Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Tell that to the makers of the Civ franchise

The common game experience is just BS nonsence to me. If the Devs wanted that then why make KSP so easlt moddble

What reason would they have not to allow the community to mod KSP? By allowing the community to mod the game the have allowed players to share their creative ideas through a medium much deeper then text on the screen.

So my point is what reason would squad have to not allow modding.

Also could you please elaborate on the Civilization franchise as I don't understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say part of what drew me to this game was a lot of hype about how realistic it is. Well I can say the most disappointing moment I have had in it was when I realized the re-entry flames were just fakes. Don't get me wrong I'm still having a lot of fun, but really how many people buying the game are going to not be aware of re-entry heat problems, and what is more how hard it to add it to the alt-F12 cheats to remove it (or to activate it if that makes the game more newbie friendly)?

My impression was this game was getting a lot of good free PR in the science based community but that is going to disappear the more they go away from physics in the interest in making it yet another space game, is it really that hard to incorporate good physics and still be fun? I don't think so. Some good suggestions on how to do this have already been mentioned. Please keep it based in science fact, at least as far as basic physics go and incorporate re-entry heat and wind etc. these are all good places to add some levels (beginner, intermediate, advanced).

As to keeping the same experience I don't really understand that, I read about what people are doing with mods or more advanced parts than I have available if some people need to worry about designing for re-entry and others don't well it's just a matter of preference in the same game...hard to imagine that would confuse anyone above the age of six.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day only Squad knows how much of a simulator and how much of a game KSP is going to be. If you are going to present the argument of settings that the player can turn on and off for a single feature (deadly reentry) then logically you must apply the same argument to all features.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Also could you please elaborate on the Civilization franchise as I don't understand.

I'm not the person who first posted that, but since I've played the series a fair bit myself, I believe he's referring to the ability to select different difficulty levels depending on how much of a challenge you want.

I'm not going to offer my own opinion on the subject or make any predictions about the direction SQUAD themselves are going to take in regards to this matter, but having played a few other flight simulators myself in the past, I've noted that many of them do in fact allow the player to toggle between "more realistic" and "more arcade-like" modes of gameplay, down to being able to toggle certain features on and off individually.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I play with Deadly Reentry and I must say that reentering the atmosphere isn't as hard as people make it out to be. I personally believe that reentry heat should be added to the stock game for the simple fact that it adds a new challenge. The community is more than willing to help the new player understand why his spacecraft keeps exploding every time he tries to return from a mission, its what we do. Is it going to be in .24? Not likely (too much other stuff to do before then) but I believe it is coming. Will it make the game more difficult? Yes, at first, but then everyone will get used to having it and working around it to bring their kerbals home.

Link to post
Share on other sites
because crazy and creative ships are core to the spirit of KSP, and so is doing crazy orbital stunts.

And as well as for heat it's also reason why ksp will never have more resonable aerodynamics. This "placeholder" was a reason why there "crazy and creative ships" in first place and now it's image of KSP and in this way it's become famous. And now you can't change it to not "ruin magic".

-----

Well if you don't touch anything then - this is how it's used to be, everyone love it, maybe we wiil change it but who know and there also mods if you want, you know.

But if you will touch anything, basic rules - everything will be ruined forever, it's not as it used to be, "all" will be angry.

Squad prefer play safer. And decided to focus on making it more accessible.

Edited by zzz
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but even with FAR, you can still make those crazy and creative ships. I have done so myself, and they only flip out a bit of the time, which is sometimes an improvement in stability over stock. In KSP you can build anything, and as long as everything lines up and you have enough thrust it WILL fly. IRL? Not so much. I think Re-entry heat could add another dynamic to the game, and it could balance quite well. The problem with this is balancing it. If you give everything realistic amounts of RE-Heat, then it wouldnt change much unles you were doing a major aerobrake fro interplanetary velocities. If you add heat that mimics RL on the other hand, it could make the game a whle lot less fun. SQUAD need to find a balance between the two for such features, but either way they go people will yell at them or yell for it to be changed. Either "The game is too easy, The Re-entry heat is not enough." or "The game is too hard, The Re-entry heat is too much!". In fact, this is very much like what is going on in this thread, isn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find those crazy and creative ships more impressive, when they are close to something that could work in the real world as well. Exploiting gaps in the physics simulation is kind of boring, while trying to find a good balance between conflicting goals is what real challenges are made of.

