Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

What?

At University we had Building Science lecturer who talked about the power of sound. Like how sound can be loud enough to kill. One of the examples he gave was jet engine mechanics if they had to work on a running engine it was so loud they could only work for a couple of minutes before throwing up. Unconvinced I asked my boss at the times father who was an old Qantas Mechanic. Apparently, even the larger propellor engines had enough low bass rumble to make the mechanics physically ill if they had to work on them running.

Given how close the default camera is to the back of planes in KSP realistic sound just doesn't seem like a good goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mattinoz said:

At University we had Building Science lecturer who talked about the power of sound. Like how sound can be loud enough to kill. One of the examples he gave was jet engine mechanics if they had to work on a running engine it was so loud they could only work for a couple of minutes before throwing up. Unconvinced I asked my boss at the times father who was an old Qantas Mechanic. Apparently, even the larger propellor engines had enough low bass rumble to make the mechanics physically ill if they had to work on them running.

Given how close the default camera is to the back of planes in KSP realistic sound just doesn't seem like a good goal.

Well improvemts are due.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 29-6-2017 at 7:03 PM, Snark said:

I'd agree with this, with the proviso that it doesn't bug me much.  KSP's not really "about" sound, for the most part.  Would I like it if it got a bit more love?  Sure, but I don't feel super strongly about it, and there are other things in the game that I'd rather see get higher priority than sound design.

Off-topic rant, on the subject of "when is or isn't sound design important", in spoiler section.

  Reveal hidden contents

Sound design becomes a lot more important when it's a game where it's, well, important.

For example, I have fond memories of playing a lot of Battlefield 1942, and sound was really important in being able to keep a sense of what's going on around you.  For two reasons:

  • First, because it was a multiplayer game, and the "things going on around you" were generally all trying to kill you, so it's really important to be able to keep track of them.
  • Second, because visibility was limited: no third-person view (so you can only see what's right in front of you), and often you're using "cover" (hiding inside a bunker or behind a tree or whatever).  Having limited visibility meant that keeping track of things by sound became a lot more important.

And they did a stunningly good job of it, IMO.  Good use of stereo so I could hear whether a thing was to the left or the right.  Good use of fading, so I could tel how far away things were.  Good job of dopplering, so I could tell whether the fighter plane strafing my position was flying towards or away from me, as I huddled blind in my bunker.  It was masterfully done, to the point that most of the time I didn't even realize it was happening-- it simply gave me great immersion and wonderful feedback that my brain automatically knew how to interpret without my having to think about it.

KSP has basically none of those things.  It has perfect visibility and no other significant sound-emitting objects in the world besides myself.  Better sound might be a little more immersive, but only a little; and I have trouble thinking about how it could actually convey useful information.

Which is why I don't ding them too much for not spending more time on it.  :)

 

 

Especially since making it "more realistic" wouldn't give a boom, anyway!

I think it *does* add to the cinematic suspension of disbelief that users have when they play a video game. "In the movies", a fighter jet always makes an earth-shattering kaboom on the exact moment they break the sound barrier, preferably point blank near the control tower, where the thick glass windows are now reduced to tiny shatters, while the tower's monitors and camera lens are somehow indestructible. Even though that's not necessarily the way it works in the real world, it DOES add to the expectation of the user, giving a very clear audible cue that their craft is now flying faster than the speed of sound.

After all, there is no mach meter anywhere in KSP, so you need to guess what the speed of sound under certain atmospheric conditions actually is. Adding a sonic boom will give the user a sense of achievement because it triggers the "Hey, I guess I just went supersonic, cool!" response.

And if you want to be consistent with the movie physics which dictate that a sonic boom should sound *exactly* like a ship's cannon fired from 3 miles away (write that down, foley artists), the IVA counterpart should be a muffled "thump" sound which is recognizable but not as loud. That's a recognizable, but still comical way of telling the user of their supersonic adventure without being too obtrusive.

On 29-6-2017 at 10:44 PM, ZooNamedGames said:

And for those who are going to complain about how that's not how sonic booms work; your complaining how a sonic boom works in relation to a camera which is exempt from the entirety of physics.

