Jump to content

Realism in Stock KSP


How many of you want realism in Stock KSP  

78 members have voted

  1. 1. Realism in Stock KSP

    • Real planets and moons
      19
    • Real rocket engines
      16
    • Real physics
      32
    • Or stock KSP
      40
    • Others (mention them)
      7


Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Nigel Cardozo said:

What about real launchpads?

Optimized for specific launch vehicles. So one launchpad would suffice for one particularly sized rocket. Alternatively several launchpads be used for a variety of size/weight types of launch vehicles. We could have a facility 2 launchpad be build next to the facility 1 launchpad and a facility 3 launchpad be build besides the facility 2 launchpad. ~18Ton rockets would still be launched off of the facility 1 launchpad even if you have the facility 2 or 3 unlocked/build. Furthermore the launchpads should be remodeled because why not? Aren't they ugly as is?

Furthermore, KSP has set the tone for how stock realism can be expected. IMO there isn't realism to be expected because none of the features are very realistic.
Realism as in RO isn't to be expected because nothing of that sophisticated realism was added ever into the stock game. This game already exists for over 6 years, go figure what to expect?
So it is futile to assume the developing route will go there.
No problem for those who can install mods, but I can expect console players would really want additional features to compensate realism, I'm afraid you'll always be stuck to play the stock game unless you hop over to the pc.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/29/2019 at 1:50 AM, Aeroboi said:

Furthermore, KSP has set the tone for how stock realism can be expected. IMO there isn't realism to be expected because none of the features are very realistic.

I agree with most of what you said, but these common blanket statements claiming KSP isn't "very" realistic always chafe me. Compared to all the other video games / simulations out there KSP is far more realistic than most. Simply implementing newtonian physics already puts it in the top few percentile of space games/sims. Overall, playing KSP gives players a really good idea of how orbital mechanics and spaceflight works without requiring the player to get a college degree to play. This is the essence of what a simulation game is about and it succeeds very well. 

RO is "more realistic", but even stock KSP is WAY up on the bell curve of realism.

 

Edited by Tyko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from what pertains “realism” and what doesn’t (atmospheric behavior? Real fuels including physical properties that are temperature dependent? Metal fatigue and radiation induced degradation?)

It always seems to me that for people who want it harder and more realistic to show off how good they are at the game they can achieve it in three simple steps:

  1. One save and one save only. NASA doesn’t have the luxury of restarting in 1958 either.
  2. No quick saves. Obvious.
  3. No time acceleration. Makes your commitment of getting that Duna mission right the first time a lot more serious.

Any claims with that this is impractical: realism doesn’t care about practicality. If you want a space program with the rigor and demands that reflect real life space programs, all you need to do is commit to this. The rest is just numbers.

Me? I enjoy the game as a game. I have no need for more realism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think KSP needs to religiously follow Newtonian physics as long as the basic spirit is there.  In the year and half I have been obsessing over this game, I now have a fundamental understanding of orbit--periapisis, apoapsis, circularization etc.  Now when someone at NASA talks about getting probes out there, I get the basic of principle of what they are doing, even if my physics view is simplified.  And you can still do a lot of math, should you so desire, in your planning.  The basic problem-solving is there.  Kerbin is not earth nor does it need to be.  

I confess I really would like to see stock propellors.

Also, KSP could take some inspiration from Simple Planes and add wind into the mix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few gameplay features that would add depth to the game and which count as "realism"

 

  • Life Support for Kerbals.
    • Kerbals require electricCharge and supplies to stay alive. USI Life Support is pretty good as far as I'm concerned.
    • Kerbals that go without supplies/food will begin to starve and they will lose control of their craft. If they go too long, they will starve to death. The dead Kerbal will have to be ejected through an EVA hatch. (Or is this too dark? Perhaps it'd be more fitting if they simply poofed)
    • Kerbals require spacious habitats on long journeys or they will go insane and temporarily lose their skills. (Pilots will lose SAS, Engineers won't repair things)
  • Speed of Light Delay for Probes.
    • Show commands travelling through commNet lines. Timewarp during particularly long transmission times is allowed. When a probe receives a command, it will drop out of timewarp and perform the command.
    • Maneuver programming for probes using a scratch-like programming interface similar to the Mission Builder GUI. New programs must be uploaded at the speed of light too, of course.
    • Speed of light delay is toggleable, as well as the actual speed of light, in game settings.
  • The above two compliment each other, because there will be a meaningful dichotomy between Probes and Kerbals. Kerbals are more prestigious, but you need to spend lots of resources keeping them alive and happy. Probes are difficult to control unless you have a pilot in the system to remote-control the probe with.
  • Unrelated to the above two, I'd really like to see different rocket fuel types. Just Liquid Hydrogen, Kerosene, and Oxidizer. Maybe not even requiring different engines, just switching modes on existing ones. Liquid Hydrogen burns with Oxidizer. They are low density, high efficiency propellants which burn hotter than LiquidFuel and Oxidizer, more efficient, but with lower thrust to make up for their efficiency. However, since their fuels are such low density, this is rarely a problem, and can be fantastic for energetic upper stages. Meanwhile, Kerosene can burn Oxidizer, where it will enjoy better throttle response and higher thrust, at the cost of efficiency, and burns at a lower temperature. Liquid Hydrogen will boil off over time unless the tank has powered cooling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/29/2019 at 3:17 PM, GregroxMun said:

Kerbals require spacious habitats on long journeys or they will go insane and temporarily lose their skills. (Pilots will lose SAS, Engineers won't repair things)

This would fit better in KSP than life support, because it's more forgiving. Assuming free space doesn't matter on the surface (because kerbals could always go out on EVA), establishing bases or waiting on the surface for an unplanned rescue mission would be a lot less frustrating/annoying than having to deal with ever dwindling supplies. 

