Speaking of Science... we need a 'Kerbilopedia'!

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Would you want some sort of reviewable, persistent and updating report about the celestial bodies and their biomes to view in-game? 

Edit: I think we need a Kerbilopedia that populates as players unlock modules and perform science on or about various celestial bodies and the respective biomes.  While in KSP, the player would 'do science' and simply get points towards unlocking tech-tree levels, I envision a slight rework to that system.  

Spoiler

I'm envisioning 'canned' reports that you can unlock along the way.  I certainly don't want to have to actually analyze the science! 

I just think it would be fun and educational to have stuff about the planets revealed along the way as players progress - they can unlock and build their own Kerbilopedia in stages by skipping around doing science or deliberately doing something that will expand their knowledge of the target body. 

Like - if you run a temp check at Kerbin's Shores you get an entry about that added to your K-Pedia.  When you repeat this while Flying Above Kerbin's Shores you ge an additional entry.  Repeat in a different biome - more information about Kerbin.   

Before long, you know everything you can about the various biomes of Kerbin (=the page is almost full) - but then maybe you noticed that you forget to get a soil sample from Kerbin's Desert and can tell that from glancing through the K-Pedia. 

.Vl3d said:  The science should help the engineering. When you pick a landing spot and you did the science for that biome it should tell you:

ideal atmospheric braking altitude is X, set parachute deployment parameters to Y, landing drag coefficient or how much fuel needed to land Z, how much fuel needed to get to orbit, risk of storms, pressure and temperature should really be important for mission survival, corrosive environment etc.

Bej Kerman said: It should clue you in, tell you the height of the atmosphere and the pressure, not just straight up tell you.

JoeSchmuckatelli said: That's actually a nice feature: if you had a section in the K-Pedia about the chutes and efficacy of use, you could refer to that during the construction phase of the probe/lander and actually set the correct parameters in the VAB (or later if you forgot).

That would be a cool combo of 'useful and informative science' in-game and 'real-world' (game) applications.

All I want is the added 'record' of science done in a way that builds the K-pedia and player 'knowledge' about the different bodies.  Honestly for no reason other than it would be fun and give context to new players about why you click the various modules beyond mere points and prospective scientists about what kind of things scientists do with spacecraft. 

My ulterior motive? 

My 12 year old daughter.  She's never played KSP, but loves space.  She's very interested in science - but doesn't know a lot about it, yet.  Playing a game that teaches about physics and spaceflight is awesome - and I think it can be a phenomenal tool for expanding awareness of all the science people do with access to space (astronomy, planetary science, etc etc.) 

~  OP STARTS  ~

Perhaps some kind of spectroscopy reports or trace-gas / elements display that you can review about the different destinations? 

Or are you OK with the 'did science' and points thing? 

 

... 

 

For me - I'd like to have a 'folder' or page for each of the stars, planets & moons - one that gets updated when you do science. 

• Spectroscopy of the visitable stars 
• 
• Biome specific reports of trace elements and gasses 
• 
• Ore concentration 
• 
• etc.

Not that any of these are necessary - but for the sort of role playing of space exploration and communicating to the youth about what space science is like that KSP offers I think having a persistent "science gathered" and "what we know about celestial body x" file players could add to and refer to along the way would add to the immersion 

Edited June 22, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[SciMan]

Would be nice to have indeed, and it would be doubly engaging for new players if it actually made an impact on mission planning.

Like, you'd get a rough guess of an idea of what a planet's conditions are by observation via telescope (and because it's a game about flying spacecraft and launching rockets, a telescope in orbit would yield better info, but you might have to be picky about what types of sensors to put on the telescope (ie. what wavelengths are you observing it in).