Yeah, well, that. If you're already taking the rules of physics not so particularly seriously, then having the movies as a frame of reference may not be a bad idea. I mean, if we want to get realistic and nit-picky about it, the camera should drop to the floor and remain there unless it is attached to the craft by a massive, invisible selfie stick on a turret.

Edited by Stoney3K
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Stoney3K said:

I think it *does* add to the cinematic suspension of disbelief that users have when they play a video game. "In the movies", a fighter jet always makes an earth-shattering kaboom on the exact moment they break the sound barrier, preferably point blank near the control tower, where the thick glass windows are now reduced to tiny shatters, while the tower's monitors and camera lens are somehow indestructible. Even though that's not necessarily the way it works in the real world, it DOES add to the expectation of the user, giving a very clear audible cue that their craft is now flying faster than the speed of sound.

After all, there is no mach meter anywhere in KSP, so you need to guess what the speed of sound under certain atmospheric conditions actually is. Adding a sonic boom will give the user a sense of achievement because it triggers the "Hey, I guess I just went supersonic, cool!" response.

And if you want to be consistent with the movie physics which dictate that a sonic boom should sound *exactly* like a ship's cannon fired from 3 miles away (write that down, foley artists), the IVA counterpart should be a muffled "thump" sound which is recognizable but not as loud. That's a recognizable, but still comical way of telling the user of their supersonic adventure without being too obtrusive.

Yeah, well, that. If you're already taking the rules of physics not so particularly seriously, then having the movies as a frame of reference may not be a bad idea. I mean, if we want to get realistic and nit-picky about it, the camera should drop to the floor and remain there unless it is attached to the craft by a massive, invisible selfie stick on a turret.

I'm sorry, but adding not a sonic boom sound when passing the sound barrier isn't being picky about realism, it's being correct. If the KSP devs added a sound that played when you past the sound barrier it would make a great physics game look like laughing stock. If you read the physics discussion in this thread you would understand why it is so dumb.

Also this thread is like a month old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, RatchetinSpace said:

I'm sorry, but adding not a sonic boom sound when passing the sound barrier isn't being picky about realism, it's being correct. If the KSP devs added a sound that played when you past the sound barrier it would make a great physics game look like laughing stock. If you read the physics discussion in this thread you would understand why it is so dumb.

Also this thread is like a month old.

As if it wasn't intended to be humorous and the physics were remotely accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Stoney3K said:

"In the movies", a fighter jet always makes an earth-shattering kaboom on the exact moment they break the sound barrier, preferably point blank near the control tower, where the thick glass windows are now reduced to tiny shatters, while the tower's monitors and camera lens are somehow indestructible.

Really?  Got an example?  An example where the audience viewpoint, in the jet (and not sitting on the ground somewhere watching the jet fly past), actually has a boom sound on the soundtrack?  I've seen plenty of action movies involving fighter jets, and whenever they're in the cockpit of the jet (even in the midst of combat on full afterburner), the only sound I recall hearing is a generalized roar of the engine.  In fact, your own example calls out the discrepancy-- that the people in the tower (not on the jet) get the boom.  And it's not because the jet just happened to accelerate past Mach 1 just as it's whizzing over the runway, but because it was already going that fast and the tower gets the boom when the jet flies past it.

I'm trying to think of where I've seen a movie scene where there was an actual sonic boom, and it was called out as such in the movie.  The main example I can think of is from The Right Stuff, in the scene early in the movie where Chuck Yeager breaks the sound barrier for the first time.  And they make a point that everyone on the ground heard the boom (and got really sad, because nobody back then knew what a sonic boom was, so they all assumed that the noise meant that he must have exploded), whereas Chuck's up there zooming gleefully through the sky, with no idea that everyone on the ground thinks he's dead.

17 hours ago, Stoney3K said:

Adding a sonic boom will give the user a sense of achievement because it triggers the "Hey, I guess I just went supersonic, cool!" response.

I disagree.  It would give the user a "what the heck was that noise?" response.

Admittedly, my reasons for strenuously not wanting a "boom" sound are due somewhat to "realism" arguments... but even if you want to apply movie physics, I contend that even the movies don't do that.

