savagekerbal

Realism in KSP2?

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, OOM said:

KSP is not limited to interplanetary travel. Install the GU and remove this restriction.

  Hide contents

GU isn't restricted to interplanetary travel, but KSP is.

5 minutes ago, OOM said:

Because it is bad. A primitive machine will never replace human logic and reason.

But it will always replace human reaction times and human irrationality.

5 minutes ago, OOM said:

In addition, this takes away an important part of the game - piloting your own spaceship.

Yeah, but what about going back and forth between Space Station V and Munbase Alpha for an indefinite time to supply parts and resources? That's extremely tedious and you don't learn much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

GU isn't restricted to interplanetary travel, but KSP is.

But it will always replace human reaction times and human irrationality.

Yeah, but what about going back and forth between Space Station V and Munbase Alpha for an indefinite time to supply parts and resources? That's extremely tedious and you don't learn much.

What resources do you need for a lunar base? I think that oxygen and water can be extracted on site in unlimited quantities. And I think food can be delivered by nuclear tug. I think that 10 tons of food is enough for many years.

ps and that's why we need KSP2. In the new version, this will all happen automatically, because the game was initially directed to the colonization of planets rather than to their research.

Edited by OOM

Share this post


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

Because it is bad. A primitive machine will never replace human logic and reason. In addition, this takes away an important part of the game - piloting your own spaceship.

Why is MJ bad? Please give an example? I'm not going to argue about the whole automation versus manual flying thing. There are plenty of arguments throughout the forum on that subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, OOM said:

Because it is bad. A primitive machine will never replace human logic and reason. In addition, this takes away an important part of the game - piloting your own spaceship.

I think it would be fine as long as the player could do a better job.  I think a good use of MechJeb is an experienced player tired of doing routine launches having MechJeb do them instead.  I think a poor use of MechJeb is an inexperienced player who doesn't understand the NavBall and spaceflight having MechJeb fly everything for them.  

P.S. Let's make sure to stay on topic and friendly; I've seen MechJeb fights descend into flame wars and chaos.  It would be unpleasant to have to have the moderators step in.

Share this post


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

What resources do you need for a lunar base? I think that oxygen and water can be extracted on site in unlimited quantities. And I think food can be delivered by nuclear tug. I think that 10 tons of food is enough for many years.

Okay, fine, going back and forth to expand the base. We don't need to shuttle stuff back and forth between x and y 100 times, which is why not having automation is silly in a game where you're going to have to go back and forth between an orbital construction platform and where you're getting resources for said platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

That's easy to say if you've been playing for 500 hours and have no clue what newer players experience.

That's only because the tutorials are poor. You don't need more than 1 or 2 burns from out of each engine until you get to orbit, and you can usually ignite one stage right after the other. If you've got multiple coasting periods, you're either doing something wrong (wasting propellant), or are a veteran player trying to make an all-solid rocket work. KSP should teach that, but it doesn't, not explicitly, at least. In stock system, one coasting period is enough.

This would only serve to separate "launch vehicle" from "spacecraft" vessels. IRL, those require different types of engines. In KSP, you can use a Mainsail to dock, with some skill. That is more than a bit silly.

Edited by Dragon01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks, some people like Mechjeb and some people don't. One camp will never convinced the other that they're wrong, but they just might make enemies out of each other while trying. So let's not do that argument again, please. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

That's only because the tutorials are poor. You don't need more than 1 or 2 burns from out of each engine until you get to orbit, and you can usually ignite one stage right after the other. If you've got multiple coasting periods, you're either doing something wrong (wasting propellant), or are a veteran player trying to make an all-solid rocket work. KSP should teach that, but it doesn't, not explicitly, at least. In stock system, one coasting period is enough.

This would only serve to separate "launch vehicle" from "spacecraft" vessels. IRL, those require different types of engines. In KSP, you can use a Mainsail to dock, with some skill. That is more than a bit silly.

How do landers work under this model? Would we get some beefy hypergolic engines for them?

Would we get improved tankage for Monopropellant? Right now the current 2.5M parts are just sad.

I don't really have an opinion either way about this, but when you're proposing limited ignitions it should also take into account the numerous other changes that would need to be done to accomadate them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

How do landers work under this model? Would we get some beefy hypergolic engines for them?

Would we get improved tankage for Monopropellant? Right now the current 2.5M parts are just sad.

Yes. KSP needs both these things, badly, even without ignition limits. Also, clustering multiple engines a good idea, and it's bad that parts needed to do that are locked behind a DLC. Lifting engines already make poor lander engines, anyway, because they tend to be too tall and have too much thrust. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

Yes. KSP needs both these things, badly, even without ignition limits. Also, clustering multiple engines a good idea, and it's bad that parts needed to do that are locked behind a DLC. Lifting engines already make poor lander engines, anyway, because they tend to be too tall and have too much thrust. 

Depends on how big your lander is xD

Also I'm pretty sure KSP2 has already confirmed that they're implementing clustering from the get go, but it's not a good solution around limited ignitions without some serious upgrades to the action group system. 

For instance it would be great if I could set an action group to fire engines at a specific thrust limit or throttle level. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be nice, but my point was that you could use small (orbital, and thus infinitely restartable) engines in a large cluster, to avoid the ignition problem entirely in a lander, even a heavy one. It's a fairly simple solution to the problem, and to many others, as well.