The better info you have about another planet (be it in the Kerbol solar system or another one), the better you'd be able to design your landers to handle what comes their way without putting on extra stuff that it ends up not needing.
So for example, initial telescope observations of Duna might reveal it has an atmosphere, but not how thick it is. Better and/or more specifically tuned telescope readings gathered from a telescope in Kerbin orbit might reveal that the atmosphere isn't very thick after all. And if you send a probe with the right instruments to Duna to do science on its atmosphere, it'll give you a pretty good approximation that you could use to for example calculate what kind and how many parachutes you would need to safely land a given lander on the surface, as well as which kinds of rocket engines (Kerbin sea-level or vacuum or aerospike) would work best for using rocket engines to land on Duna.

But the only way to get "the KSPedia entry" type stats (aka the game giving you exact numbers and not a range of values) would be to send in an atmospheric data-logging probe that characterizes the atmosphere as it descends thru it.

And the same would go for things like planetary gravity field, magnetic field (if we need to measure that to calculate radiation belt hazards for example around Jool), and other things about the planet.

But for atmospheric composition, you might be able to get a pretty good idea from a distant space telescope observation (we've been able to do that with the atmospheres of planets orbiting other stars, so doing it for a planet within the same solar system shouldn't be hard at all in comparison).

What I'm trying to say is that in gameplay terms, "the player is responsible for gathering the data they will need to plan further exploration flights to that planet or moon".

So if you don't want to leave things to chance, you'd have to fly several different missions to a planet in order to scout it out before having enough information to be able to design a lander that can land there (without it being overly heavy because it was over-designed to cope with the "worst case scenario" of the space telescope observations (that approach would also be workable, but it would cost more in time and resources to build such a craft, obviously).

I guess my whole point is that such a system would lend itself quite easily to being integrated into the gameplay experience and not just limited to "hey we got a bunch of neat scientific data that doesn't actually have an impact on the player's appreciation of science done for science's sake because it didn't answer any questions they were asking" like what happens when you give them for example a map of the gravity field of the body (matters if you're trying to map the inside of it without drilling into it, doesn't matter so much if you're just designing something to land on the surface).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the science data that is discovered (and presented as you describe) has to have a use to the player, or it won't stick in their mind that they're doing this for more reasons than just a means to an end (aka unlocking the next bunch of parts in the tech tree, if that's how it's even going to work).

 

EDIT: Such a system would have the most impact if it were applied first to the new solar systems they are adding into the game, but adding it in to the existing Kerbol solar system would be a welcome addition as well, and if the game has the foundations for such a system in place in it's vanilla code, with the right hooks in it for mods to be able to use it as well, then that would be the ideal situation because every new planet pack you play with would have a whole lot more impact than just "let's 'explore' cookie-cutter solar system #31 by using the standard-issue biome-hopper lander design and orbiting science lab" like you can sometimes run into with KSP 1 planet packs (at least the ones that are scaled closely to vanilla balance for the delta-V map).

Edited June 17, 2022 by SciMan

[mcwaffles2003]

My opinion on the matter is the same still. I want in game science to generate genuine data that is interactive and useful to the player. I would love to make a space telescope, launch it into space, point it at stars to discover exoplanets, then take readings from those discovered exoplanets to output spectroscopy data, like you've shown... then let players use that data to discover the basic contents of those planets so we can discover direction for where to go.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

51 minutes ago, SciMan said:

I guess my whole point is that such a system would lend itself quite easily to being integrated into the gameplay experience and not just limited to "hey we got a bunch of neat scientific data that doesn't actually have an impact on the player's appreciation of science done for science's sake because it didn't answer any questions they were asking" like what happens when you give them for example a map of the gravity field of the body (matters if you're trying to map the inside of it without drilling into it, doesn't matter so much if you're just designing something to land on the surface).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the science data that is discovered (and presented as you describe) has to have a use to the player, or it won't stick in their mind that they're doing this for more reasons than just a means to an end (aka unlocking the next bunch of parts in the tech tree, if that's how it's even going to work).

Man - I could not have put this in words any better than that! 

Wish I could give you 10 likes! 

[SciMan]

Just thought of something that might make that gravity field map matter a little bit more, but it requires significant rework of KSP's orbital physics so I doubt it's gonna happen.