17 hours ago, Stoney3K said:

the IVA counterpart should be a muffled "thump" sound

...because?  What "muffled thump" ever showed up at that moment, in any TV or movie?  Seems to me it would just add confusion, not immersion.

If you really want the user to have some notification of when they pass Mach 1, there are other ways to do that.  For example, have a brief electronic "bweeeeeee" coupled by a flash of a little red "MACH 1" indicator somewhere in the HUD.  Or something along those lines.  I don't particularly need it myself, but I can believe that some users might like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Snark said:

If you really want the user to have some notification of when they pass Mach 1, there are other ways to do that.  For example, have a brief electronic "bweeeeeee" coupled by a flash of a little red "MACH 1" indicator somewhere in the HUD.  Or something along those lines.  I don't particularly need it myself, but I can believe that some users might like that.

What I'd like to see: the already existing camera shake spikes in intensity and frequency (with accompanying sound effects), then drops off as you go supersonic, while the sound effects also change in quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, monstah said:

What I'd like to see: the already existing camera shake spikes in intensity and frequency (with accompanying sound effects), then drops off as you go supersonic, while the sound effects also change in quality.

Now that's a neat idea!  Really like it.  Done right, it could be very immersive to the player-- satisfies the "Hollywood factor", while having a close enough relationship to reality that it doesn't stick in my craw.  Could make the "Mach shakes" proportional in some way to the atmospheric pressure, so you get shaken hard at Mach 0.99 near sea level, but it's a lot milder if you're doing it where the air is a lot thinner.

I like the idea of a visceral "I've broken through!" feeling when the shakes suddenly smooth out to a continuous dull roar as you pass through Mach 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You complain about it not being realistic enough but frankly the point of Mach is vague. There's no feedback as to when I cross it. It's just a number.

With orbit the camera at least changes. Same with escape velocity. 

But no feedback for Mach.

And before someone mentions the Mach effect remember they start long before Mach and only change to re-entry afterwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ZooNamedGames said:

You complain about it not being realistic enough

Not sure which "you", or which "it", you're referring to here?  And are you in favor of having something dramatic happen when the craft passes Mach 1, or not?

My own position on the matter is:

  • Frankly, I don't care all that much about Mach 1 per se.  I can live without any special effect that happens at the transition.  But I'm also fine if they wanted to put one in.
  • That said, I would not be fine with a ludicrously unrealistic, this-never-happens-even-in-movies effect like a "bang" right when it happens.
  • If they did go with something, I don't need it to be hyper-realistic, just not laughably unrealistic.  My favorite suggestion that I've heard thus far is @monstah's, since I gather (from my extensive research, consisting of watching The Right Stuff) that things get shaken up a bit as the craft's about to transition, and camera-shake would capture something of the flavor of that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without all the scientific terminology, it's basically stupid to add because the pilot doesn't hear it. Only when the plane flies near the people on the ground do they hear it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Snark said:

Not sure which "you", or which "it", you're referring to here?  And are you in favor of having something dramatic happen when the craft passes Mach 1, or not?

My own position on the matter is:

  • Frankly, I don't care all that much about Mach 1 per se.  I can live without any special effect that happens at the transition.  But I'm also fine if they wanted to put one in.
  • That said, I would not be fine with a ludicrously unrealistic, this-never-happens-even-in-movies effect like a "bang" right when it happens.
  • If they did go with something, I don't need it to be hyper-realistic, just not laughably unrealistic.  My favorite suggestion that I've heard thus far is @monstah's, since I gather (from my extensive research, consisting of watching The Right Stuff) that things get shaken up a bit as the craft's about to transition, and camera-shake would capture something of the flavor of that.

 

"You" is referring to the general crowd who say "it's unrealistic".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

You complain about it not being realistic enough but frankly the point of Mach is vague. There's no feedback as to when I cross it. It's just a number.

With orbit the camera at least changes. Same with escape velocity. 

But no feedback for Mach.

And before someone mentions the Mach effect remember they start long before Mach and only change to re-entry afterwards.

