Nigel Cardozo

Realism in Stock KSP

How many of you want realism in Stock KSP  

50 members have voted

  1. 1. Realism in Stock KSP

    • Real planets and moons
      11
    • Real rocket engines
      9
    • Real physics
      23
    • Or stock KSP
      25
    • Others (mention them)
      3


Recommended Posts

Realism overhaul is nice but I wish it was stock and I want to find out how many would like it in Stock

 

Edited by Nigel Cardozo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KSP walks the line between being realistic enough to educate people about spaceflight, while being easy and game like enough for anyone to just pick up and play in an instant. It's this that has made it so successful.

 

Making it full realism would make the game too difficult and unenjoyable for the average person to play and would be bad for KSP overall. I'm happy with where the realism/game aspect sits currently.

  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Frozen_Heart said:

KSP walks the line between being realistic enough to educate people about spaceflight, while being easy and game like enough for anyone to just pick up and play in an instant. It's this that has made it so successful.

 

Making it full realism would make the game too difficult and unenjoyable for the average person to play and would be bad for KSP overall. I'm happy with where the realism/game aspect sits currently.

But I mean at the start of a new game ask the players if they want a full realism or stock KSP that would be the best and I do not mean that it is compulsory for fully realistic. The player has to decide it. 

Edited by Nigel Cardozo

Share this post


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

I'm happy with where the realism/game aspect sits currently.

Hear!  Hear!!

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Frozen_Heart said:

KSP...educate people about spaceflight...

I'd still argue that it doesn't so much teach about spaceflight, but encourage people to learn about spaceflight to be able to play the game.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense, but no thanks.

KSP is as popular as it is because it's cartoony and not overly realistic.

Leave realism to the modders, or another game entirely.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Full realism in KSP!

Only 1/3 of the players get to land on the Mun, and only a handful of times.  No crewed missions to other planets.  Complete lack of funding for any projects.  Any large projects should take years to build in the VAB, and the game should force you to make arbitrary changes during the process.  You don't get to choose your projects, but have to do what the game tells you to do.

Meanwhile, you get to watch video of someone launching a car.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

KSP is as popular as it is because it's cartoony and not overly realistic.

Citation needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, klgraham1013 said:

Citation needed.

Well it seems to be much more popular than Orbiter, the barely known outside science geek community, quite realistic spaceflight simulator.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Well it seems to be much more popular than Orbiter, the barely known outside science geek community, quite realistic spaceflight simulator.

Orbiter doesn't allow you to easily build things in a familiar Lego style.  I'd argue KSP succeeds for three reasons.  Kerbals are certainly one of them.  The cute, cartoon characters definitely help ease the entry into the game.  Second would be the building mechanic that inspires creativity.  Realistic or wild creations alike.  Third would be providing experiences not found in games.  That of generally realistic space travel.  As with many inventions, typically the one to do it first isn't the one to succeed.  This is what Orbiter is to KSP.   For many KSP is the first and only game to provide this type of experience. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

Citation needed.

The proof of the pudding, as they say; is in the tasting.

It IS cartoony and not overly realistic. It IS fairly popular. (Considering it's an educational game about orbital mechanics at heart.)

These two things could be entirely unrelated, sure; but I find that pretty hard to believe. Especially when you consider that the game often garners interest from casual gamers who otherwise have zero interest in space or rockets.

Edited by Rocket In My Pocket
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It goes without saying that what follows is only my opinion.

I have a very exacting 40-hour per week job.  (On some days, it can feel pretty much soul-destroying.)  To escape it, I return home and spend quite a bit more than 40 hours a week "playing" KSP and being creative and doing what I want within a simple and approachable framework of rules.

So this issue is kind of a hot button.

I really don't care much for the very detailed universe we live in and its many incomprehensible rules that might take a lifetime of study to properly understand.  And I don't think role-playing being a "rocket scientist" is going to make me more attractive to women.  (Remember the scene in Apollo 13 in which one of the astronauts explains to a young lady in a bar the docking procedure, illustrating it with a glass and a coke bottle?  :)  But he was a real astronaut!)

I don't want to build things that simply mimic real life or else say "that would never fly in real life".  The scope of the Kerbal universe is fun and manageable and relevant enough.  If I can build something oddball in KSP that flies simply because it would fly for Kerbals, that's what I want to do.  (Hey, is chess 'realistic'?  Do 'knights' move on the board the same way they would at a joust??)  KSP has a set of rules and the objective is to be creative within that rule set.

Please, please do not make KSP as onerous as (my) real life.

One more thing.  It's OK to want an idea and even suggest it.  But why not implement it as one's own mod or inspire someone else to implement it for those who actually are interested in it?  That's a pretty libertarian way to do things.  When one asks Squad to do it, there is a sense in which one may inadvertently impose one's idea on others who DON'T want it.  It makes Squad (precious resource) pay the cost for that idea.  It may clutter the stock game.  And the cost may prevent better ideas, that appeal to more people, from being implemented.

It's OK to ask, I suppose, but when one reaches that point at which one says, "it's better in stock, even on a switch" [still clutter in the interface and/or code], please be ready to justify WHY it has to be in stock and please listen hard to the level of opposition.

Any change to stock breaks my world and my investment.

If you want something in KSP, it's probably already there as a mod: exercise choice  and download it and enjoy.

