Psycho_zs

Realism Features Grand Poll

Choose whatever resonates with you more  

73 members have voted

  1. 1. Rocket physics

    • Rocket structure: Bend them in a pretzel!
      0
    • Rocket structure: Somewhat noodly behavior is fine, but some constraints/breakages/dampening should be added on top.
      31
    • Rocket structure: Rockets aren't made of rubber! Make them anything but spaghetti!
      40
    • Engine response time: It's ON when I flip the switch to "ON".
      15
    • Engine response time: Turbopumps aren't magic, give them some time to spool up.
      24
    • Engine response time: Make it a difficulty option.
      39
    • Engine throttle depth: Mainsail at 1% throttle is great for BBQ on the Mun!
      18
    • Engine throttle depth: Minmus landing with a lifter engine? No, you'll have to choose one with more throttle depth!
      18
    • Engine throttle depth: Make it a difficulty option.
      39
    • Engine ignition limit: Flipping it on and off at will, my keyboard will likely break first.
      22
    • Engine ignition limit: Some engines require a kebal with a very long match at launcpad.
      9
    • Engine ignition limit: Make it a difficulty option.
      43
    • Engine proportions: Old Poodle was cool, nozzle size doesn't matter.
      12
    • Engine proportions: If it's a vacuum-optimized engine, you'll have to deal with unwieldy nozzle.
      60
  2. 2. More stuff

    • Exhaust plumes: I want them to be awesome, not realistic.
      10
    • Exhaust plumes: I want them to be realistic, because that's awesome!
      46
    • Exhaust plumes: Realism to the core, plume in vacuum will blow things away in wide angle.
      29
    • Skybox: It's for epic shots with stars AND planets AND Kerbol in the same picture!
      26
    • Skybox: Dynamic range begs to differ. Stars are dim, sunlit planets are bright. What is HDR for anyway?
      40
    • Universe scale: It's a small dense universe.
      22
    • Universe scale: I want a bigger one!
      20
    • Universe scale: I want to choose scale as difficulty setting.
      29
    • Life support: Snacks.
      29
    • Life support: USI-like model (supplies, mulch, fertilizer)
      22
    • Life support: Something more realistic, with water, CO2, oxygen, and all.
      22
    • Sound: RUD in vacuum should be loud. And Orion without sound is boring.
      13
    • Sound: Vacuum is silent. In space no one can hear Jeb eating snacks.
      3
    • Sound: Optional vacuum silence and/or cockpit-originated/radio/muffled sound.
      33
  3. 3. Even more flamey stuff

    • Metallic Hydrogen: Yea.
      31
    • Metallic Hydrogen: Nay.
      22
    • Propellants concept: "Liquid fuel/Oxidizer" is simple and on point.
      32
    • Propellants concept: Down with euphemisms, just call it what it most likely is - "Liquid Methane/Liquid Oxygen".
      15
    • Propellants concept: I want more stuff - plain old Kerosene, Liquid Hydrogen, and dedicated engines for them.
      30
    • Ullage: Um, wha..?
      23
    • Ullage: You have to have a header tank or use ullage motors to settle fuel before ignition in zero G.
      11
    • Ullage: Make it a difficulty option.
      43
    • SRB thrust profile: It burns, then it stops, that's it.
      20
    • SRB thrust profile: Just have the flattest thrust profile, like for a star-shaped fuel blocks.
      10
    • SRB thrust profile: Multiple choices in VAB.
      44
    • Cryogenic fuels: It's liquid and it's in a tank, right? I'm going to Moho.
      18
    • Cryogenic fuels: Boiloff is a thing to deal with, ZBO tanks have weight and power penalties.
      18
    • Cryogenic fuels: Make it a difficulty option.
      39
    • Low thrust propulsion: I liked ion engines the way they were in KSP 1
      11
    • Low thrust propulsion: We have thrust in timewarp now! Millinewtons rule!
      38


Recommended Posts

Consider it a single long list with multiple choices (forum limits to 3 questions with 20 variants per question).

I hope I didn't forget anything important....

Edited by Psycho_zs
added variants for sound and ion engines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wet noodle rockets aren't just annoying from a realism perspective, they're annoying from a gameplay perspective too. I hate having to strut my rockets to hell and back just to get them not to fly apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of these - Life Support in particular - I want to say 'leave it to the mods'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could've just added most of these as 'Make it a(n) difficulty option' and be done with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as anything which takes the game away from its status of "a simulation like game" to "full on simulation" in any significant way, is an option the player control can disable, and preferably is not on as a default. That being said, adding extra some realism/difficulty options within the stock game, would be very welcome.

I know that there are a lot of players who would like to see KSP become a more realistic and lets face it, more challenging game. However there's an even greater number who stuggle to get beyond Minmus.