The camera flip for orbit has debatable use, but it does give feedback to players when they reach orbit. No one cares when you exceed Mach 1, it doesn't change anything to what you are doing/flying. If the game had more realistic part resistances then the transonic regime could be a problem, but even then trouble starts near Mach 0.8 so way before creating a sonic boom. In the current state of KSP, going Mach 0.5, 1 or 1.5 has absolutely no consequence besides getting to your destination faster and getting a bit more lift.

And as for the escape velocity camera flip, I highly suspect it's a bug, dating from the implementation of planets beyond Kerbin, that never got fixed and morphed into a feature. By the time you're going interplanetary you should know how to use the map view and this "feature" is completely useless (who even does an interplanetary transfer while in vessel view?).

Having a sonic boom effect in KSP is both wrong (unrealistic if you prefer) and useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

The camera flip for orbit has debatable use, but it does give feedback to players when they reach orbit. No one cares when you exceed Mach 1, it doesn't change anything to what you are doing/flying. If the game had more realistic part resistances then the transonic regime could be a problem, but even then trouble starts near Mach 0.8 so way before creating a sonic boom. In the current state of KSP, going Mach 0.5, 1 or 1.5 has absolutely no consequence besides getting to your destination faster and getting a bit more lift.

And as for the escape velocity camera flip, I highly suspect it's a bug, dating from the implementation of planets beyond Kerbin, that never got fixed and morphed into a feature. By the time you're going interplanetary you should know how to use the map view and this "feature" is completely useless (who even does an interplanetary transfer while in vessel view?).

Having a sonic boom effect in KSP is both wrong (unrealistic if you prefer) and useless.

And since we won't add any challenge and way to know that you've broken the speed, a boom would be a great way to know without having to force players to reengineer their builds.

Also, I go to escape velocity in vessel view all the time. I use map view for orbit more than escape. Escape velocity is pretty easy. Launch, tilt, and keep burning to camera flip. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To ignore all arguments previously laid out in their entirety, why exactly is the concept of a sonic boom important? This is not a game with sufficient detail (transonic instability, etc) to warrant any "bonus" of a sonic boom.

1 hour ago, Gaarst said:

going Mach 0.5, 1 or 1.5 has absolutely no consequence besides getting to your destination faster and getting a bit more lift.

EXACTLY! There's no need for a sonic boom because in no way is going supersonic an achievement or accomplishment, nor is it scientifically significant, nor is it (significantly) more efficient, nor is it even important in the context of the game to the slightest amount. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ottothesilent said:

To ignore all arguments previously laid out in their entirety, why exactly is the concept of a sonic boom important? This is not a game with sufficient detail (transonic instability, etc) to warrant any "bonus" of a sonic boom.

EXACTLY! There's no need for a sonic boom because in no way is going supersonic an achievement or accomplishment, nor is it scientifically significant, nor is it (significantly) more efficient, nor is it even important in the context of the game to the slightest amount. 

Then why make any speed relevant? Let's roll back to .90 and remove re-entry.

Frankly Mach 1 matters more than just the speed. It's the peak of stress on vehicles. Hence Max-Q. A factor of all real life launches and it's something that is just past over like it's nothing. 

So if you want there to be realism to justify it then fine- because the game is lacking in that respect as is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Gaarst said:

No one cares when you exceed Mach 1, it doesn't change anything to what you are doing/flying. If the game had more realistic part resistances then the transonic regime could be a problem, but even then trouble starts near Mach 0.8 so way before creating a sonic boom. In the current state of KSP, going Mach 0.5, 1 or 1.5 has absolutely no consequence besides getting to your destination faster and getting a bit more lift.

I slightly disagree with this.  FWIW I spend a lot of time building and testing SSTOs.  Aerodynamic drag increases and peaks around Mach 1, then drops as you pass through the transonic regime.  I typically find that an efficient SSTO can only barely make it through transonic while climbing to high elevation.  Sure, you can just slap moar and moar RAPIERS on (certainly we all see a lot of this) but if you check out the efficiency challenges - you need to be acutely aware of where that drag wall occurs and be reactive to it.  