For example, building an Eve lander that can return to the orbit is more like a chore than a challenge. You just build a big ugly thing, reinforce it with a million struts, and haul it to Eve. On the other hand, if the lander had to survive a pseudo-realistic atmospheric entry, land, and return to orbit, you would have conflicting goals that make the challenge interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. Realism is good, but KSP's goal isn't to be another "Orbiter". The hard fact is, KSP is, at it's absolute core, a game. I saw a quote a while ago, and I never thought much of it till now:

"You should never sacrifice cool and fun over realism."

In my own words, I would change that to realistic and boring or annoying. There are things about every game that get to people, and there is always at least one aspect people find boring or annoying. For instance, I love the Halo series by Bungie and 343, but things like the player's ability to jump almost three metres in the air is slightly annoying to me, as it seems quite silly.

=SNIP=

Well if you don't touch anything then - this is how it's used to be, everyone love it, maybe we wiil change it but who know and there also mods if you want, you know.

But if you will touch anything, basic rules - everything will be ruined forever, it's not as it used to be, "all" will be angry.

=SNIP=

[sARCASM]

Yes, of course! SAS needs to be changed back to the glorious way it was, because it was one of the basics and oldest parts of the game! And what about the old parts!? SQUAD did the community a disservice by removing them! Oh, and dont even get me started on the terrain and art passes!

[/sARCASM]

I hope you get my point here, and I am not trying to offend you. The fact is, everyone on the forums are hardly representative of the average playerbase. "All" is hardly correct. We on the forums are the Vocal Minority, and many are better or worse than we are, and many players are people who buy the game, play it for a month with "LOL SOKERBAL XD" and eventually uninstall or just lose interest. The people who will complain will be those who can't adjust to a realistic approach to the core game, for which the current re-entry, atmospheric and damage models are placeholders for. Also, this is a prime part of KSP. Wan't the old atmo? Become the Nega-Ferram and make or ask for a mod for it. It will happen eventually.

Edited by Deathsoul097
Link to post
Share on other sites
At the end of the day only Squad knows how much of a simulator and how much of a game KSP is going to be. If you are going to present the argument of settings that the player can turn on and off for a single feature (deadly reentry) then logically you must apply the same argument to all features.

Hmmm...not really your argument isn't logical besides why can you turn gravity off?...isn't that a single feature too? In fact is there anything that is not a "single" feature? Not to mention the other alt-f12 items, and note I did say this was a good way to bring in levels to help beginners...and keep their interest as they become more adapt...or not if they prefer. I'm going through this process now. Reentry heat is rather a fundamental thing to rocket design pretty much anyone who knows the least thing about space flight knows about reentry heat problems, remember all the problems they had with the space shuttle tiles? If it had been included from the beginning I very much doubt you would hear very many complaints it would be accepted as a fundamental part of the program much like gravity is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm...not really your argument isn't logical besides why can you turn gravity off?...isn't that a single feature too? In fact is there anything that is not a "single" feature? Not to mention the other alt-f12 items, and note I did say this was a good way to bring in levels to help beginners...and keep their interest as they become more adapt...or not if they prefer. I'm going through this process now. Reentry heat is rather a fundamental thing to rocket design pretty much anyone who knows the least thing about space flight knows about reentry heat problems, remember all the problems they had with the space shuttle tiles? If it had been included from the beginning I very much doubt you would hear very many complaints it would be accepted as a fundamental part of the program much like gravity is.

At the moment I'm on the fence about reentry heat, I might change my mind about it. But I wouldn't call Gravity a "feature". Like planets or staging, you can't have the game without Gravity, planets or staging. Saying that it's in the Debug menu isn't an argument for togable features, it's like saying that unreadable joints, or no crash damage is a feature which you can turn off, I don't think that unlimited fuel is a feature either.

I don't understand why my argument isn't logical, I'll explain why:

If you were to add in Reentry heat because of the argument that you could turn it off and you wouldn't have to use it then it begs the question, why not add in more features but make them toggable, example; parts, you don't have to use them if you dont want to, FTL, don't have to use it, other solar systems, don't have to go there. I could go on but my point stands.