Requiring large habitats in space would still make KSP a little more realistic without the threat of kerbals dying. 

Edit: if you still want a form of life support you could have something like an air filter that just requires EC, as opposed to a limited resource. 

Edited by EchoLima
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm continually baffled by requests to make the game more "realistic" but not "harder" or "more complicated".... 

Providing the necessities to keep a crew alive is the key element that differentiates robotic from crewed spaceflight. A crewperson can live cramped into a tiny space for weeks. Deny the crew air and they're not going to live for 10 minutes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/8/2019 at 11:52 AM, Tyko said:

I'm continually baffled by requests to make the game more "realistic" but not "harder" or "more complicated".... 

Providing the necessities to keep a crew alive is the key element that differentiates robotic from crewed spaceflight. A crewperson can live cramped into a tiny space for weeks. Deny the crew air and they're not going to live for 10 minutes...

My suggestion was not about adding realism, but about giving a purpose to the larger modules (ie hitchhiker) already in the game. Maybe this was the wrong thread for it.

Your point does make sense though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, EchoLima said:

My suggestion was not about adding realism, but about giving a purpose to the larger modules (ie hitchhiker) already in the game. Maybe this was the wrong thread for it.

Your point does make sense though.

I think your point is perfectly valid. It's just that the game doesn't really consider the passage of time for functions of the game - things don't wear out or break, kerbals don't eat, sleep, breath or age, science research is instantaneous (except for labs which I think most will agree are horribly broken). Keeping it this way keeps the game simple and easy for new players, but leaves more experienced players asking for more.

If we're going complicate the game (i.e. make it more realistic) by introducing the concept of time and its effects then we can add in - life support, part failure, living conditions, etc etc.

Until then I'll keep using mods because the advantage of mods is I don't have to be saddled with just one person/group's idea of how it works. There are many choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KSP wouldn't exist without a certain amount of familiar parallelism with the physical universe.  And space is a fascinating frontier...  There's our common basis.

There's an endless plethora of tedious detail to mine from Reality, though.  It's an easy pursuit to play a formulaic brand of one-up-man-ship with this.   I guess the technical term in gaming circles is "Fetch Quest".   Maybe it's also a bit like "jumping the shark", in desperately attempting to sustain "interest".

In a wider context, emulating historical exploits in a virtual setting (KSP) can seem a bit like the operation of a cargo-cult mentality: the "if it looks like it can fly, it will fly" rule-of-thumb is a poor substitute for what it really takes to be an aerospace professional IRL, yet almost no aerospace professionals are in complete charge of a project from start-to-finish and in every detail like we are in our KSP endeavors!  :)  (Which may be why some in NASA are reputed to play KSP, to escape the real-world stringencies of Management in their day job!)

The aspect of KSP that always intrigues me, though, is those who use KSP as a basis for true creativity.  Exploits that are perhaps only possible in KSP.  Creations that aren't just faithful replicas of existing reality.  Stuff that is simple and elegant and utterly surprising.  "You did what?!  How??"  That are not mired in encyclopedic layers of complexity that just require mainly rote learning, as a sort of chest-beating totem for accomplishment.

I understand the view of those who want more Realism, I think, but not so much their compulsion to impose that viewpoint in stock or, at least, cluttering stock, eliminating choice.

I'd call the diametrically opposite viewpoint, Imagination,  That's why I am never concerned with the spectre of getting bored with KSP.  In fact, with the gamut of mods available, from a wide and deeply-inspired community of talented afficionados, there is more to explore than I will ever have the time to do.  And have I already mentioned the luxury of all the mod-cons we enjoy, such as CKAN for access to that mod smorgasbord...?

The opportunity cost of imposing more and more constraints from the real, physical world is that it throttles and finally strangles creativity -- "I had to put this radiator on here and so now it's not possible to place this other part I need for my concept anywhere..."  [KSP 1.2 and 1.3 upgrades breaking mining still a very sore case in point.]  Not to mention that very little about the real world is fun, or else you wouldn't be "wasting time" playing KSP.  (I really don't wish to buy a "urea recycling system", figure out where to install it in my ship and then budget for its mass/energy consumption in my dV calculations.)

I understand also that community input is a valid process and sometimes possibly even valuable.  This is not a 'democracy', though.  We all love Squad's vision as demonstrated since, gee, at least 2012(?) or we wouldn't find any enjoyment playing the game [the Kraken being the "exception to the rule"!].  I, for one, personally, trust Squad to continue on with its vision and I have no desire to second-guess that.

Just my viewpoint and you'll note I don't ask to impose anything from it upon anyone!

To be constructive, I guess I would be much happier to hear ideas/suggestions aired (once), but not so doggedly argued.

Edited by Hotel26
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me, I just want two pieces of realism right now, both of them physics-related.

  1. Fix. The damn. FRICTION. It's ridiculous just how slippery the ground is, regardless of gravity. Pieces broken off from a plane tipping over during landing shouldn't keep sliding forward for hundreds of meters.
  2. Raise the speed threshold above which ragdolled kerbals are forced to stay ragdolled. It's ridiculous that they're completely incapable of stopping their tumbling around until they come to a near complete halt. They shouldn't keep rolling like a tumbleweed for 10+ seconds if they hit the ground with a bit too much horizontal velocity while jetting around.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The poll results:

Real planets and moons:16 people

Real engines: 14 people

Real physics: 29 people

Stock KSP: 36 people

Others: 4

The winner is..........................................................

Stock Kerbal Space Program with 36.36%

Edited by Nigel Cardozo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...