Non-spherical gravity sources. And before you say it, no, this doesn't demand that you replace the patched-conics orbital dynamics with something more realistic like N-body, so the Kerbol solar system could stay the same as it is right now (because if you try to use Principia in the stock solar system you find out that there's really not that many stable orbits around any of Jool's moons, they're all too close together for their size so the orbits get perturbed on to either an escape or an impact trajectory).

I'm not just talking about making it a "generic oblate spheroid" (aka "fat sphere") gravity model either. I'm talking about a properly "lumpy" distribution of mass concentrations.

The reason to do it? Simple, NASA has to factor this into their calculations all the dang time, and it can help a space agency as often as it hinders them.

For example, it would make designing the orbit for mapping probes (like SCANsat) a much more interesting problem to solve.
Both harder and easier at the same time, depending on which planet you intend to map the surface of.
For Kerbin, just like Earth, mapping would be relatively easy because all that is required is to launch into a Sun-Synchronous orbit (which would be provided to the player rather than them have to calculate it out on their own, after they have done a mission that gathers the appropriate scientific observations to the required accuracy, better quality readings reduces the margins on the calculated sun-synchronous orbit until you get a single value or as I called it in my last post "the defining entry in the KSPedia".
The same would apply for Duna as well, however the numbers would (of course) be different.
Ike might even have a sun-synchronous orbit, because despite being tidally locked (which usually precludes such things) it is indeed still rotating relative to the local star (Kerbol), just that the rate is nearly if not exactly the same as the rate of Duna's rotation relative to Kerbol.

However, where it hinders you is when you try to stay in a low orbit of a small moon that has a jumbled-up inside (didn't get a chance to fully settle into a mostly-spherical mass) leading to a mass distribution that is more "lumps" than it is "sphere". Like how the Moon is IRL. IRL the Moon only has 2 known low orbits which you can stay in for truly extended periods, called "Magic orbits" because despite all the various Lunar mass concentrations pulling on the orbit in various ways, the orbit seems to be mostly stable where all other known low orbits around the Moon will eventually be perturbed into either an escape or impact trajectory

So a low orbit around the Mun (aside from some thoughtfully-placed "magic orbits") would only be stable for I think a month of Kerbin days (long enough to do a mission, not quite long enough to put a space station in a low orbit of the Mun without spending a significant amount of propellant on maintaining the orbit), then it would either become an escape or an impact trajectory.

These magic orbits would be something that's not "hidden until you do the science" per-se (so if you know about them from past experience playing KSP 2, you could just launch right to the magic orbit and it would work), but those magic orbits shouldn't be "mostly equatorial" nor should they be "mostly polar", that way you're less likely to "stumble upon it" by accident and encounter an effect you can't explain at the time due to perhaps a lack of the appropriate sensor (if you even have to unlock any of the scientific data sensors, which IMO is something that should happen really early in the tech tree if they're not just all unlocked right when you have the opportunity to launch your first rocket).

So basically to discover a magic orbit would involve the same process used to discover special orbits around other bodies, namely sending up a probe with an instrument that measures the local gravity field and sends the data back to Kerbin to be worked on by scientists with computers who will analyze it to create a map of the gravity field, and then some more time number-crunching with a supercomputer to discover any special orbits that that body might have.

Of course, there's no firm requirement that such additions to the orbital physics of KSP 2 are even added while also adding this science data, but the "special orbits" that could be discovered are significantly reduced without it. In fact, I'm not sure if there's any "special orbits" other than just Geosynchronous orbit if you don't have non-spherical gravity sources, but even then with the right sensors you should be able to have the game spit out what the altitude of a circular geostationary orbit is, assuming the body isn't tidally locked.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

The idea posted in the other thread - a kind of Civilopedia (Kerbilopedia?) that 'fills itself out' or gets revealed over time as the player conducts science is an elegant concept. 

I think something like that would be a cool thing - where you can review the specifics of the target body and maybe that helps you with mission planning or ship construction.  It would also be a way to make doing the run make sense beyond 'oh look, I unlocked the gravity probe - quick let's run a few missions with that onboard so I can unlock radiators, next' thing. 

