then even the best driver that exists cannot make it go <X+0.001> miles.  However, a bad driver can make it go much less than <X> miles.

The difference between a pilot bonus and an engineer bonus is that we have an actual hard baseline for spacecraft performance.  The vehicle physically cannot do better than the physics says it can, but bad piloting can reduce it's performance.  We do not have any such baseline for the maximum performance of the drill, since it's not tied to any actual physics, but is entirely an in-game abstracted process.

 

But if it makes no difference, why are you so set that it should be a bonus, rather than the penalty?

[passinglurker]

3 hours ago, razark said:

The difference between a pilot bonus and an engineer bonus is that we have an actual hard baseline for spacecraft performance.  The vehicle physically cannot do better than the physics says it can, but bad piloting can reduce it's performance.  We do not have any such baseline for the maximum performance of the drill, since it's not tied to any actual physics, but is entirely an in-game abstracted process

Technically you can't say that cause we don't know the engine cycle kerbal's use nor the molecular composition of thier propellants. So making thrust is about as abstract as digging up ore.
 

3 hours ago, razark said:

But if it makes no difference, why are you so set that it should be a bonus, rather than the penalty?

I'm not set on it being a bonus I'm just set on it not being written off as a penalty right off the bat either. The nature and magnitude of this mechanic can only be determined through a process of balancing and playtesting not by what ones immersive gut tells them. The important part to settle on is that kerbals can abstractly change the performance of the craft they are seated in based on thier skill level. Everything else should be up to the devs unless there is a player who wants to implement it as a mod and use it to experiment and crunch the hard numbers.

Edited March 12, 2017 by passinglurker

[Red Iron Crown]

On 3/11/2017 at 6:21 PM, passinglurker said:

The point is if an engineer can abstractly change the performance of something so can pilots so the arguments against pilot based engine efficiency alterations are bunk

What if I feel engineer skill shouldn't affect ISRU efficiency, am I allowed to think that pilot skill shouldn't affect engine efficiency then? In my (very much unofficial) opinion it would be adding more nonsense to existing nonsense. It would be better if an ISRU unit required a certain number of engineer levels to operate, higher experience engineers could reduce the absolute number of engineers required and thereby reduce overall crew size.

[Alshain]

This effect was almost implemented by Squad and the majority of the community rebelled and it got dropped.  It just doesn't make sense for a pilot to make an engine more efficient, especially since pilots of spacecraft don't pilot in the conventional sense.

I agree with RIC on the Engineers as well.  Their use in improving ISRU efficiency is ludicrous, though I do not agree with them being required to use ISRU.  The fact that mining without an Enginner is impossibly slow is why I use Kethane.  Realistically, you don't need someone present to have automated equipment running or running more efficient.  The whole stock ISRU is just badly designed in general.

Honestly the whole Kerbal class system isn't much better.  It was just a bad idea.  It could have worked if there were failures in the game, then the pilots could take over if the computer failed, the engineer can make repairs, and the scientist... well he can research something, frankly it should be Mission Specialist anyway.  However, despite this discussion, I'm not advocating random failures in KSP.

Edited March 13, 2017 by Alshain

[evileye.x]

Meanwhile...

While we have such a hot argument here, Strategia does exactly that

With Pilot Focus

[passinglurker]

3 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

What if I feel engineer skill shouldn't affect ISRU efficiency, am I allowed to think that pilot skill shouldn't affect engine efficiency then? In my (very much unofficial) opinion it would be adding more nonsense to existing nonsense. It would be better if an ISRU unit required a certain number of engineer levels to operate, higher experience engineers could reduce the absolute number of engineers required and thereby reduce overall crew size.

yeah that's a totally fair assessment if you hate both. My beef is just that there isn't hypocritical treatment. I do stand by kerbal skill affecting stats because its already part of the game and therefore extending this to pilots would be a simpler fix for all the drama it would cause compared to a more total overhaul but I can respect alternatives when people put in the effort to prove out thier ideas.

1 hour ago, Alshain said:

It just doesn't make sense for a pilot to make an engine more efficient

It just does make sense for a pilot to execute the player's commands more efficiently and thereby conserve fuel if the player put in the time to raise the pilot's skill level.

Its simple gameplay if you put time in you get a boon out.

1 hour ago, Alshain said:

 especially since pilots of spacecraft don't pilot in the conventional sense.