P.S. I know this idea is a bit upsetting, but in my opinion, KSP is now a mature product and doesn't need a lot of additional development.  Bug fixing and consolidation would be just grand, (including possibly getting it off of Unity).

Edited by Hotel26
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a DLC option yes, I would very much like to see our actual solar system, ideally with options for full and reduced scales.  But not instead of 'stock'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, pandaman said:

As a DLC option yes, I would very much like to see our actual solar system, ideally with options for full and reduced scales.  But not instead of 'stock'.

A DLC would be great but it would take a lot of ram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And so would implementation to stock. Everything that is in \GameData\ directory gets loaded into the RAM, and believe me, realistic, switchable, optional addition to game, would be there. Where else would you put a new ton of parts to use with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are really only two realism pieces I would add.

First would be two additional solar systems (ONLY loaded into ram when a save game is loaded) that would have a fictional 5x system and a fictional real scale system.

Second would be life support.  How one of the most visible and challenging parts of space travel is not in the game really boggles the mind.

There are a few other things like clouds (I mean, come on, it's 2019), but those two would add tons of gameplay.

Little tweaks here and there would be to how electricity and fuel are measured and used.

13 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

KSP is now a mature product and doesn't need a lot of additional development.  Bug fixing and consolidation would be just grand

This we can agree on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some realism tweaks could be nice. For instance, RTGs should gradually decay, so that they're balanced against other energy sources. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2018 at 10:54 AM, Frozen_Heart said:

KSP walks the line between being realistic enough to educate people about spaceflight, while being easy and game like enough for anyone to just pick up and play in an instant. It's this that has made it so successful.

From what I gather, most people don't even seriously try to make orbit, and of those that do, most drop the game after making orbit a few times. Anecdata gathered from acquaintances IRL suggests that this isn't due to gameplay difficulties, but because there was no serious interest in the first place. Pick up the game at a steam sale, play casually for a while, move on.

I don't think player retention would be any worse if we had a real-scale solar system. Not necessarily RSS, it could still be Kerbin and Duna for all I care; but the bodies should be as large as they are heavy.

I do think that small Kerbin is to blame for most everything that's wrong or broken in KSP, from armor-plated tanks to the wholly made-up reentry heat. Most of the wrongness is subtle, you can easily fail to notice, yet at he same time it's horribly, utterly wrong. Once you're aware, you cannot unsee -- which is probably still better than believing in a game that appears to be so realistic.

On the other had, I believe that the rocketry shortcuts like deep throttling and infinite restarts and magic torque are good to have in a game. Making these work realistically would actually deter people.

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Laie said:

I do think that small Kerbin is to blame for most everything that's wrong or broken in KSP, from armor-plated tanks to the wholly made-up reentry heat. Most of the wrongness is subtle, you can easily fail to notice, yet at he same time it's horribly, utterly wrong. Once you're aware, you cannot unsee

This is so very true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Remember that having Kerbin one-tenth the radius of Earth, with the same surface gravity, cuts the time to orbit by 1/3, for a given G-force on the astronauts.  
That makes the player's early try-fail-retry experiences much more enjoyable.

It also forces other unrealistic factors, like the weak engines, to make rockets look somewhat like Earth rockets.  You can see a consistency, though, as if they are all some type of hypergolic-fuel engine that restarts and throttles, in exchange for low efficiency.   But, the numbers in re-entry heat are not so consistent: one-tenth the orbital energy does not require a system with 3000K heat-tolerance.

I can see the wisdom in making a game with immortal Kerbals that do not eat, so that players can concentrate on the more fun aspects of getting them to Jool.

The strong reaction-wheels rather confuse me, though.  I find it more fun to fly with engine-gimbal and aero-surfaces, turn in space with RCS, and use only weak reaction-wheels for fine-tuning orientation.  But I can simply build that way, so I do.

Where the deviations from reality are simple, make the game more fun for beginners, and leave a self-consistent set of rules, I like them,
especially when KSP lets mods easily change the rules when you get bored with them.  
More new players to support KSP and eventually recruit into RSS.

Edited by OHara
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, OHara said:

That makes the player's early try-fail-retry experiences much more enjoyable.

That's the mistake of the trial and error design philosophy of KSP.  Just teach the player and those early frustrations go away.  It's nothing to do with the size of the system.  Yes, getting to orbit may take a little longer, but I think any early frustrations are alleviated with good, built-into-career, early game tutorials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, OHara said:

More new players to support KSP and eventually recruit into RSS.

You are right many players such as Marcus House, Raiz Space just jump to RSS/RO. But I still like their simulations.

And how do I get good fps

Edited by Nigel Cardozo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, OHara said:

time to orbit [...] much more enjoyable.

I don't think time to orbit is such a showstopper. Or rather, while I believe that time-to-orbit matters, I don't think the difference between current KSP and smurff-RSS would be sufficient.

Not that I have any experience with smurff, but I know that riding one of the ICBMs to orbit in RO (y'know, Atlas, Titan, R-7) takes on the order of 7 minutes, which is well in the ballpark of Kerbin launches (certainly if you count the coast at 4x warp, which IMO is the most boring bit).

You can *chose* to take longer, but (just look around on these forums) many people do so on Kerbin as well.

9 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

That's the mistake of the trial and error design philosophy of KSP.  Just teach the player[...]

No. Just no.

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