Recommended Posts

Im in love when a fighter in real life go to sonic speed and make the sonic boom sooo why this isnt in kerbal space program?¿?? its to easy to implement!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SirNooblyOfficial said:

Im in love when a fighter in real life go to sonic speed and make the sonic boom sooo why this isnt in kerbal space program?¿??

Probably because that's not how sonic booms work.  A person flying the plane never hears any boom at all.  Nor is it, as a lot of people (wrongly) think, a single event that happens at one point in time-- that is, it's not like a boom suddenly happens right at the moment the plane passes the sound barrier.  No, it's a continuous event that lasts for as long as the plane is flying over Mach 1, and observers on the ground perceive it as a sharp "boom" because it's passing them while they sit there.

Basically, a supersonic plane is dragging a thin conical shell around it, and people hear a boom when the surface of the cone passes them.  People on the plane hear nothing.  Since KSP doesn't allow you to have a POV on the ground watching planes fly overhead, the situation where you'd actually hear a boom IRL never happens in the game, so there's no point in adding it.

Someone else recently brought up the same idea-- see discussion here:

 

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SirNooblyOfficial said:

Im in love when a fighter in real life go to sonic speed and make the sonic boom sooo why this isnt in kerbal space program?

Because the pilot never hears the boom (being technically a part of the craft going faster than the speed of sound and all) and also a sonic boom is not a single event, here and gone, it's more of a Doppler effect really. The sound is continuous, but to the ground observer it is only for one moment (hence the "boom"). In reality the boom is more of a scream that doesn't stop until the craft slows down and sound can "catch up" to it again.

Also, for a game like KSP it's really not necessary. Not saying I'm against any and all implementation, just that this isn't a high priority and I'd rather Squad work on more pressing matters first.

its to easy to implement!

Great! Should only take you a few minutes then. I'll call Squad and let them know an update will be arriving.

Sidenote: phrases like "It's so easy!" or "This shouldn't take you too long to do" are massive red flags. Nothing is ever easy in game design (or graphic design for that matter). A simple visual effect like engine glow could take hundreds of line of code to nail down the behavior correctly.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with the others here. While I think sonic booms would be an awesome addition to the game, there just wouldn't be many situations in the stock game in which you would get to hear them.

Only likely situation is making a supersonic plane, putting it on SAS and the quickly switching to something nearby (that's either stopped or going much slower) as it streaks past then switching back. Would be funny if you could break windows at the KSC though! :P

Thus, it wouldn't really be something high on the priorities list.

Edited by EpicSpaceTroll139

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've discussed this before, but it makes absolutely no sense from a physics perspective. A sonic boom is a wavefront that moves with/behind the object moving super sonic, it is not heard only when the craft passes the sound barrier.

The jet in the video is already moving super sonic but the sonic boom is heard only as the jet passes. In KSP you travel with your craft so you would never hear a sonic boom.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I mentioned in the previous thread on the topic, I'll have to agree with others about the audible effect (no sense), but the visual effect of going supersonic would work better. I still don't have the speed of sound memorized completely (300something m/s) but the visual effect will be cool to show you crossed that transonic barrier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, SchwinnTropius said:

the visual effect of going supersonic

Don't we already have visual mach effects?

At any rate, while a singular 'sonic boom' would be unrealistic, I don't think simulating doppler sounds for a third person camera is necessarily a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28 June 2017 at 3:47 PM, Snark said:

Probably because that's not how sonic booms work.  A person flying the plane never hears any boom at all.  Nor is it, as a lot of people (wrongly) think, a single event that happens at one point in time-- that is, it's not like a boom suddenly happens right at the moment the plane passes the sound barrier.  No, it's a continuous event that lasts for as long as the plane is flying over Mach 1, and observers on the ground perceive it as a sharp "boom" because it's passing them while they sit there.

Basically, a supersonic plane is dragging a thin conical shell around it, and people hear a boom when the surface of the cone passes them.  People on the plane hear nothing.

 

 

In which case, in KSP sonic booms would work...

 

IVA, you hear nothing.

But in 3rd person, while the camera is behind the aircraft, the boom should be audible.