Last thing we'd want to see is a bunch of fresh new players attracted by the shiny of KSP2, only for them to dump their $60 purchase, complaining that its too hard out of the box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In general, I think adhering to realism at the expense of gameplay and accessibility is thorny.  Might not be popular hear, but remember that most, if not all, of us are experienced players with a ton of game time and lots of knowledge.  KSP's selling point is that the game is accessible for people who do not have either.

That said, I've got no problem with the game adding these features so long as they are optional, and the devs have the resources to adequately put them in place without hindering development in other areas.  If that doesn't work, then like DStaal said, the modding community will likely come through.

So for me, most realism features would be nice as additional settings, but should not be default and, for me, would not be a deal breaker if they weren't implemented. 

I'm also fine with some of the future propulsion techs being a tad more on the theoretical than practical side.  If the goal is interstellar travel (and as far as spaceflight mechanics go, there's not much else KSP2 could do to extend the endgame over KSP1) then there's going to have to be some minor reality bending.  Interstellar travel in general is highly unlikely and impractical, so why sweat the smallest details on how the game achieves it?  I think of the "magic tech" assertion of the developers as pertaining more to the overall mechanics of travel, rather than the actual tech of the device: warp devices and em-drives could be excluded purely on the fact that they would make it far to easy to reach other systems, and would not follow the traditional mechanics of rocketry that the game has used up until this point.  Metallic Hydrogen or Kerbstein drives may not be possible as they are currently portrayed, but at least they work along the same lines as conventional rockets from a gameplay perspective: they require fuel, heading, and time in order to get from one place to the other.  So long as they are appropriately balanced, I have no problem with them.

Finally, on noodle physics, I've said before that I'm fine with them... to a degree.  They probably can be stiffened up a bit from KSP one, but I think especially for early, smaller scale projects having the physics engine calculate for individual parts is fine.  Obviously, later in the game, with larger vehicles, it becomes more of an issue, although I think offworld building and launching may also help with this issue. Ideally, I think the game could potentially introduce the ability to weld certain parts together, effectively eliminating the joint physics for that part.  It could maybe be a later tech discovery (maybe have struts available earlier, and strut-less welding unlock later on) and primarily focus on inline connections, primarily through similarly sized parts such as fuel tanks, while it would not work for radially mounted parts.  That could be a good sweetspot, allowing you to eliminate some of the wobble of tall rockets (and simplify physics calculations to boot) while also preventing abuse of the system to create more physically unfeasible designs.  Certain types of procedural parts could also be an answer, though I'd prefer if the game primarily keeps to the stacking mechanics.

Share this post


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

Some of these - Life Support in particular - I want to say 'leave it to the mods'.

I'd say leave a lot of things to the mods. To me, KSP is a platform, so while certain things are unpractical to leave to mods (say, core flight physics), beyond that what I care about is "how well mods can do UI," "how much you can do with just the config files" (with all due respect to Kopernicus, Kopernicus shouldn't be necessary :D), maybe frameworks that establish conventions improving interoperability between mods.

Edited by ModZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a few quibbles but overall stock KSP realism is about where it ought to be.

If you have four digits worth of hours in KSP it's easy to forget just how hard it is to do your first Mun return mission. Having to deal with ullage, non-re-igniting, non-throttling engines, life support, choice of fuel, let alone a larger universe would simply lock out a lot of players. I'm pretty sure I would've given up before making orbit.

So I feel very strongly that that kind of stuff belongs in mods, not the core game, not even as difficulty options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

If you have four digits worth of hours in KSP it's easy to forget just how hard it is to do your first Mun return mission. Having to deal with ullage, non-re-igniting, non-throttling engines, life support, choice of fuel, let alone a larger universe would simply lock out a lot of players. I'm pretty sure I would've given up before making orbit.

I have played RSS, and even after playing ksp for 5 years I still can't even get a kerbal on the moon. I can't imagine being a beginner playing this.

Edited by DunaManiac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, captinjoehenry said:

I feel the poll is biased as there isn't an option for no life support or having life support as a difficulty setting

Life support is already confirmed as a feature, most likely already as a difficulty option. So this section of the poll is about specifics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Psycho_zs said:

Life support is already confirmed as a feature, most likely already as a difficulty option. So this section of the poll is about specifics.

Where was it confirmed as a feature?  As I somehow missed that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Psycho_zs said:

https://youtu.be/ftLT_puDtxo

Translation here:

 

Ah thank you!  I still feel there should be an option to vote for it as a difficulty setting though considering what other options are on the poll with the vote option of a difficulty selection.  And I feel there's probably a lot of people who would want to make sure that life support is just optional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only real opinion is leave life support for the modding community. If anything, add hooks into the core software for it, but don't implement it for stock. It's something that I've played around with and got sick of it very fast. It turned the game into a supply mission simulator, instead of a exploration game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping the extent of life support is "Hey, if you run out of charge, Jebediah will freeze to death in the depths of space!" and that "Hey, if your colony doesn't have enough snacks, your kerbals can't do the thing and make more kerbals!" I feel as if any serious attempt at life support would turn off more casual players, and reduce some of the things you could do in game (no 3-part missions, because you need food for your kerbals). I feel like if a mechanic reduces the possibilities for missions, it shouldn't be added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with all the votes except for propellant, we really need more propellants and engine types stock. This makes for so much more build options and consideration of fuel types and understanding what their advantages and disadvantages are (ISP, mixture radio, density, temperature, etc..