Pilots of our real spacecraft don't pilot like that maybe but in kerbal we as player-pilots are essentially eyeballing it without mods.

So in this case manual piloting skill matters and if you don't have skill of your own you should be able to leverage the kerbal's "skill" to compensate for your wastefulness. We could use my argument to say we should have autopilot, but it's a much more complex feature to add (we can't even get squad to give us better readouts at this rate) and potentially just as controversial (see mech jeb) so a stat boost offers the best value it doesn't cost the devs much time and it makes the fewest realism users cry while making the fun seekers happy.
 

1 hour ago, Alshain said:

I agree with RIC on the Engineers as well.  Their use in improving ISRU efficiency is ludicrous, though I do not agree with them being required to use ISRU.  The fact that mining without an Enginner is impossibly slow is why I use Kethane.  Realistically, you don't need someone present to have automated equipment running or running more efficient.  The whole stock ISRU is just badly designed in general.

Honestly the whole Kerbal class system isn't much better.  It was just a bad idea.  It could have worked if there were failures in the game, then the pilots could take over if the computer failed, the engineer can make repairs, and the scientist... well he can research something, frankly it should be Mission Specialist anyway.  However, despite this discussion, I'm not advocating random failures in KSP.

I'm not denying there are better ways to implement career from the ground up, but tossing around small disjointed ideas like you are is what got us here in the first place its exactly what squad did "here are some vague placeholder mechanisms and we'll mesh them together after release... whoops looks like it's time to move on with my career and the new guys are too busy localizing and pushing merch to give a damn oh well" 

if you want to argue "things would be so much better if we did something completely different" then you'd better have a whole plan to share from early game through mid game to end game otherwise we'd be better off just polishing what we already got.

Edited March 13, 2017 by passinglurker

[Matuchkin]

On 11/03/2017 at 6:44 PM, Tyko said:

and why can't an expert pilot/engineer get a 5% advantage by using slight techniques on maneuvers, fidgeting with the engine settings, being precise, etc? we're not talking about the floating part...it's specifically about craft performance

And what, specifically, can we do with a rocket engine? I'll say: a rocket engine can be throttled only partially, at the expense of worse performance. It can be gimballed, but that is only controlled by a guidance computer. It starts and stops at the sole command of guidance computers and emergency systems. Fuel efficiency is uncontrollable, and is only governed by the actual dimensions of the thrust chamber and the turbopump (which is itself being spun by a steady stream of gas). I guess that the only way to actually fidget with the engine settings in flight is to give a pilot some absolutely insane grip pads, a toolbox, then send him climbing through mach 10+ winds to actually tinker with the engine while its running. I have multiple obvious doubts about that method, and I don't think we should give Kerbals that much power in KSP.

And while we're at it, let's give scientists the power to transmit science without an antenna, because why not.

Edited March 13, 2017 by Matuchkin

[Alshain]

12 hours ago, passinglurker said:

It just does make sense for a pilot to execute the player's commands more efficiently and thereby conserve fuel if the player put in the time to raise the pilot's skill level.

No it doesn't make sense to save fuel somehow flying the exact identical trajectory.  It doesn't work that way.  There is no executing commands more efficiently.  If you burn to raise your Ap for 20 seconds at Pe it will use the exact same amount of fuel every single time assuming the exact same starting parameters, and assuming you can actually do that perfectly each time, however simply having a pilot on board doesn't change that at all, your imperfections are still there but somehow you are magically conserving fuel despite them?  The only way to make that work would be to have the pilot be a full AI flight computer and Squad said no to that a long time ago.

Edited March 13, 2017 by Alshain

[Alshain]

12 hours ago, passinglurker said:

Pilots of our real spacecraft don't pilot like that maybe but in kerbal we as player-pilots are essentially eyeballing it without mods.

So in this case manual piloting skill matters and if you don't have skill of your own you should be able to leverage the kerbal's "skill" to compensate for your wastefulness. We could use my argument to say we should have autopilot, but it's a much more complex feature to add (we can't even get squad to give us better readouts at this rate) and potentially just as controversial (see mech jeb) so a stat boost offers the best value it doesn't cost the devs much time and it makes the fewest realism users cry while making the fun seekers happy.

Sorry, but that makes no sense at all to do two identical burns and have one somehow use less fuel.  That would corrupt the very core of the game in my view.