Edited by V7 Aerospace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SchwinnTropius said:

As I mentioned in the previous thread on the topic, I'll have to agree with others about the audible effect (no sense), but the visual effect of going supersonic would work better. I still don't have the speed of sound memorized completely (300something m/s) but the visual effect will be cool to show you crossed that transonic barrier.

We already have the Mach effects.

 

20 minutes ago, V7 Aerospace said:

 

In which case, in KSP sonic booms would work...

 

IVA, you hear nothing.

But in 3rd person, while the camera is behind the aircraft, the boom should be audible.

But again, it wouldn't be a "boom" it would be a "scream." It would be a constant roar of sound and to be honest I'm not sure that that would make for great gameplay as you would constantly hear a loud rumble every time you play KSP in atmosphere.

Especially if you're like me and you almost exclusively play in third person.

--------
At best, I'd say this is better suited to be a mod rather than stock as the deafening sound would get super old super fast and also my poor poor speakers would need replacing every other startup.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Greenfire32 said:

We already have the Mach effects.

 

But again, it wouldn't be a "boom" it would be a "scream." It would be a constant roar of sound and to be honest I'm not sure that that would make for great gameplay as you would constantly hear a loud rumble every time you play KSP in atmosphere.

Especially if you're like me and you almost exclusively play in third person.

--------
At best, I'd say this is better suited to be a mod rather than stock as the deafening sound would get super old super fast and also my poor poor speakers would need replacing every other startup.

As if we don't have a "screaming" sound following us at all times as is. 

Between rocket engines or more importantly, jet engines.

Most players of KSP won't ever have needed to work in close proximity to jet engines, but as someone who has; KSP significantly underplays the volume they produce. 

0420-0906-1715-4642_navy_plane_director_

Do you think aircraft directors (like the one shown above) wear those earphones for comfort? No- it's because they produce auditory damaging levels of sound; and how does KSP answer this? By not blasting your speakers and toning it down. 

So why can't that be done for sonic booms? Honestly for every comment of "it's unrealistic" is a line of issues those commenter's ignore leading up to it. 

And lastly- the sound of aircraft idling is dangerous to your ears. Imagine those engines at full throttle as most players fly with in KSP. It's a hell of a lot worse and don't forget that the space shuttle is in the top 10 loudest sounds in the world. 

Edited by ZooNamedGames
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, V7 Aerospace said:

In which case, in KSP sonic booms would work...

IVA, you hear nothing.

But in 3rd person, while the camera is behind the aircraft, the boom should be audible.

Nope, still doesn't work.  The real issue here is not that the observer is inside the aircraft, but that the observer is traveling with it.  There is no scenario where you would get a "boom," in that situation.  Booms happen because the aircraft is passing you, and you're not moving with it.

You could make it more "realistic" than it is now, by more accurately modeling what the camera "hears" (always assuming, of course, that we're modeling this as "microphone attached to the camera")... but that would be a horrible game experience, and still wouldn't get you the "boom" you want.

Let's talk about what you'd get if we were more "realistic" about this, shall we?

  1. Rockets in space would be dead silent, since sound doesn't travel in a vacuum.
  2. Unless you happen to blunder the camera into the rocket exhaust directly behind the rocket, and then RRRRRROROOOOAAAARRRRRR really really loud.
  3. All sounds fade into faint nothingness as you climb higher in the atmosphere.
  4. Planes flying subsonically would doppler way the heck up and down as you move the camera around them.  High-pitched in front, low-pitched behind.  If they're flying pretty close to Mach 1, it would be very dramatic.
  5. Planes flying supersonically. when the camera's placed outside the sonic cone (i.e. in front, or beside it), it's dead silent.
  6. Planes flying supersonically, when the camera's placed inside the sonic cone (i.e. behind it), you hear a continuous jet roar, same as for subsonic planes.
  7. Planes flying supersonically, when you happen to have the camera placed exactly precisely right on the thin skin of the sonic cone:  you get a continuous ear-shattering RRRROOARSCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRROOOAAAAAAR, that would drop off to nothing if you move the camera even slightly inside or outside the cone.

