What ya'll prefer, casual ksp, or realistic ksp.

[wumpus]

I think the pace of the game works well with Kerbin (low orbital velocity plus heavy fuel tanks).  I'd also have to assume that throwing newbies into RSS/RO would pretty much kill the game (throwing them into "don't worry, it's just rocket science" is bad enough).

I'm glad that RSS/RO exists (and eventually expect to get around to completing the "normal/modded" game enough to switch to RSS/RO).

EDIT: the "textures" issue baffles me, but presumably because I was playing early enough that textures aren't going to change my style.  It reminds me of the "bring back the barn" thread where those attacking the aesthetics of the barn (and related buildings) texture's were talking past the people who wanted a barn (with or without the "broken" textures).

Edited May 1, 2019 by wumpus
added edit

[HansonKerman]

Meeeehhhh... is my general opinion. So casual, of course. I don't mind HyperEditing my probes onto whatever moon, if I make something cool, it's worth it! I don't like challenges, if you've played my Portal 2 maps, you'll get it.

[Flibble]

On 5/1/2019 at 4:47 PM, wumpus said:

I think the pace of the game works well with Kerbin (low orbital velocity plus heavy fuel tanks).  I'd also have to assume that throwing newbies into RSS/RO would pretty much kill the game (throwing them into "don't worry, it's just rocket science" is bad enough).

Definitely. My first RO rocket, I hit stage and it fell off the clamp and blew up. What do you mean the engines didn't have fuel it's right there?! Oh wait, "pressure fed," um. Then lets not forget spool up time and ullage.

[Red Iron Crown]

> casual ksp, or realistic ksp

 

Yes. 

[Nich]

Been playing RP-1 but I have to say for stock keep it casual.  Sadly I always seem to lose interest by the time of my first manned Duna mission.

[Raptor9]

I like KSP in the fact it seems casual, while implementing elements of realism...or rather it's a realistic spaceflight game, while keeping some gameplay aspects casual.  It all comes down to a subjective definition of those two terms.

KSP in my opinion achieves a good balance when realistic aspects of spaceflight are there, but the minute details of the aspect are implied and don't require attention from the gamer.  An example is the comm network.  You need it to relay data around celestial bodies due to line-of-sight limitations, and dedicated tech to operate as relays vs a simple transmitter, etc.  However it stops short of getting into spectrum management, solar interference, signal delay, and physically having to point the dish at your destination.

[Frank_G]

I prefer playing KSP stock, as a game and the way it was intended to be played.

On the gameplay "realism" level, i play with everything on: parts pressure and g-force limits, kerbal g-force-limits, comms-net, require signal, plasma blackouts and re-entry heat all on and set to default difficulty. Missing crew does not respawn. I do allow reverts to do testing though.

My vessel designs are aimed to look realistic. I use reasonable sized fairings and always build payload, that can be either transported in a realistic looking rocket or spaceplane. I also tend to design rockets with pre-designed fairings, so i try to fit my payloads into existing launch-configurations.

To answer the question, i like KSP in its current state much better, than pre 1.4. - a bit of realism in a physics based game, especially one with space and science in mind, is a good thing. KSP has a good mix to satisfy both sides (the fun and the sim players) - to all others, the mod community does a great job, to deliver the experience wanted.

[steve_v]

On 4/28/2019 at 4:14 AM, JERONIMO said:

what'cha think is better, a KSP version like in -1.3 mode, where it's more casual than realistic,  or ya know like in +1.4, where ksp became more serious than it's was before?

Besides cleaning up the legacy lo-fi mismatched parts, I hadn't noticed any difference TBH. Just some DLC and a lovely new bug to grind my gears.
If 1.4 is somehow more serious and less lolzkerbal 'splosions, then I guess I'd pick that one - but I run with mods to patch up most of the plausibility holes anyway. Bring on stock life-support.

[Xavven]

There has to be a balance between realism and casual play, doesn't there? On the extreme end of realism, I don't think there's anybody who wants to put paperwork into KSP even though that would be totally realistic. On the extreme end of casual or non-realism there was "level up Jebediah Kerman and he adds +12 I_sp to your engines due to pilot skill!" (this was actually proposed by Squad and the community was in a bigger uproar than when the ROUND 8 Toroidal tank got the ax)

And it depends on the game, too. We don't expect Mario to obey basic laws of physics, but in KSP it's probably a good thing to obey most physics.

[FahmiRBLX]

Basically I like either gameplay style if I'm used to either one.

I remembered first trying to fly with FAR using one of my existing non-FAR fighter jets but I didn't make it even 1m above the runway. I was really used to stock aero until now that I refuse against FAR even there's a wind mod that needs so to work.

Graphics also makes semse why I choose casual over realism. I got a pretty potato HP Pavilion G4 with 2.5GHz 2nd Gen i5, AMD Radeon HD 7450M and 4GB worth of RAM. My first time running Scatterer lagged my game significantly. Since then, I never run it until I build my own new PC.

However, I have a rather realistic start-off during my first days on KSP. I put my fictional company name on almost every single craft (Excluding real life replicas) (And still keep on doing that) and put a description afterwards (Now seldom enough).

[lajoswinkler]

Hm, I prefer more realism, but not hardcore realism.

From 0 to 10 linear scale, where 0 is some goofy 2D smartphone "game" that respects no physics, and 10 was a nitpicking hardcore scientific simulation that requires actual paperwork, teamwork with professionals and time to plan an insanely large number of variables, current stock KSP is at... 3? Too many things are simplistic.

With Kerbalism mod I'd say it climbs to 5. I like it that way.

With Realism overhaul pack of mods with all the recommendations, where engines can't be turned on more than n times, and they have limited throttle modes, where Principia makes the orbits so much more complicated, etc. that is like 6. Too much for me.