There are good points for adding reentry heat, because you can make it toggable is not one of them.

Edited by Dodgey
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking over this thread... I think speed vs thickness of atmosphere causing damage to ships, bouncing off of atmospheres, etc is probably the way to go with entry/re-entry damage. The way around that is to build stronger, which you can choose to do (or fail to just like anything else in this game).

I don't know about the heat part. If we make a really fast SSTO does that mean we need to deal with heat shields or can we do like was done for the SR71 and have various cooling mechanisms. I see heat being limiting and possibly frustrating. Will I be able to pick parts on what i want to be my prograde side and add some tonnage and say "this is a heat shield now"? Or am I limited to whatever parts can do that? Envisioning this I'm seeing building stuff and planning missions becoming a lot less fun at that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'd like to say, people who are experienced enough and would like to see reentry effects in the game can be logically expected to come to this thread and discuss and place their vote for the feature.

People who are happy with reentry as it is are very likely not interested in the topic and will often not even care to come here to say they don't miss it.

Therefore what we can observe is strong selection bias.

What a few experienced players think would be most fun for them is not necessarily representative meaning of majority of players.

My personal opinion is that reentry damage should not be applied before major overhaul of the whole aerodynamics system. And even after that it should be done carefully, keeping in mind that KSP is more of a game than a simulator.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Problem: Many, and most, players don't know what they are doing.

Most of the people who play the game aren't on the forum, and are not experienced enough to grasp many "core" concepts of the game. I am a bit frisky around Re-Entry heating myself, and it all depends on how it is done. I think it shouldn't be "Deadly Re-Entry" as such, and would be more suitable as "Damaging Re-Entry". Parts and your craft oculd still be damaged, even destroyed, but it would be less severe than what we have to deal with IRL. I think this would be better for the game.

I am all for more realism, but we need to draw the line between a "Simulator" and a "Game" at some point, and I think this is one pint where a compromise has to be made. For instance: A Mk-1 command pod would only be able to reenter from LKO-MKO, and possibly up to, or near, the mun safely, any higher and it would require multiple passes to bleed off the speed in order to reenter safely, or a heavier heatshield on the bottom of the pod. (That would be a seperate part.) The Mk1-2 pod would be able to safely reenter from Mun and minmus and interplanetary velocities would be the same as above. The lander cans would have to reenter at much lower speeds due to not having the required heatshielding, or stay in the upper atmo for longer in order to blled off enough speed to be safe. The way I see it, this would give more of an inclination to use the larger and hevier pods over the Mk-1 lander can (The lightest pod per kerbal in the game), as it would quickly lose out during reentry to other parts.

I also think (And this is more of a personal preferance.) Re-entry should only begin to damage things as the mach or heating efects appear, so even reentering at interplanetary velocities in thin atmo (Such as duna) should be survivable for all but the puniest of parts. I think people could get very confused as to why stuff is blowing up from re-enter heat, even though there isnt any flames.

As a reply, let me use Jouni's post:

I think that some people may be underestimating what the average beginner understands. If you are interested in playing a game like KSP, you most likely have some interest in real-world spaceflight as well. You probably already know that atmospheric re-entry is a dangerous thing and that you should come in with the blunt end forward, using a heat shield. You are also likely to have seen what happened to the Columbia because of some minor damage. So when you start playing KSP, you tend to assume that returning safely from orbit is going to be almost as hard as reaching the orbit in the first place.

At least that was what I did. I was very careful with re-entry angles and pod orientation during my early missions. It took a while to realize that nothing ever happened, no matter how impressive flames I got or how ridiculous g-forces the pod had to endure. That was a bit disappointing, but I understood that such things should be expected when playing an unfinished game.

Perhaps realistic re-entry would be more problematic to the people on this forum than to the beginners. New players kind of expect that re-entry should be hard, while experienced players have already learned to use and abuse the current situation, which can be hard to unlearn.

Besides, realistic re-entry does not prevent some very Kerbal-like outcomes.