Dunno about you, but for me, basically all of these would make the game less pleasant to play (except for #6, which would be essentially identical to what we have now).  Some would be minor annoyances, some would be major game-breakers for me.  #1, #3, and #5 would reduce immersion.  #2 and #7 would happen frequently and accidentally, causing sudden startlement that would make me jump out of my skin and lunge for the mouse to oh gawd make it STOP NAO.  #4 would be mostly harmless, but an annoying distraction.

Not a single one of those represents an improvement in the game experience, at least not for me (or, I suspect, for the majority of KSP players).  Might be more scientifically accurate, but it's less playable.  And not one of them gives you a "sonic boom".

I agree-- booms are dramatic and fun.  If you're an observer on the ground, it's really awesome when a supersonic fighter jet goes streaking past you and you get that BOOM as it passes.  But that situation basically never happens in KSP, even in 3rd person view, and it never will, unless they introduce multiplayer.  You never get a "bang" if the observer is traveling along with the sound source, regardless of whether the observer is behind, beside, in front of, or inside the aircraft.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

As if we don't have a "screaming" sound following us at all times as is. 

Between rocket engines or more importantly, jet engines.

 

Most players of KSP won't ever have needed to work in close proximity to jet engines, but as someone who has; KSP significantly underplays the volume they produce. 

Do you think aircraft directors (like the one shown above) wear those earphones for comfort? No- it's because they produce auditory damaging levels of sound; and how does KSP answer this? By not blasting your speakers and toning it down. 

So why can't that be done for sonic booms? Honestly for every comment of "it's unrealistic" is a line of issues those commenter's ignore leading up to it. 

And lastly- the sound of aircraft idling is dangerous to your ears. Imagine those engines at full throttle as most players fly with in KSP. It's a hell of a lot worse and don't forget that the space shuttle is in the top 10 loudest sounds in the world. 

KSP sound design is non-existent. Engines sounds are terrible, jet sounds are terrible, ambient sounds are terrible, sound propagation dynamics are terrible... Using it as an excuse to shove in even more terrible sounds is not something I'd agree with.

 

 

 

I can understand saying no to realism for the sake of accessibility (N-body simulation would be a pain for everyone, so patched conics are used even if they are scientifically inaccurate), but not just to have a cool effect whenever you pass the speed of sound. A sonic boom would be inaccurate, and "it would sound cool" is not a good enough argument to ditch realism (in my eyes).

Edited by Gaarst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

KSP sound design is non-existent. Engines sounds are terrible, jet sounds are terrible, ambient sounds are terrible, sound propagation dynamics are terrible... Using it as an excuse to shove in even more terrible sounds is not something I'd agree with.

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.

Spoiler

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.  :)

 

 

12 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

but not just to have a cool effect whenever you pass the speed of sound. A sonic boom would be inaccurate and "it would sound cool" is not a good enough argument (in my eyes).

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

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think there's a lot to be said for speed-of-sound effects and doppler effects in KSP. This is a pretty sciencey game after all.

I also think fade to silence in space is an excellent reason to occasionally get into and fly from the cockpit, and makes re-entry an even cooler experience.

On the other hand I still can't think of a single occasion when I, as a player, would actually experience a sonic boom in game. I mean, I could set one up but man would it be contrived...

So I'll slot this in next to a proper water-cycle model (or other extra-Kerbestrial fluids) model, volcanism and Kerbal life cycles, i.e. imho would be awesome, much love for the idea, but no practical expectation of ever seeing it happen. It's just not how KSP rolls.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gaarst said:

KSP sound design is non-existent. Engines sounds are terrible, jet sounds are terrible, ambient sounds are terrible, sound propagation dynamics are terrible... Using it as an excuse to shove in even more terrible sounds is not something I'd agree with.

 

 

 

I can understand saying no to realism for the sake of accessibility (N-body simulation would be a pain for everyone, so patched conics are used even if they are scientifically inaccurate), but not just to have a cool effect whenever you pass the speed of sound. A sonic boom would be inaccurate, and "it would sound cool" is not a good enough argument to ditch realism (in my eyes).

But it's cool to add unrealistic bodies and a severely undersized solar system?

This is a general appeal to a niche game. KSP runs on appeasing the uneducated. Even if unrealistic. 