[Bej Kerman]

Remember that this is a game with simulation elements, not a simulation with game elements. 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

Remember that this is a game with simulation elements, not a simulation with game elements. 

Good point - but I'm envisioning 'canned' reports that you can unlock along the way.  I certainly don't want to have to actually analyze the science! 

I just think it would be fun and educational to have stuff about the planets revealed along the way as players progress - they can unlock and build their own Kerbilopedia in stages by skipping around doing science or deliberately doing something that will expand their knowledge of the target body. 

Like - if you run a temp check at Kerbin's Shores you get an entry about that added to your K-Pedia.  When you repeat this while Flying Above Kerbin's Shores you ge an additional entry.  Repeat in a different biome - more information about Kerbin.   

Before long, you know everything you can about the various biomes of Kerbin (=the page is almost full) - but then maybe you noticed that you forget to get a soil sample from Kerbin's Desert and can tell that from glancing through the K-Pedia. 

[SciMan]

That's all assuming that there are as many biomes in KSP 2 as there were in KSP 1. I don't think that's the case, but I can't remember where I remember hearing the developers say that.

Or maybe it was that the developers don't want the player to think that they have to visit every single unique place on a planet to have fully explored it.

At least for the temperature measurements, above a certain altitude it shouldn't really matter much where on Kerbin you make the measurement (or any other planet or moon with an atmosphere).

IMO most of the science instruments should collect data whenever they are powered on, generating a stream of data that can be either recorded for later analysis or transmission back to KSC which is good for flyby probes, or streamed directly back to KSC whenever there is a suitable communications link established (and there is enough power to keep everything running) which would be better for probes that enter orbit and/or land on/around the target body.

I don't like having to click the same button a bunch of times just because I'm in a new place. If I can afford to run the instruments continuously, I should be able to just focus on moving from place to place and the data collection "just happens" on its own, automatically.

Of course this wouldn't work for instruments like a soil sample collection scoop or drill, but with those the trigger for collection could be set up by the player, so for instance "do these non-continuous experiments whenever the vessel's state is landed or splashed", that kind of being able to set certain things to happen when certain conditions are met would be a great way to free up the player's hands to focus on the important things, like piloting the craft.

[Vl3d]

I fully support the idea of having useful and actionable science with reports per celestial body and biome.

Some science was useful in KSP1, like testing Eve's and Duna's atmosphere to plan reentry. But I don't think people really have the patience to do the math using the experimental values.

Better would be:

remote observations (land/space telescope) + send probe, do tests, do science -> fill some part of celestia body knowledge repository + get useful alerts to help you build appropriate missions.

The science should help the engineering. When you pick a landing spot and you did the science for that biome it should tell you:

ideal atmospheric braking altitude is X, set parachute deployment parameters to Y, landing drag coefficient or how much fuel needed to land Z, how much fuel needed to get to orbit, risk of storms, pressure and temperature should really be important for mission survival, corrosive environment etc.

I mean, yeah, trial and error is fun for testing, but we should get some useful advice from scientists before landing there just to find out we can't leave with your Kerbals. Science should help prevent failure.

And it should be in-game. I spent so many hours browsing the Wiki...

Edited June 21, 2022 by Vl3d

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

3 hours ago, Vl3d said:

science was useful in KSP1, like testing Eve's and Duna's atmosphere to plan reentry. But I don't think people really have the patience to do the math using the experimental values

I actually envision something even simpler than that. 

Functionally, doing science in KSP did nothing more than grant the player points to unlock parts of the tech tree.  I don't actually want to change that. 

All I want is the added 'record' of science done in a way that builds the K-pedia and player 'knowledge' about the different bodies.  Honestly for no reason other than it would be fun and give context to new players about why you click the various modules beyond mere points and prospective scientists about what kind of things scientists do with spacecraft. 

My ulterior motive? 