I think that before re-entry heat is added, there needs to be some sort of in-game mechanism to gauge how the hell we're going in. Right now, it's complete guesswork, and adding a re-entry corridor is going to need a visual representation.

I agree on this. There should be some indicators. Nowdays we have AP and PE, speed, distance, inclination... That's nothing.

I'm not advocating for making KSP a complicated mess like Orbiter. I don't want to experience what Apollo 13 did, with all the concerns about angles of attack, bouncing, etc.

KSP is a game and should stay within accepted parameters, but it needs more spice.

This is not advocating for an extremely realistic model of reentry heating. Basics. That's all I'd like.

The re-entry heat could be implemented so it isn't a major factor for ships in LKO, but becomes an issue for ships coming in faster.

Is making a slight trajectory correction of few m/s to graze the atmosphere and then to do few orbits to slow down so difficult? It's easy and it's fun.

I'm seeing all these posts about how difficult Deadly Reentry is, and let me tell you those are blatant lies. Honestly, I've installed it the other day and it's just loads of fun. Finally I can use some shields and enjoy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is making a slight trajectory correction of few m/s to graze the atmosphere and then to do few orbits to slow down so difficult? It's easy and it's fun.

I don't really find making a few orbits to graze the atmosphere to be fun. Sometimes I just want to land and not waste the extra ten minutes doing multiple passes.

It also isn't that easy to land without heat shielding with deadly reentry especially without using multiple orbits. It can be fun for experienced players and I use it, but it will be frustrating for new players or those who just like building crazy ships. Even simple SSTO designs are hard to land with deadly reentry since the wings aren't protected by shielding.

If they implement the feature in KSP, it does have to be carefully balanced to take these factors into consideration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, well sometimes I want to toy around with multiple passes. Go figure. :)

I propose something I've been talking about few months ago. It's about using the money (kesos, kekels, kineros? :cool:) for reinforcing the existing parts.

For example, if you take a capsule, you could spend more money on it to get it shielded.

The same thing goes for high pressures. Same parts, but pimped up using money.

That, or simply implementing "hard" and "easy" game mode.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It also isn't that easy to land without heat shielding with deadly reentry especially without using multiple orbits. It can be fun for experienced players and I use it, but it will be frustrating for new players or those who just like building crazy ships. Even simple SSTO designs are hard to land with deadly reentry since the wings aren't protected by shielding.

If they implement the feature in KSP, it does have to be carefully balanced to take these factors into consideration.

I think its safe to say, if (when :wink:) re-entry heat was added, I'm pretty sure the devs would add a variety of heat shields as well as giving all wings tiles on the underside.

regarding those who just like building crazy ships.

can people provide links or post pictures of the crazy ships in question? it would be good to get a better understanding of what people are worried about, maybe even alleviate some concerns.

also what about adding some kind of warning if your heat shield is not facing prograde? also the thermometer could have a whole new added purpose!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think its safe to say, if (when :wink:) re-entry heat was added, I'm pretty sure the devs would add a variety of heat shields as well as giving all wings tiles on the underside.

regarding those who just like building crazy ships.

can people provide links or post pictures of the crazy ships in question? it would be good to get a better understanding of what people are worried about, maybe even alleviate some concerns.

also what about adding some kind of warning if your heat shield is not facing prograde? also the thermometer could have a whole new added purpose!

Hi Snuggler,

Ive seen that the deadly re-entry mod has the ability for you to check craft surface temperatures.

I can see both sides of the argument here. Some crazy big spidery contraptions wouldn't survive a re-entry. This would limit what you can build which isnt a good thing.

Conversely there are those like us that want to play it relatively realistically and have the physics dictate the shape and construction our craft as they are in RL.

So if the devs want to please everyone they will have to implement both. They could be in the form of settings. Or even difficulty modes.

MJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reentry heat is one of the parts of spaceflight most understood by the general public. Hollywood movies that get almost everything wrong about how orbital mechanics work know to include reentry heat. Even the most arcade-ish space games usually include some sort of reentry phase. A space sim without reentry effects is incomplete, IMO. Most players, even if they're not delta-V calculating rocket scientist types, will notice the lack of reentry heat and believe it to be unrealistic.