As I've said elsewhere; KSP is a grain of sand to the realism of flight and physics. So appeasing the uneducated can only bring Squad positivity from the average player as they don't know how sound works in relation to flight and like KSP is with any aspect of astrophysics; it's minutely accurate.

"Fake is not acceptable to justify fake" and then push for realism in a game that is almost entirely based on elementary level versions of the real systems. Aerodynamics is simplified. Orbital mechanics are simplified. Rocketry is simplified. Engineering as a whole is simplified.

So please inform me more how KSP is a game for realism and appealing more won't work.

2 hours ago, Snark said:

Nope, still doesn't work.  The real issue here is not that the observer is inside the aircraft, but that the observer is traveling with it.  There is no scenario where you would get a "boom," in that situation.  Booms happen because the aircraft is passing you, and you're not moving with it.

You could make it more "realistic" than it is now, by more accurately modeling what the camera "hears" (always assuming, of course, that we're modeling this as "microphone attached to the camera")... but that would be a horrible game experience, and still wouldn't get you the "boom" you want.

Let's talk about what you'd get if we were more "realistic" about this, shall we?

  1. Rockets in space would be dead silent, since sound doesn't travel in a vacuum.
  2. Unless you happen to blunder the camera into the rocket exhaust directly behind the rocket, and then RRRRRROROOOOAAAARRRRRR really really loud.
  3. All sounds fade into faint nothingness as you climb higher in the atmosphere.
  4. Planes flying subsonically would doppler way the heck up and down as you move the camera around them.  High-pitched in front, low-pitched behind.  If they're flying pretty close to Mach 1, it would be very dramatic.
  5. Planes flying supersonically. when the camera's placed outside the sonic cone (i.e. in front, or beside it), it's dead silent.
  6. Planes flying supersonically, when the camera's placed inside the sonic cone (i.e. behind it), you hear a continuous jet roar, same as for subsonic planes.
  7. Planes flying supersonically, when you happen to have the camera placed exactly precisely right on the thin skin of the sonic cone:  you get a continuous ear-shattering RRRROOARSCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRROOOAAAAAAR, that would drop off to nothing if you move the camera even slightly inside or outside the cone.

Dunno about you, but for me, basically all of these would make the game less pleasant to play (except for #6, which would be essentially identical to what we have now).  Some would be minor annoyances, some would be major game-breakers for me.  #1, #3, and #5 would reduce immersion.  #2 and #7 would happen frequently and accidentally, causing sudden startlement that would make me jump out of my skin and lunge for the mouse to oh gawd make it STOP NAO.  #4 would be mostly harmless, but an annoying distraction.

Not a single one of those represents an improvement in the game experience, at least not for me (or, I suspect, for the majority of KSP players).  Might be more scientifically accurate, but it's less playable.  And not one of them gives you a "sonic boom".

I agree-- booms are dramatic and fun.  If you're an observer on the ground, it's really awesome when a supersonic fighter jet goes streaking past you and you get that BOOM as it passes.  But that situation basically never happens in KSP, even in 3rd person view, and it never will, unless they introduce multiplayer.  You never get a "bang" if the observer is traveling along with the sound source, regardless of whether the observer is behind, beside, in front of, or inside the aircraft.

There's already a mod based around your concept and a playerbase using the mod- 

I use it myself quite a bit. I like how if I want long duration trips to be quiet; look in front of super sonic aircraft and it's silent. If I want epic sound and all that I point the camera behind the craft

Edited by ZooNamedGames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disregarding the tangent:

3 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

As if we don't have a "screaming" sound following us at all times as is. 

 

Exactly. Why add another scream on top of the scream we already have when moving super fast in atmo...

 

 

3 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

how does KSP answer this? By not blasting your speakers and toning it down. 

So why can't that be done for sonic booms?

 

Then what's the point of having the boom if it's not going to boom?

"Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering kaboom!"
 

Spoiler

594px-Marvin_the_Martian.svg.png

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Greenfire32 said:

Disregarding the tangent:

Exactly. Why add another scream on top of the scream we already have when moving super fast in atmo...