Quote

Propellants concept: I want more stuff - plain old Kerosene, Liquid Hydrogen, and dedicated engines for them.

Also, why are procedural parts, specifically fuel tanks, inter-stages and structural components, not being considered as a stock option for KSP2!? I consider them to be the #1 mod of all time when it comes to rocket design. As far a procedural fuel tanks goes in the tech tree for career mode, you simply have size limitations, and/or only more advanced tanks can store both fuel and oxidizer in the correct mixture ratio.

Btw first post here, but I've been playing KSP since 2012!!! :sticktongue: Looking forward to KSP2!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to expand on my previous post: The reason I say leave life support to mods is because there's a *wide range* of opinions on the issue of what makes it good gameplay.  On one hand you have things like Snacks! and Kabin Krazyness which can be very minimal on what needs to be managed.  (And note that both of those manage something *completely different.*)  On the other hand you have things like Ioncross Crew Support or TAC, which can have every little thing managed - or you can play without.  Obviously what makes 'fun' life support in this game is largely a matter of personal opinion, and I've played both with and without depending on what I wanted for a particular save.  All of which means a 'stock' life support system is likely to be both overcomplicated and not realistic enough depending on what player you're talking to.

Share this post


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

Wet noodle rockets aren't just annoying from a realism perspective, they're annoying from a gameplay perspective too. I hate having to strut my rockets to hell and back just to get them not to fly apart.

Yes, isn't there an engineer on site who checks the joints and structure. To me that should be procedural or "someone else job". While it craft shouldn't be super stiff I do think it would be better to stiffen the joints but make tube crushing on parts an issue if they exceed a maximum internal force or are subject to much twist. Putting big masses on tiny tubes with vast amounts of thrust at the far end should be a recipe for disaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rockets are noodly, though. Not super noodly, and KSPs joints are a poor approximation visually, but rigidity sets limits on rocket proportions. Most "real" giant spaceship designs go for pushing a spindly long ship because the forces involved are often comically low.

And it's not just rockets that are noodly. Have this fun example. I also remember staying at a radar tower my father worked in, near the sea during a storm. That was concrete bending, thank $deity I don't have motion sickness.

Share this post


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

Just to expand on my previous post: The reason I say leave life support to mods is because there's a *wide range* of opinions on the issue of what makes it good gameplay.  On one hand you have things like Snacks! and Kabin Krazyness which can be very minimal on what needs to be managed.  (And note that both of those manage something *completely different.*)  On the other hand you have things like Ioncross Crew Support or TAC, which can have every little thing managed - or you can play without.  Obviously what makes 'fun' life support in this game is largely a matter of personal opinion, and I've played both with and without depending on what I wanted for a particular save.  All of which means a 'stock' life support system is likely to be both overcomplicated and not realistic enough depending on what player you're talking to.

Most of the systems that the devs have added to ksp have been extremely simple and configurable: ISRU uses a single resource type and planets are scanned instantly, the comms network mechanics are extremely simple and can be turned off in difficulty settings, reentry heat can be turned off in difficulty settings, etc. It seems their general approach is to do the simplest/most approachable implementation, and let people who want more complicated mechanics use mods. I'm fairly confident the implementation of life support added by the devs will be a lot more similar to Snacks! than to TAC, and I would be very surprised if anyone found it overcomplicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KSP 1 was a game that leaned towards the fun side of realism. I am all for that there, and am against too much realism in KSP 1. If you are looking for that side, then play KSP 1. I think KSP 2 should lean more towards the realistic side and set itself apart in how it feels to fly. Yes it will mean a harder learning curve, but it should be. There is no point making a second KSP game if it is just going to be the same as KSP 1 with a few different parts and worlds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your rocket bends to the point you can't control it, the "realistic" way for the game to handle it is to destroy your rocket.

If you need more than a couple autostruts you did something wrong. Most likely you're trying to thrust too much or you have a ridiculously thin section of your rocket. Or both.

So I can't participate in this poll, because "I'd like it just the way it is because I know how to build rockets correctly" isn't on the poll :D

And as an aside, if I was ever served spaghetti with the consistency of the rockets people refer to as "spaghetti" here, I'd send it back because it was obviously undercooked to a ridiculous degree.

Edited by 5thHorseman

Share this post


Link to post
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.