It doesn't need to be overly complex, but I think it has to be included in some form for completeness. Maybe an indestructible heatshield in a variety of sizes?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Snuggler,

Some crazy big spidery contraptions wouldn't survive a re-entry.

MJ

doesn't that mean you have in fact designed a non-atmospheric lander?

the lunar module could not survive re-entry, but it was still built. AND I'm sure with enough head scratching it and a careful application of thermal tiles, it could have survived re-entry. however, it simply did not need to...

what I'm saying is, yes, all our designs will need revisiting and will need strengthening and shields to be added. this is the nature of playing a game that isn't finished.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, okay. I'm surprised to be (almost) the only one with cautionary comments about reentry heat.

Be gentle everyone..

Here's a ship of mine named TABA (There And Back Again) Class Mist And Shadows.MistandShadows_zpsf1ea3741.png

Mist And Shadows is currently returning from a scientific mission to Eve. Based on a previous mission I expect to aerobrake at Kerbin at close to 23km altitude.

Here's another aerobraking puzzle I would love your opinion on - this is a space station clearly in orbit around Duna.

MinasTirith_zpsa3f3fbd9.png

The orthogonal section in the shadow at the bottom was left there by another ship, I wouldn't want to aerobrake the thing as pictured with the tanks sticking off like that.

So do you guys things these things could be aerobraked with reentry heat? Where would they need heat shields? Would there be a limit to the severity? Both designs have parts that stick far out from the standard 1.25m diameter. These both seem like fairly conservative and "reasonable" designs in the scheme of things.

On the other hand... You might say for maximum realism that anything you want to aerobrake should be a reasonably aerodynamic shape (not for aerodynamics so much as for fitting behind a heat shield). (IRL the size and shape of payloads is immensely important!) Whereas the station at Duna is one piece (plus a drive section plus an empty fuel section), in the future I would send it to Duna in several narrow pieces each hidden behind a heat sheild and assemble on location. A very expensive solution but such is the cost of building a space station at Duna.

Also, I'll admit that I don't believe in launch windows. And by that I mean that while I don't play with mods, I do like to believe my littler Kerbals get bored and hungry and so I launch my missions when they're ready and I try to make the transfers as quick as possible. This means severe approach velocities. I do use launch windows to the Mun and Minmus. Maybe the answer is "Welcome to physics, use launch windows."

So, I don't want this to be about "how are you going to make KSP fit me", or "don't do that because it'll be *hard*" because that's a bad way to design a game. But I'm offering my experience up for consideration. I would love your feedback on how these and designs like them or more crazy could be protected from reentry heat, or if really they would become impractical (which has happened before, you used to be able to get back from the Mun with RCS).

Link to post
Share on other sites
can people provide links or post pictures of the crazy ships in question? it would be good to get a better understanding of what people are worried about, maybe even alleviate some concerns.

My Eve lander, for example?

o6L3Ft1.jpg

mCBd477.jpg

P2c7prD.jpg

Edited by Kasuha
Link to post
Share on other sites
My Eve lander, for example?

HAHA, yes! My examples look so pedestrian by comparison!

So this is a good example of what I was talking about. *To me* this looks very "Kerbal". Maybe you could mount heat shields, maybe? But while this design doesn't even pretend to be "realistic" in so many ways, I think this design is a good ambassador for the game, it's very characteristic of KSP.

As we've discussed, there's a balance. You could get even crazier I suppose if you turned off gravity, or turned on infinite fuel. But as we discuss reentry heat I think we want to keep these types of designs in mind for fear of going to far in the simulator direction and losing something valuable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, of course! SAS needs to be changed back to the glorious way it was, because it was one of the basics and oldest parts of the game! And what about the old parts!? SQUAD did the community a disservice by removing them! Oh, and dont even get me started on the terrain and art passes!

[/sARCASM]

This is not what I'm talk about. Only somehow change of rules since it become popular was electricity for sas but it's not matter much and do not change anything drastically. How terrain looks and how sas good don't change anything -you do the same things in the same way. Make things looks better and control easer it's just another part of making it more accessible for general public.

And this is not about harder. FAR is not harder then stock just more resonable and DR is not any hard - but this is not as it used to be,- this is the main concern

Edited by zzz
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.

×
×
  • Create New...