My 12 year old daughter.  She's never played KSP, but loves space.  She's very interested in science - but doesn't know a lot about it, yet.  Playing a game that teaches about physics and spaceflight is awesome - and I think it can be a phenomenal tool for expanding awareness of all the science people do with access to space (astronomy, planetary science, etc etc.) 

[Bej Kerman]

3 hours ago, Vl3d said:

The science should help the engineering. When you pick a landing spot and you did the science for that biome it should tell you:

ideal atmospheric braking altitude is X, set parachute deployment parameters to Y, landing drag coefficient or how much fuel needed to land Z, how much fuel needed to get to orbit, risk of storms, pressure and temperature should really be important for mission survival, corrosive environment etc.

It should clue you in, tell you the height of the atmosphere and the pressure, not just straight up tell you.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

20 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

It should clue you in, tell you the height of the atmosphere and the pressure, not just straight up tell you.

That's actually a nice feature: if you had a section in the K-Pedia about the chutes and efficacy of use, you could refer to that during the construction phase of the probe/lander and actually set the correct parameters in the VAB (or later if you forgot).

That would be a cool combo of 'useful and informative science' in-game and 'real-world' (game) applications.

[Pthigrivi]

Keep in mind too there’s a simulation mode that will let you test vessels without risking crews. Seems like telescopes could tell you the basics (average surface composition, atmosphere depth, etc.) but landing a probe on the surface would unlock simulations on that body to help you more precisely design and test future landers. 

Edited June 22, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[Vl3d]

41 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

landing a probe on the surface would unlock simulations on that body to help you more precisely design and test future landers

I hope simulation mode is somehow bare bones using simplified physics and not like the real experience, so it doesn't spoil the feeling, but enhances the excitement. Maybe it's a good idea to use a special visual filter or abstracted graphics, like a Kerbal computer screen.

Also simulation mode should augment real on-site testing at KSC (testing grounds) and not take away from it. Some things you should only be able to test using the real physics, not the simple simulated version.

Also... I would like some reason to have and actually use a launch abort system, some risk factor (be it probabilistic part failure at launch, some integration issue or launching during non-ideal weather). I think being prepared for anything and taking ponderate risks is part of the fun.

I swear I have never used the launch abort part or feature, even after hundreds of hours of gameplay.

Edited June 22, 2022 by Vl3d

[Pthigrivi]

So this was from last september, and looks like it'll be available pretty much at any time during flight to test your landings or maneuvers before you execute them 'for real'. Very likely it includes full physics, but it's unknown if that will dovetail into a discovery mechanic. If thats not enough danger for folks they could always ignore it and roll the dice, or just make a personal rule against quicksaves and reverts. I know random part failure has been ruled out. 
 

Here's also a deep dive on safety margins and why one would or wouldn't need launch abort system IRL:

 

[Bej Kerman]

3 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Keep in mind too there’s a simulation mode that will let you test vessels without risking crews. Seems like telescopes could tell you the basics (average surface composition, atmosphere depth, etc.) but landing a probe on the surface would unlock simulations on that body to help you more precisely design and test future landers. 

Also keep in mind it was never said there would be a simulation mode. We saw a computer effects shader being put to use in the tutorials, that does not mean necessarily we'll be getting simulations.

4 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

So this was from last september, and looks like it'll be available pretty much at any time during flight to test your landings or maneuvers before you execute them 'for real'.

No, it looks like from the post you linked that we'll be getting tutorials. Not really news.

How about a new rule, just for fun: whenever you claim KSP 2 is adding a new feature, you have to find something that explicitly says we're getting that feature.

Edited June 22, 2022 by Bej Kerman

[Pthigrivi]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

Also keep in mind it was never said there would be a simulation mode. We saw a computer effects shader being put to use in the tutorials, that does not mean necessarily we'll be getting simulations.

No of course nothing is 100% in or out, but it's certainly something they were working on, and makes sense if they're trying to make deeper portions of the game more accessible to new players who haven't necessarily landed on the Mun 500 times. It would let players test different maneuvers sequentially and in more manageable chunks without resorting to lots of quicksaves and reverts. 