I use KER and watch the Mach display very closely indeed.  In stock you can watch the speed indicator, but since the speed of sound changes as with elevation, it's just guesswork.  Overall it's a small point but I'd love to see a mildly cartoonish, mildly realistic Mach effect.  How about the normal jet engine sound up to Mach 0.95 or so, then increased camera buffeting and a localized white aero effect (the kind you usually see around Mach 2.5 on the way to re-entry effects), then over 1.05 the aero effect vanishes, buffeting decreases, jet whine gets quieter and more distant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fourfa said:

I slightly disagree with this.  FWIW I spend a lot of time building and testing SSTOs.  Aerodynamic drag increases and peaks around Mach 1, then drops as you pass through the transonic regime.  I typically find that an efficient SSTO can only barely make it through transonic while climbing to high elevation.  Sure, you can just slap moar and moar RAPIERS on (certainly we all see a lot of this) but if you check out the efficiency challenges - you need to be acutely aware of where that drag wall occurs and be reactive to it.  

I use KER and watch the Mach display very closely indeed.  In stock you can watch the speed indicator, but since the speed of sound changes as with elevation, it's just guesswork.  Overall it's a small point but I'd love to see a mildly cartoonish, mildly realistic Mach effect.  How about the normal jet engine sound up to Mach 0.95 or so, then increased camera buffeting and a localized white aero effect (the kind you usually see around Mach 2.5 on the way to re-entry effects), then over 1.05 the aero effect vanishes, buffeting decreases, jet whine gets quieter and more distant.

Yes, transonic drag is a thing in KSP but as you said it starts under Mach 1 and ends over Mach 1. There's no need for a sonic boom to indicate that you are transonic, your velocity and broad knowledge of the speed of sound (ie: gets lower in higher atmo) is more than enough to know when you're going to need a little push to cross the line; with experience being the best help you can get. A random bang in the middle of the transonic drag peak isn't that helpful.

I'm not against a feedback for going supersonic. I'm against using a physically wrong sonic boom effect to indicate it when other options are available, and better for that purpose. I don't mind having a little more camera shake when closing Mach 1, or even something as simple as a Machmeter (a small dial in IVA could be enough since Squad is so hostile to giving us useful information in vessel view).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pfff so much hostility here guys. Just share your opinion. Let others share them too, accept those. How difficult can it be. 

When you're mature enough to participate in a discussion, then be mature enough to handle the other side. First rule....

 

Also, this discussion has been on the forum since forever. The argument/backfire of rolling back to 0.90 has no power/point. Why don't we all go back to an 8-bit system eh? 

Anyway, I do like some sound improvement in the game too. But there are mods for. I see ksp just as the core, the mods make the game. You need to keep it simple, not ultra realistic. Yeah maybe we've mastered the stock game, go over to realism then, mod the **** out of it. I do love to hear my rockets go up in the sky with a big RROOOOOAAAAOEAAAARRRRRR. But for me it doesn't matter if it's stock or not. 

The only what matters me is to not add things which are not realistic. There's a huge difference between leaving the Realism (like ksp does, which is nice for the beginners), and adding unrealism (like adding the boomm, which doesn't exist only on the edge, which again is 1) harder to implement than you think 2) not a pleasure at all. Everytime you go with the cam through the 'boom', you scare you're neighbours to death.)

And again, this is an opinion, a side of a discussion. Don't be hostile, be reasonable, be mature about it. Thanks.

Edited by DrLicor
Damn phone correcting
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back when I played Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 2 the way it handled supersonic sound was:

Third person:

Subsonic flight: sounds nomral

Supersonic flight, camera facing the exhaust: LOUD

Supersonic flight, camera facing the aircraft's side: EAR BLASTED TO LOW EARTH ORBIT AND BEYOND

Supersonic flight, camera facing the front of the aircraft: ... silence ...

 

First person:

Subsonic: sounds normal, can hear aircraft systems and jet engines

Transitioning to supersonic: jet engine sound getting lower

Supersonic: can only hear aircraft systems, jet engine be gone

 

The mod I linked, if I remember correctly, acts the same way (too bad it's outdated, can't use it anymore). So it is possible to do in a somewhat realistic fashion.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would rather a small light lit up and a muted `bing`. Having a speed indicator showing your speed in Mach would be just as good IMHO.

EDIT : Rather than letting me know when I pass mach 1 I would rather know when I was at max Q...

Edited by John FX
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...