Any lander that would need a lifting engine should be difficult to design, because it'd have to be absolutely gigantic, especially given low gravity on most non-atmospheric bodies (for atmospheric, you just use chutes). It's not something a new player would be making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

That would be nice, but my point was that you could use small (orbital, and thus infinitely restartable) engines in a large cluster, to avoid the ignition problem entirely in a lander, even a heavy one. It's a fairly simple solution to the problem, and to many others, as well.

Any lander that would need a lifting engine should be difficult to design, because it'd have to be absolutely gigantic, especially given low gravity on most non-atmospheric bodies (for atmospheric, you just use chutes). It's not something a new player would be making.

Ah i see; i was thinking of a falcon9/Starship design with a independent cluster for reentry/boostback/landing. My apologies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a valid option, too, just more complicated to set up and manage (but which might be more optimal in some situations). The point was, the problem is not unsolvable, or even particularly hard, especially when proper tools are provided to solve it. That's what KSP is all about, but the main flaw in stock KSP1 is that basically, problems to solve run out really fast. I'd like to see more real problems that have real solutions, because that's where educational value is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

personally I believe that KSP2 should have cool stuff, but not lean too much into science fantasy but retain the silliness of some of the science. It makes it moar fun. The simplicity and the realistic flaws are in my big round eyes what makes KSP great! The monoliths, simplicity, small scale, it’s all great. Without the little impossibilities, KSP2 is not gonna sell me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more automation is added, the more humans are free to take on the more creative aspects, like deciding where to go, what to do, building rockets and so on. I for one don't want to have to fly every launch, transfer, approach, docking, landing etc. when the computer systems can do it better and more accurately than I ever could and I can use that time for something else like making food, phoning/video calling relatives, eating food, doing household chores, bathroom breaks, eating food etc. I've done those all manually (the launching/docking etc. that is!) and while I could do them manually again, I'll take the same approach I use in my day job as a software tester- do it manually first, then once you understand it, automate it.

Modern passenger jets are almost entirely automated and the pilots are only really there to tell the computers what to do and make sure nothing goes wrong. Why should spacecraft, which go many times faster and orders of magnitude further, be any different? And of course, if you REALLY wanted to do things fully manually you'd do it all without SAS of any kind, without using maneuver nodes or even the map view- just point in what you think is the right direction, fire the engines for a while and then wait and see where you end up...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been playing since 2016 with thousands of hours in Realism Overhaul. The stock game was too cartoony with the 9v and AA batteries on your probes and those cartoon textures. Once I got good at using Mechjeb for precise planning and maneuvers I never looked back.

The most important thing for me is design tools. I need procedural parts, wings, with curves, straight lines and hard edges in a variety of geometries and offsets. Even the current iterations of procedural parts limit the NON-symetrical shapes to a minimum ie. Radial Boosters in the Real Tanks. The small number of goofy parts in the stock game would have lost my attention long ago. Realism overhaul and RP-1 are the things that keep me playing.

If you want staying power and long term interest in the new game it needs these things or it will flop fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bjhines3d said:

I have been playing since 2016 with thousands of hours in Realism Overhaul. The stock game was too cartoony with the 9v and AA batteries on your probes and those cartoon textures. Once I got good at using Mechjeb for precise planning and maneuvers I never looked back.

The most important thing for me is design tools. I need procedural parts, wings, with curves, straight lines and hard edges in a variety of geometries and offsets. Even the current iterations of procedural parts limit the NON-symetrical shapes to a minimum ie. Radial Boosters in the Real Tanks. The small number of goofy parts in the stock game would have lost my attention long ago. Realism overhaul and RP-1 are the things that keep me playing.

If you want staying power and long term interest in the new game it needs these things or it will flop fast.

They're making KSP2 more moddable than KSP1; these edge cases will be handled by mods. There's no reason for the developers to waste time on features that would likely isolate the majority of their playerbase instead of further refining the game they have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2020 at 12:37 PM, OOM said:

Because it is bad. A primitive machine will never replace human logic and reason. In addition, this takes away an important part of the game - piloting your own spaceship.

??? MechJeb is a piloting tool, not an autopilot. I only use the autopilot function for things like rondevouz,  things I need work with. Do you even use MechJeb? It also is not “primitive”. It’s one of the most downloaded mods in all of the community, and very useful. Autopilot is simply an option, but piloting your own rocket is always what I will do. :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2020 at 3:00 PM, HansonKerman said:

??? MechJeb is a piloting tool, not an autopilot.

[1.9.x] Anatid Robotics / MuMech - MechJeb - Autopilot - [2.9.2] [14 February 2019]

On 1/11/2017 at 12:49 PM, sarbian said:

Anatid Robotics and Multiversal Mechatronics proudly presents the first flight assistant autopilot: MechJeb

The creator themself calls it an autopilot.

On 4/8/2020 at 3:00 PM, HansonKerman said:

I only use the autopilot function for things like rondevouz,  things I need work with.

Okay? What's this have to do with anything?

On 4/8/2020 at 3:00 PM, HansonKerman said:

Do you even use MechJeb?

Again, what's this have to do with anything?

On 4/8/2020 at 3:00 PM, HansonKerman said:

It also is not “primitive”. It’s one of the most downloaded mods in all of the community, and very useful.

Yes.

On 4/8/2020 at 3:00 PM, HansonKerman said:

Autopilot is simply an option, but piloting your own rocket is always what I will do. :/

What about Mechjeb making a maneuver node or turning the ship for you isn't auto?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.