 

 

 

Then what's the point of having the boom if it's not going to boom?

"Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering kaboom!"
 

  Reveal hidden contents

594px-Marvin_the_Martian.svg.png

 

How about not have it scream but rather boom when the camera exits the shock cone? 

There you get boom and don't have just another dull sound added to jet engines. Appeases those making the request for sonic booms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

How about not have it scream but rather boom when the camera exits the shock cone? 

There you get boom and don't have just another dull sound added to jet engines. Appeases those making the request for sonic booms. 

Because you can move the camera around....can you imagine hearing a sonic boom every time you looked behind you and the looked forward again?
boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom

The point is, while the camera is not physically attached to your craft/kerbal, it is still attached which is why the camera should not be subjected to audio or visual effects that don't affect the craft/kerbal.

4 hours ago, 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.

Well, I mean, it's a game so some liberties are taken, yes, but believe it or not KSP does strive to be an acceptable representation of realistic spaceflight...and part of spaceflight is aeronautical flight.

Plus it's not really complaining about how sonic booms "work," but rather what a sonic boom "is."

----
At the very most, I'd compromise for a single "boom" once you break the sound barrier, but that's it. No camera hijinks. You hear it once in IVA or 3rd person and then you're done. You slow down, you speed up, you hear it once again and then it's done.
Even if that's not how sonic booms work XD
----

But Like I said earlier, Squad has bigger fish to fry. My personal opinion is that this doesn't even belong on the back burner. Stick it back in the fridge and let it thaw another day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Most players of KSP won't ever have needed to work in close proximity to jet engines, but as someone who has; KSP significantly underplays the volume they produce. 

Ummm... not sure intense nausea to the point of throwing up is going to be a good selling point for the game even if completely realistic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

But it's cool to add unrealistic bodies and a severely undersized solar system?

This is a general appeal to a niche game. KSP runs on appeasing the uneducated. Even if unrealistic. 

As I've said elsewhere; KSP is a grain of sand to the realism of flight and physics. So appeasing the uneducated can only bring Squad positivity from the average player as they don't know how sound works in relation to flight and like KSP is with any aspect of astrophysics; it's minutely accurate.

"Fake is not acceptable to justify fake" and then push for realism in a game that is almost entirely based on elementary level versions of the real systems. Aerodynamics is simplified. Orbital mechanics are simplified. Rocketry is simplified. Engineering as a whole is simplified.

So please inform me more how KSP is a game for realism and appealing more won't work.

I don't think you understood what I meant.

Disregarding realism for accessibility is acceptable. This is why, despite being a strong realism advocator, I am OK with the Kerbin system being made of very small planets. Having RSS as the base system would make the (already steep) learning curve a wall and it would not be appealing in any way to new players. This is also why, in your later post mentioning the camera, having a floating camera is OK: forcing the game to IVA-only or thermal ground-camera only would be incredibly stupid and not appealing to anyone.
If you want a full-on simulator, get Orbiter.

Disregarding realism for "looks" is not acceptable to me. Having a fake sonic boom serves no purpose besides "sounding cool" (and it is in itself a poor argument when the game has no proper sound design whatsoever: if you want things to sound cool there are a lot of other sounds to implement/tweak before having to resort to fake news sounds) and I don't think it should be added to the game.
KSP is a game, but it is based upon realistic mechanics. Even if realism is thrown out of the window from time to time (magic engines, small planets, patched conics, I can go on) it is always for gameplay reasons: because KSP has to remain a game it needs to balance the difficulty of some aspects of realism with the accessibility brought by the simplification of this realism.

I don't think adding sonic booms to the game would bring anything to anyone besides annoying a everyone after a few minutes flying and making people think that sonic booms work the wrong way.

 

8 hours ago, 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.  :)

 

 

I agree that other things are higher in the to-do list for KSP, and that KSP wouldn't benefit from advanced sound effects as much as a shooter (for example) where you have to be aware of your environment for gameplay reasons.

Sound design in KSP would only serve a cosmetic purpose (which is why it is low on the to-do list) but I still think having a pass on it at some point would improve the game. I'd put it in the same spot as visual improvements and art coherency: even though I'd personally enjoy the latter to be done (properly), I get it's not that much of a priority.