[Bej Kerman]

6 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

12 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Also keep in mind it was never said there would be a simulation mode. We saw a computer effects shader being put to use in the tutorials, that does not mean necessarily we'll be getting simulations.

No of course nothing is 100% in or out, but it's certainly something they were working on, and makes sense if they're trying to make deeper portions of the game more accessible to new players who haven't necessarily landed on the Mun 500 times. It would let players test different maneuvers sequentially and in more manageable chunks without resorting to lots of quicksaves and reverts. 

The fact is that having a computer shader for the tutorial scenarios is fitting, and that saying anything else is speculation. You made up your version of this concept, which is fine, but for some reason you attributed it to the tutorial/shader post with upmost certainty instead of just saying "that's just my idea of this concept that may or may not be developed/indevelopment".

[Vl3d]

I initially preferred something like this:

Dedicated testing grounds and facilities at the KSC, some of these can be abstracted but I really like testing subassemblies during design, before launch (off-road testing areas to simulate terrain on other planets, tethers or weights to simulate gravity on other planets, pool to test craft boyancy, dark room to test levels of sunlight exposure for solar panels and battery recharge, aerodynamic tunnel for aircraft, vacuum chamber to test flight in another atmosphere, some kind of pivot for RCS strength and ballance testing in aerodynamic scenarios - for example to prevent rocket flipping when launching, G-force centrifuge) - these would also help a lot when playing without reverting.

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, Vl3d said:

tethers or weights to simulate gravity on other planets

Can you not already do that in KSP 1?

[Vl3d]

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

Can you not already do that in KSP 1?

Don't think you can substract gravity.. maybe in water or using something like this:

https://technology.nasa.gov/patent/MSC-TOPS-60

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, Vl3d said:

4 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Can you not already do that in KSP 1?

Don't think you can substract gravity..

No, but you can test wheel stress using a rig to suspend the rover slightly, or just by attaching ore barrels to a rover to increase stress. Actually simulating low gravity maneuverability on Kerbin beyond wheel stress is not possible without magic Star Trek technology.

Edited June 22, 2022 by Bej Kerman

[Pthigrivi]

31 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

The fact is that having a computer shader for the tutorial scenarios is fitting, and that saying anything else is speculation. You made up your version of this concept, which is fine, but for some reason you attributed it to the tutorial/shader post with upmost certainty instead of just saying "that's just my idea of this concept that may or may not be developed/indevelopment".

The description in the post says "In KSP2, players learn basic flight concepts in a virtual simulator that can be accessed anytime the game is paused." and it includes flight HUD. I made a comment later in the thread "I believe its because this is showing an in-game simulator to let you test your craft before flying it for "real" which Nate Simpson liked, implying he agreed thats what we're seeing. Whether its capabilities are effected by exploration or not is definitely uncertain. 

Edited June 22, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, Pthigrivi said:

31 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

The fact is that having a computer shader for the tutorial scenarios is fitting, and that saying anything else is speculation. You made up your version of this concept, which is fine, but for some reason you attributed it to the tutorial/shader post with upmost certainty instead of just saying "that's just my idea of this concept that may or may not be developed/indevelopment".

The description in the post says "In KSP2, players learn basic flight concepts in a virtual simulator that can be accessed anytime the game is paused." and it includes flight HUD. I made a comment later in the thread "I believe its because this is showing an in-game simulator to let you test your craft before flying it for "real" which Nate Simpson liked, implying he agreed thats what we're seeing. Whether its effected by exploration or not is definitely uncertain. 

That is not a confirmation of anything. Until Nate actually specifically says we're getting such a simulator, saying we're getting the kind of simulator you asked for is only bound to help cause the spread of misinformation. A like to a comment is not gospel - I am fairly confident that Nate did not pass your comment around his team before making the decision to like it. There's not enough putting emphasis on the fact that continuing to speculate and make assumptions without making it clear that you're just speculating is likely to cause misinformation to spread.