Edited by Gaarst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, mattinoz said:

Ummm... not sure intense nausea to the point of throwing up is going to be a good selling point for the game even if completely realistic. 

What?

53 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

I don't think you understood what I meant.

Disregarding realism for accessibility is acceptable. This is why, despite being a strong realism advocator, I am OK with the Kerbin system being made of very small planets. Having RSS as the base system would make the (already steep) learning curve a wall and it would not be appealing in any way to new players. This is also why, in your later post mentioning the camera, having a floating camera is OK: forcing the game to IVA-only or thermal ground-camera only would be incredibly stupid and not appealing to anyone.
If you want a full-on simulator, get Orbiter.

Disregarding realism for "looks" is not acceptable to me. Having a fake sonic boom serves no purpose besides "sounding cool" (and it is in itself a poor argument when the game has no proper sound design whatsoever: if you want things to sound cool there are a lot of other sounds to implement/tweak before having to resort to fake news sounds) and I don't think it should be added to the game.
KSP is a game, but it is based upon realistic mechanics. Even if realism is thrown out of the window from time to time (magic engines, small planets, patched conics, I can go on) it is always for gameplay reasons: because KSP has to remain a game it needs to balance the difficulty of some aspects of realism with the accessibility brought by the simplification of this realism.

I don't think adding sonic booms to the game would bring anything to anyone besides annoying a everyone after a few minutes flying and making people think that sonic booms work the wrong way.

 

I agree that other things are higher in the to-do list for KSP, and that KSP wouldn't benefit from advanced sound effects as much as a shooter (for example) where you have to be aware of your environment for gameplay reasons.

Sound design in KSP would only serve a cosmetic purpose (which is why it is low on the to-do list) but I still think having a pass on it at some point would improve the game. I'd put it in the same spot as visual improvements and art coherency: even though I'd personally enjoy the latter to be done (properly), I get it's not that much of a priority.

Personally KSP lacks sound. What it does have is set to only a few different sounds for it and are reused often. So adding a sonic boom would go a long way in a lacking aspect. Lacking more than visual. 

1 hour ago, Greenfire32 said:

Because you can move the camera around....can you imagine hearing a sonic boom every time you looked behind you and the looked forward again?
boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom

The point is, while the camera is not physically attached to your craft/kerbal, it is still attached which is why the camera should not be subjected to audio or visual effects that don't affect the craft/kerbal.

Well, I mean, it's a game so some liberties are taken, yes, but believe it or not KSP does strive to be an acceptable representation of realistic spaceflight...and part of spaceflight is aeronautical flight.

Plus it's not really complaining about how sonic booms "work," but rather what a sonic boom "is."

----
At the very most, I'd compromise for a single "boom" once you break the sound barrier, but that's it. No camera hijinks. You hear it once in IVA or 3rd person and then you're done. You slow down, you speed up, you hear it once again and then it's done.
Even if that's not how sonic booms work XD
----

But Like I said earlier, Squad has bigger fish to fry. My personal opinion is that this doesn't even belong on the back burner. Stick it back in the fridge and let it thaw another day.

If you don't want boom boom boom then just keep the camera still. Do you need to look at the sky and the ground 100 times a minute? Even landing my SpaceX style booster I don't do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZooNamedGames said:

If you don't want boom boom boom then just keep the camera still. Do you need to look at the sky and the ground 100 times a minute? Even landing my SpaceX style booster I don't do that.

I mean...venusaur...with a question mark...

A better solution than ignoring a basic and absolutely required function of the game would be to simply not have the effect tied to the player's only means of visual input...and rather just have the effect take place once you hit mach speeds regardless of which view you're currently in.

"Here! Wear these awesome glasses you didn't ask for but I made you!"
"Thanks...what do they do?"
"They make colors more vibrant!"
"Cool...but everything is super purple now...like...everything...can I take these off?"
"Nope! They're permanently affixed to your face!"
"But what about everything being super purple?"
"Well just don't look at purple things, silly!"
"But that's...everything..."
"Close your eyes!"
"But then I can't see..."
"You're welcome!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now